t« ft o 
 
 r>* ..»•%. 
 
 >,*•••'' .^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •0* 
 
 
 *bv* 
 
 v"*^ 
 
 
 
 
 vv 
 
C "W :• 
 
 
 
 
 
 "oV 
 
 ^o* 
 
 
 
fax $txl$w; 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURck 
 
 on mmmm^~ 
 
 EPISCOPACt I 
 
 AND 
 
 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, 
 
 EMBRACING A REFUTATION OF THE WOBK KNOWN AS 
 
 "GOODE ON ORDERS"/^ 
 
 
 "Truth haunts no corners, seeks no by-ways; if thou profess it, do it openly. If 
 thou seek it, do it fairly ; he deserves not to profess truth that professes it fearfully; he 
 deserves not to find the truth that seeks it fraudulently." — Quarxes. 
 
 " Lay down all affection and favor of parties. Judge justly of what shall be alleged. 
 Unless thou know, thou canst not judge. Unless thou hear both sides, thou canst not 
 know. If thou like aught, know why thou likest it."— Jewel. 
 
 1 , 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 SMITH, ENGLISH & CO., 
 
 No. 23 North Sixth Street. 
 
 New Youk : H. B. DURAND. Boston : E. P. DUTTON & CO. 
 
 1866, 
 
 
'{" 
 
 i^b 
 
 Trrs Library 
 oi Congress 
 
 washington 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1866, by 
 
 SMITH, ENGLISH & CO. 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the 
 Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
 
 STEREOTYPED BY J. FAGAN & SON. PRINTED BY SHERMAN & CO. 
 
 ■ 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The following work has been written by a clergyman of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, for the use of those who belong 
 to that body, and in the hope of settling a controversy that has 
 of late sprung up among them. 
 
 It is not (as might be supposed from a glance at the title-page) 
 a treatise upon certain doctrines, but the discussion of a simple 
 question of fact. The author has not written for the purpose of 
 proving or apologizing for Apostolical Succession and Episco- 
 pacy. With their merits or demerits he has, at present, little or 
 nothing to do. He merely undertakes to prove that those doc- 
 trines have always been avowed and acted upon by the Church. 
 
 Some may wonder that it should appear necessary to prove a 
 
 m matter so notorious ; but, in this age of almost universal doubt 
 
 and denial, nothing can be taken for granted or looked upon as 
 
 established. The necessity has arisen — the fact has been 
 
 denied, and, therefore, the proof is presented. 
 
 The author will never forget the astonishment with which he 
 heard, for the first time, the denial just referred to. He saw 
 at once that the person who made it was simply repeating the 
 opinions or assertions of some other party ; and, on inquiry, he 
 learned that that party was the Rev. William Goode. To the 
 "Essay on Orders/' published by that gentleman, his friend 
 referred him, describing it as a convincing and unanswerable 
 production, by which it was proved, beyond all doubt, that the 
 Church of England is not essentially or exclusively Episcopal. 
 Within a few days a copy of the book was sent to him by a 
 zealous layman, who was scattering it broadcast over the coun- 
 try, and he sat down to its perusal with peculiar eagerness. 
 
 The subject of Church Government was one to which he had 
 given much attention, owing to circumstances which he may 
 be excused for mentioning. 
 
 Although born, baptized and educated in the Church of 
 England, he had been accustomed, all his life, to associate inti- 
 mately with ministers and members of other denominations. To 
 
 (ui) 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 many of these he was strongly attached. They were not only 
 among his dearest and kindest friends, but they were also Chris- 
 tians, who. by their daily walk and conversation, adorned the doc- 
 trine of God their Saviour. Meeting with them continually in 
 private life, and sharing regularly in their worship, it was but 
 natural that he should imbibe their sentiments. They were, in 
 general, very unfriendly to the Church, and unwilling to ac- 
 knowledge that it had any genuine zeal for the truth of God or 
 for the salvation of men. 
 
 Hearing statements to this effect made by persons in whom 
 he had entire confidence, and knowing well that the modes of 
 worship and of thought, which he had come to regard as in- 
 separable from true religion, were neither used in the Church 
 nor favored by it, he was easily led to accept those statements 
 as substantially correct. At first, indeed, and often when 
 harshly put, they seemed to him somewhat uncharitable ; but 
 he did not protest, for he had learned to believe that they were 
 not unfounded. This being so, his attachment to the Communion 
 of his fathers became little more than nominal. He could not 
 be a hearty lover and faithful member of a Church that appeared 
 to set greater store upon matters of order than upon vital truth. 
 For various reasons he did not wholly abandon it ; but his sym- 
 pathies were with those who were called by other names, and 
 who worshipped in separate sanctuaries. Continuing thus for 
 years after he had come to man's estate, he was a zealous advo- 
 cate for what he supposed to be " Evangelical" views. He was 
 willing to look upon Episcopacy as an allowable system — the 
 Bishop being no more than the Moderator of an Assemby, or 
 the President of a Conference ; but the Churchman's claim of 
 divine right he regarded as arrogant assumption, savoring too 
 much of Rome, while he looked upon "Apostolical Succession" 
 as a mere figment — the last resort of a declining Church, in- 
 vented for the purpose of giving it some apparent advantage 
 over other bodies which surpassed it in spiritual life and zeal. 
 Consequently he never hesitated to denounce as poor bigoted 
 creatures all who said a word in behalf of such a doctrine, or 
 who even ventured to name the sin of Schism. 
 
 When the providence of God led him to become a candidate 
 for Holy Orders, he knew that there were very few, if any, in 
 the Church whose opinions on the subjects above mentioned 
 were similar to his own ; but he supposed he might be allowed 
 to conform in silence to Episcopal Government ; or if even called 
 upon to justify it, that he might do so on the ground of ex- 
 pediency. But some of his Non-Episcopal friends would not 
 allow this. By one he was told, that no system of Church 
 Government, which could not show true Scriptural warrant, 
 ought to receive the sanction of a Christian man, and this 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 principle having been laid down, the question followed : " How 
 he could possibly defend the constitution of the Church whose 
 ministry he was about to enter. " To this he had almost nothing 
 to reply. He had always been prepared to attack what he con- 
 sidered extreme views or arrogant claims, but never to defend 
 Episcopacy. And yet he was about to become an Episcopal 
 Minister! He could be no longer blind to the awkwardness 
 and inconsistency of such a position. He had wholly confined 
 his reading to one side of the question, forgetting that common 
 fairness required the other to be examined also. It was evident 
 then that he must either make that examination, or unite him- 
 self with some other body. The latter alternative he was not 
 prepared to accept, owing to the new aspect of the case; so he 
 entered forthwith upon an honest study of ecclesiastical polity, 
 and read with patience everything he could procure upon 
 the subject; and the more he read, the more he became con- 
 vinced that his long-cherished views were untenable. This was 
 a bitter experience. Yet, still he persevered, in the hope that 
 some one would incline the balance to the other side, or at least 
 furnish sufficient reasons for stopping short of that conclusion, 
 to which he felt that his investigation was leadiig him. He 
 still clung to the spirit of his former belief, and hoped that he 
 might be able to retain it with a satisfied mind and a clear con- 
 science. But the better he became acquainted with the subject, 
 the more readily he detected the unworthy arts resorted to by 
 some who had treated of it. These were not always on one side ; 
 but it was painful to find that such offences were most frequent 
 and gross on that to which he had been so strongly attached. 
 This made him more suspicious of it, and even created a sort 
 of prejudice against it. Could that be a just cause that needed 
 such support? " Nbn tali auxilio nee defensoribus istis Veritas 
 ec/et !" Still being unwilling to judge the cause wholly by the 
 conduct of its advocates, he prosecuted his search, turning away 
 from unsupported assertions, looking for facts and honest argu- 
 ments, and having no other desire or purpose than to ascertain 
 the truth. The result was this — after a few years he found 
 himself holding those very doctrines that he had formerly re- 
 garded with abhorrence. 
 
 Such was his position when Mr. Goode's book came into his 
 hands, and so he entered upon its perusal with peculiar anxiety. 
 What if it should present evidence that he had never seen, or 
 arguments more powerful than he had already weighed ! What 
 if it should prove to be all that its enthusiastic eulogists repre- 
 sented! Should he yield to it and return to the opinions of his 
 youth? To this there could be but one reply — " Let the truth 
 appear ! If Mr. Goode, or any other, can present sufficient reason 
 for it, I shall (like Chilling worth) 'despise the shame of one more 
 1* 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 alteration, and, with both my arms and all my heart, most readily 
 embrace it V " But the reasOD was not presented — the change 
 was not rendered necessary. In Mr. Goode he discovered not 
 at all what he expected, but a skilled and subtle advocate, 
 laboring in a cause " too weak to carry him, and too heavy to 
 be carried by him," The " Essay," so far from convincing him 
 that our Church had ever sanctioned Non-Episcopal Orders, 
 served only to confirm him in the contrary belief. And when 
 he saw clergymen who ought to have been able to form a more 
 correct judgment, lauding that production as masterly and un- 
 answerable, and other credulous persons accepting it on their 
 recommendation, he considered it his duty to review the work 
 and let the public see its real character. 
 
 He had nearly completed an answer to it, when ill health and 
 the pressure of other engagements obliged him to put it aside. It 
 lay thus, unfinished, in his desk for years, and would, probably, 
 never have seen the light, but for events that are still fresh in 
 the memory of the public. Certain clergymen of the Diocese 
 of New York, adopted a course designed to change the settled 
 practice of the Church, if not to change its whole character. 
 They turned their backs upon all existing laws and all previous 
 usage in connection with such matters, and openly admitted to 
 their pulpits ministers who had not had Episcopal Ordination. 
 Whether in the abstract this were right or wrong, is a question 
 that does not concern us. That it was a violation of the laws, 
 or at least of the customa of the Church, was clear to all men. 
 Of course, an innovation so startling and so daring occasioned 
 much excitement. The Bishop of the Diocese issued a Pastoral 
 Letter, in which, in the kindest language and most reasonable 
 spirit, he pointed out to those gentlemen the unlawfulness of 
 their course. And there, if they had been lovers of Order and of 
 peace, the whole matter might have rested. But however gentle 
 the reproof or remonstrance, it was still an exercise of authority, 
 and that was hard to bear. Therefore, the Reverend gentlemen 
 rushed into print at once, and strove to give to the whole matter 
 the air of simple controversy, on equal terms, between the 
 Bishop and themselves. They represented him as the advocate 
 of a narrow partisan policy, and not as their ecclesiastical 
 superior to whom they had solemnly promised obedience, and 
 whose duty compelled him to give them a reproof. Their 
 ''Letters," "Reviews" and "Replies to the Pastoral" have 
 been sent everywhere throughout the country, and have served 
 to show that some Episcopalians pay but little respect to those 
 who are over them in the Lord ; that they are not much disposed 
 to " submit to their judgment" or to " follow with a glad mind 
 and will their godly admonitions." Of those productions this 
 is not the place to treat. As to their general merit, the author 
 
PREFACE. V1J 
 
 will say no more than that he coincides with their friend of 
 " The Presbyterian," who says : 
 
 " They have not logically answered the Right Reverend Horatio Potter. 
 * * * We love the spirit and sympathize with the longings and desires foi 
 visible fellowship with other denominations of God's people, manifested 
 by [those that claim to be] the Low Church party in the Episcopal 
 Church. At the same time, our convictions compel us to say that' their 
 defence is insufficient, and that they hav£, in our judgment, logically 
 failed." 
 
 But on the relation of those writings to the subject of the 
 present work a few words must be said. They are based on the 
 Essay of Mr. Goode. That gentleman's theory underlies the 
 whole. He is their sole authority for the principal assertions 
 they make, and for the [supposed] facts to which they refer. 
 If, then, it should appear that those assertions are without 
 foundation — that the alleged facts are not facts, how will 
 they be regarded when their confident language is recalled to 
 mind ? The author readily acknowledges his own belief that 
 they have erred only through putting too implicit trust in the 
 learning or faithfulness of another person. He acquits them 
 of all intention to pervert history or abuse authorities. But 
 the public will ask why they adopted and undertook to defend 
 a course which necessarily created discord, and even threatened 
 the very existence of the Church, unless they were prepared to 
 show that they had given the whole matter a thorough investi- 
 gation, and were treating it from personal knowledge. As they 
 are clergymen of high standing, and Doctors of Divinity, it was 
 not unreasonable to expect that they would defend with much 
 learning the course they had adopted in a matter so important ; 
 at all events, that they would point to original authorities, and 
 not take their testimony en gross from "Goode on Orders/' or 
 any other modern compilation that may be read in an afternoon. 
 
 Sorry to see good men misled, and still more sorry to see them 
 laboring zealously to lead others astray, the author believed it 
 his duty to place the facts before them. He considered that he 
 would be doing them a real service by printing his Review of 
 Mr. Goode's Essay. At all events, he knew that he would be 
 helping the cause of truth, and so he resolved to bring it out. 
 But fearing that, if issued in its original form and compass, it 
 would possess little permanent value, he modified its plan and 
 enlarged it considerably, making it much more than a mere 
 Beview ; and now he sends it forth, claiming that it is a thor- 
 ough and faithful discussion of the subject which the "Essay 
 on Orders" professed to treat. 
 
 He is not without hope that some of the parties herein re- 
 ferred to will read it with patience — that they will try to lay 
 
Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 prejudice aside and seek to arrive at an honest and just conclu- 
 sion. If he lias tailed to discover the truth, and they correct 
 him, he will be thankful for the Bervice. If he has in any 
 
 way tampered with truth, or sought his end by dishonorable 
 means, he deserves to be exposed, and shall expect no quarter. 
 Bur he trusts that they will not seize on a mere slip of the pen, 
 or a typographical error, or anything that is palpably a mistake, 
 and point to it in proof .of ignorance or evil intent. He also 
 expects that those, if any, who undertake to answer him, will 
 not raise side issues, or grasp some unimportant particular and 
 harp on that, but that they will go over the whole ground, or 
 at least deal with the main question; and, above all, that they 
 will not put the assertions of one man or the opinions of another 
 against the evidence that is herein supplied. 
 
 From those whose motto is "no step backward," he expects 
 neither patient reading nor fair representation. Such persons 
 are generally beyond the reach of reason, and resent all attempts 
 to show them their error. In place of desiring to have their 
 party right, they desire that it shall triumph, whether right or 
 wrong, and a word said against it is, with them, an unpardonable 
 sin. The author supposes that he has fallen into this condem- 
 nation, and, therefore, does not hope to escape. He expects the 
 usual amount of censure or abuse. In a week or two he will see 
 himself described as "an enemy to Evangelical religion," "a 
 High Churchman," "a Puseyite," or, possibly, "a Papist." 
 This will be a much more convenient way of answering his book 
 than giving reason for reason, or putting fact against fact; but 
 it will have the slight disadvantage of being wholly untrue. 
 
 The author yields to no man in. his zeal for the unadulterated 
 doctrines of the New Testament — those in defence of which the 
 Fathers and founders of our Church laid down their lives. He 
 yields to no man in his desire to see pure and undetlled religion 
 spread and prosper in our Zion. But he begs the reader to 
 remember, that to secure Evangelical truth, it is not necessary 
 to neglect or surrender Apostolical Order. If any are so weak 
 as to object that the doctrines here shown to be maintained 
 in the Church appear uncharitable, and ought therefore to be 
 left at the mercy of those who would repudiate them, he replies: 
 those doctrines are based upon the Word of the Living God, 
 and they are held by that which has ever been incomparably 
 the most tolerant and comprehensive Church in Christendom. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I.— Introductory, .... 9 
 II. — General Objections, . . 25 
 - III.— Explanatory, . . . .44 
 IV. — Mr. Goode's Introduction, . 88 
 V. — The Proper Sources of Infor- 
 mation, 112 
 
 VI. — Ante-Reformation Documents, 117 
 
 VII. — The Formularies, etc., . . 146 
 
 VIII. — Laws and Official Documents, 168 
 
 IX. — The Practice of the Church, . 202 
 
 X. — Secondary Standards, . . 263 
 
 XI. — Opinions of Divines, . . . 271 
 
 XII. — American Divines, . . . 444 
 
 XIII. — Low-Church Divines, . . . 458 
 
 Appendix, 495 
 
 (8) 
 
VOX ECCLESIJ!. 
 
 CHAPTEE I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 EVEEY society must have some peculiarity by 
 which it is distinguished from all others. Some- 
 times this is sufficiently done by the very object for 
 which it has been established ; but if that object be 
 pursued by others also, then the distinctive feature 
 will be found in the nature of its organization or in 
 its mode of working. 
 
 The Christian Church, that greatest and best of 
 all societies, is not an exception to this rule. Its 
 purpose, its creeds, its sacraments, and its constitu- 
 tion, mark it out and prevent its being mistaken for 
 any other association. The same principle applies 
 to all those bodies which claim to be branches of it. 
 They all retain some of the fundamental truths of 
 Christianity, and on this they base their claim, 
 but they have all distinctive peculiarities, else they 
 could not stand apart. As regards faith, worship, or 
 government, each has something more or something 
 less than the others, and that something, whatever 
 
 (9) 
 
10 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 it is, is in every case the characteristic of the body, 
 and a necessary condition of its separate existence. 
 
 Of those Christian societies by far the greater 
 number have been established within the past three 
 centuries. Many are of \ery recent date, being 
 mere subdivisions or offshoots from older ones, 
 and retaining, in addition to some primary truths, 
 more or less of the peculiarities of the parent body. 
 But all, however they may agree in general, have 
 some distinctive feature stamped upon them by the 
 circumstances under which they originated, or by 
 the views of the men who founded them. 
 
 At the time of the Reformation, some of the 
 leaders in that great movement were (as we believe) 
 much more reasonable and wise than others. "We 
 refer to the English Reformers, who, desiring to 
 correct rather than to destroy, contented themselves 
 with removing those useless or superstitious addi- 
 tions by which Rome had marred the simplicity of 
 the primitive doctrine and economy. But some of 
 the continental divines, especially. Zuingle and Cal- 
 vin, looked with undiscriminating hatred upon almost 
 everything that they found existing under the papacy ; 
 consequently theirs was not so much a " Reformation" 
 as the destruction of an old Church and the erection 
 of another entirely new. It is true, that in explana- 
 tion of some of their proceedings they pleaded " neces- 
 sity;" but there is reason to fear that some at least 
 were influenced as much by the force of passion and 
 prejudice. Be this as it may, however, they stopped 
 at nothing, and in their undistinguishing zeal they 
 sacrificed, among many human institutions, some that 
 were positively scriptural or divine. 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 11 
 
 The most marked illustration of this was their 
 action with reference to the sacred ministry. Heed- 
 less of the fact that Holy Scripture describes Apostles, 
 Elders, and Deacons as ministers holding distinct 
 offices, they abolished all but one of the seven orders 
 they found existing in the Church of Eome. 
 
 In reference to the same matter the moderation 
 and judgment of their English contemporaries were 
 eminently displayed. With them the abuse of a thing 
 was no argument against its use. The fact then that 
 the majority of Bishops in Christendom were not 
 Apostolic in faith and character, weighed nothing 
 against the evidence of the divine will that the Epis- 
 copate should be found in the Church. Guided by 
 the sacred volume and the records of primitive an- 
 tiquity, they retained not the seven Eomish orders, 
 but the three which had been established by the 
 Apostles themselves. 
 
 Thus, from the very first an essential difference as 
 to polity existed between the Continental Churches 
 and the English. They held to a parity, they were 
 satisfied with one Order ; it maintained a ministry of 
 divers Orders. They were (practically, at least) Pres- 
 byterian. It was avowedly and practically Episco- 
 pal. With them the defence of their system, as it is 
 now conducted, was an afterthought. But the Angli- 
 can Eeformers in the first year of their freedom took 
 the stand which their descendants occupy to-day — 
 they declared to the world, on the authority of " Holy 
 Scripture and Ancient authors," that the system of 
 government which they retained had ever been, and 
 should ever continue to be the constitution of the 
 Church of Christ. 
 
12 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 From this position the Church of England has 
 never swerved. Now, as at first, it maintains Apos- 
 tolical order in connection with Evangelical truth. 
 And this is its characteristic feature. It is distin- 
 guished from Romanism chiefly by its doctrine, which 
 is Protestant, and from the Continental Reformed 
 Churches by its constitution, which is Episcopal. 
 
 This has always been well known, and until a 
 recent period has been freely acknowledged. The 
 Romanist has recognized us as holding principles 
 different from or antagonistic to his. So has the 
 Presbyterian. The one has fulminated his anathemas 
 against what he calls our " heresy." The other has 
 never spared his strongest language in denouncing 
 what he calls our " arrogant pretensions" or " Popish 
 exclusiveness." Indeed, if due allowance were made 
 for the spirit in which they w r ere conceived, the very 
 accusations and admissions of our opponents would 
 furnish satisfactory and unanswerable testimony to 
 the distinctive principles of the Church, and to the 
 consistency with which they have been maintained.* 
 
 We have said that, until a recent period, proof of 
 this kind was not necessary, as the facts in the case 
 were freely acknowledged by all. But within the 
 present generation a change took place in the policy 
 of .our opponents, which has rendered it necessary to 
 establish that w r hich their predecessors were always 
 most willing to grant. It was found that so long as 
 the contest was waged with the Church as such, her 
 members, however much they might differ on minor 
 
 * The note for this place being too long to be inserted here, it will be 
 put as Appendix and marked A. The reader is earnestly requested to 
 give it his attention before proceeding further, unless he is perfectly satis- 
 fied with the statement in the text. 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 13 
 
 matters, would stand unitedly and resolutely on the 
 defence ; and therefore direct assault was abandoned 
 and stratagem employed. Knowing that among us 
 (as among the members of every society) there is 
 entire freedom of opinion on matters not regarded as 
 fundamental, and that consequently there were dis- 
 cussions and party groupings, they set themselves 
 to widen these little breaches, or rather to change 
 friendly differences into open discord. They pur- 
 sued a course calculated to alienate Churchmen of 
 one class from those of another, and they hoped by 
 thus dividing our forces to gain an easy victory. 
 They seized upon the party names and kept them be- 
 fore the public. They represented the disagreement 
 in opinion between "High Churchmen" and "Low 
 Churchmen" as radical and irreconcilable; and, af- 
 fecting to regard the latter as champions of the truth, 
 they bestowed upon them much compliment, and 
 constantly assured them of their approval and sym- 
 pathy. In this way they hoped to make it almost 
 impossible for the "Low Churchman" to take sides 
 against them. As he was continually held up to 
 public view as the worthy opponent of " High 
 Church" doctrines and practices, and as they pro- 
 fessed to assail those only, it would be very ungrate- 
 ful and obtrusive for him to interfere ! Supposing 
 this impression to be created, the next step was to 
 represent the distinctive principles of the Church as the 
 odious peculiarities of High Churchmen, and then in 
 that character to argue against and denounce them 
 with as great bitterness as ever. By this ingenious 
 scheme it was possible to wage the old warfare with- 
 out a declaration of war ; to praise the Church in 
 
14 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 one paragraph and in the next to denounce and scoff 
 at her cherished doctrines.* 
 
 It must be confessed that the stratagem was not 
 wholly unsuccessful. To it we attribute the ran- 
 
 * ""There wa? a time when the former class of persons [i.e. members 
 Of the ' multiplied Protestant denominations around us'] affected to dis- 
 tinguish in their warfare upon our Church between different classes of our 
 Clergy : assuming that some were less strongly attached to the principles 
 which they opposed than others, and excepting them, therefore, from the 
 controversy which they were waging with these. It was said not to be 
 Episcopacy itself, but extreme and unjust extensions of the claims of Epis- 
 eonaey against which they contended. There seemed to be a hope in- 
 dulged that the Church might be thus divided against itself, and its 
 strength wasted in partial or mutual warfare, while one portion of the 
 Clergy were selected as the object of assault, and a desire for peace with 
 others was at the same time continually avowed. "—(Sermon before Con- 
 vention of Pennsylvania, A. D. 1844, by Stephen H. Tyng, D.D., page 16.) 
 
 As examples of the mode herein referred to, I subjoin one or two ex- 
 tracts, which need no comment. The first is from an Essay on Apostol- 
 ical Succession, by Rev. T. Powell, Wesleyan minister : 
 
 n Perhaps some persons, especially members of the Establishment, may 
 think the writer is attacking the Church. If by 'the Church ' they will 
 understand the principles of the Reformers, Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop 
 Jewel, etc., on the questions here discussed, then he most unhesitatingly 
 declares that, with some trifling exceptions, he heartily embraces them, 
 and means to defend them: but if by 'the Church ' they mean the prin- 
 ciples of such men as Archbishop Laud and his disciples, the Oxford 
 Tract men, Dr. Hook, etc., then he does controvert them; because he 
 believes them to be unscriptural, anti-protestant, exclusive, intolerant, and 
 popish*" 
 
 The writer, in page 21, defines the tenets thus denounced, and they are 
 simply "Episcopacy by divine right" and the doctrine of "Apostolical 
 Succession." 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Wood, of Andover, in his " Objections to Episcopacy," 
 says (page 163): "Several distinguished Episcopalians, who have re- 
 jected the peculiarities of High Churchmen, have been mentioned in pre- 
 vious lectures." "It is my deliberate conviction that the exclusive prin- 
 ciple held by the High Church party is more repugnant to the spirit of 
 Christianity, and more odious in the sight of God, than all thk other 
 ERRORS which can be imputed to the Episcopal branch of the Christian 
 Church." "And as there are some parts of the Book of Common Prayer 
 which seem to give too much support to the principles against which I so 
 strongly object, I cannot but hope that the parts referred to will be sub- 
 jected to a thorough revision." ! ! 
 
 R.ev. Albert Barnes, writing on " The Position of the Evangelical 
 Party in the Episcopal Church," page 9 : "That which has now grown up 
 into the Evangelical party we suppose would have been suppressed by 
 the overshadowing of the Religion of Forms, if it had not been excited 
 and kindled by the reflected influence on the Episcopal Church of the vieics 
 and object* of evangelical Christians of other denominations." "They 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 15 
 
 corous spirit of party, and the extremes to which, in 
 consequence of their being thus pitted against each 
 other, both "High" and "Low" Churchmen have 
 gone. To it especially we attribute the fact that 
 some are found in our body to-day who are ready to 
 do the work of our opponents, to hand over to their 
 brethren of the other party the characteristic princi- 
 ples of the Church as theirs of right, to denounce 
 these principles as "popish" and "exclusive," and to 
 declare that there never can be peace or prosperity 
 in our Zion until they are repudiated ; that is to say, 
 that there never can be peace in the Episcopal 
 Church until her members agree in thinking that 
 there is no need for an Episcopal Church. 
 
 The book before us has been produced under the 
 influence of this outside pressure. Its author may 
 not have been conscious of it, but the fact remains. 
 He is a specimen, on the one side, of that ultraism 
 which the carefully fomented controversies of this 
 generation have produced, as Hurrell Froude was, 
 or as "Father Ignatius" is, on the other; and just 
 as the reverend author would say of the latter, " He 
 is not a Protestant !" we say of him, " He is not an 
 Episcopalian !" 
 
 We beg the reader not to suppose that this is said 
 
 [the Low Churchmen] are men who would do honor to any cause, and 
 whose life and labors would be a blessing to any communion. It is this 
 party which have endeavored to engraft the spirit of evangelical religion 
 on the forms of prelacy ,* and it is to their holy and devoted efforts that 
 the result has already more than once occurred that the Episcopal Church 
 has been in danger of being rent in twain\" 
 
 This, which the reverend author supposed to be highly complimentary, 
 did not quite satisfy the " party " referred to, and so the editor of the 
 Episcopal Recorder took him to task, and very properly stated that it 
 was not any party, but "the Church itself which was the object of 
 assault." 
 
16 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 in the flippant manner in which party denunciations 
 are sometimes uttered. The writer is not a partisan, 
 nor does he rashly repeat the sayings of those who 
 The sentence above is his deliberate judgment, 
 formed from the evidence furnished by the gentle- 
 man himself, and on grounds which no rational man 
 can reject. We will state them briefly. 
 
 As every society has its characteristic feature, so 
 every individual must cordially accept the peculiar- 
 ity of the society to which he belongs. If the so- 
 ciety abandon that peculiarity it must cease to exist; 
 if any member abandon it, he ceases, ipso facto, to 
 belong to the society. It would be entirely vain, in 
 such a case, to say, "Nay, he remains in connection 
 with it and professes to be quite at home ; therefore 
 your judgment is wrong and uncharitable I" His 
 conduct may be inconsistent, he may have what he 
 considers very sufficient reasons for contenting him- 
 self in a false position, but to the society whose pecu- 
 liar tenets or practices he rejects he cannot truly 
 belong. On this principle precisely, we say that 
 John Henry Newman was not a Protestant during 
 the last year or two of his stay in our communion, 
 and that John "William Colenso is not a Christian, 
 though he claims to be a Bishop in the Church of 
 Christ. 
 
 We know the reply that Mr. Goode or his fol- 
 lowers will make to this. They will say that the 
 question is begged ; that before judgment is passed 
 it ought to be shown that what he rejects is an essen- 
 tial peculiarity of our system. Just so did Xewman 
 say up to the last hour of his professed Protestantism. 
 Just so does " Father Ignatius" say to-day; just so does 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 17 
 
 Colenso. But are we to be forever proving to a few 
 men what the whole world has always known and 
 acknowledged ? Is it really necessary, so late in the 
 nineteenth century, to show that our Church is Chris- 
 tian — or Protestant — or Episcopal? 
 
 There are some who, in spite of all that has been 
 done and written, will continue to demand proof of 
 such things, just as the unbelieving Scribes and 
 Pharisees persisted in asking for a sign from heaven. 
 To such persons, when they deny that " Episcopacy 
 by divine right" is the doctrine of our Church, we 
 would simply say, it must have some distinctive fea- 
 ture. What then is it ? It cannot be nominal Epis- 
 copacy, with real parity of Order, for that is the 
 peculiarity of American Methodism. It cannot be 
 the mere expediency Episcopacy advocated by Paley 
 and one or two more, because these alone have sup- 
 ported such a theory. What then can it be, except 
 that which we have stated ? If any doubt exists upon 
 this point it will be resolved as we proceed. 
 
 It has been stated above that the book before us is 
 the product of that ultraism to which the discussions 
 fomented by outside influence directly led ; but its 
 mode of publication is a no less remarkable and 
 painful result of the same cause. Partyism is the 
 natural enemy of judgment and moderation. Those 
 who give themselves up to it soon forget original or 
 common truths, in their zeal for the peculiarities of 
 their respective factions, and, in obedience to this 
 repelling spirit, they are hurried on to lengths which 
 they themselves would formerly have denounced. 
 Thus we see extremists of one sort going to Rome, 
 2* 
 
13 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 and those of the other going to Geneva.*. We see 
 Maskells and Newmans on the one side; Noels, Shi- 
 mealls, and Gardens on the other. We recognize in 
 the Romish Cardinal now in England an apostate 
 PresbyteT of the Protestant Church, who was led on 
 stop by step, yet rapidly, from his original position 
 to one against which he had often spoken with fer- 
 vent eloquence. And on the other side we recog- 
 nize, to our deep grief, among those who were his 
 zealous adversaries some who, in opposing his ex- 
 travagant faith, lost almost all faith, and sowed broad- 
 cast over Britain the seeds of infidelity ,f 
 
 The results of partyism have not been so terrible 
 among us as yet, and God grant that they never may 
 be ; but they are bad enough. We have party jour- 
 nals, and party organizations ; and springing from 
 these we have "envy, hatred, malice, and sill unchar* 
 
 * Sayings like this are very much disliked, hecause they are sup- 
 posed to put Geneva and Rome on precisely the same level. (See Bishop 
 Mcllvaine's Tract on the subject.) The Author hopes that he will not 
 be understood as holding or wishing to convey the idea that one is just 
 as good as the other. He is not now considering the comparative merits 
 of the systems thus respectively indicated. It is enough for him to know 
 that both differ from and oppose the Church to which he belongs, and 
 that to both the extremists on opposite sides do occasionally go off. The 
 precise character or comparative merits of their landing-places we have 
 nothing to do with, when considering simply the fact that the spirit of 
 party drives them from the Church. 
 
 f The Author has heard and read with astonishment statements to the 
 effect that Puseyism is responsible for the "Essays and Reviews" and 
 all the lamentable rationalism that now has its seat at Oxford,* indeed, 
 he has heard this said in such a manner as to imply that prominent " Pu- 
 seyites " have been leaders in this later movement. He is no admirer 
 of Puseyism in any shape, but he does profess to love truth, and there- 
 fore he refers to this report for the purpose of giving it a flat contradic- 
 tion, and of expressing his surprise that any Christian minister could 
 deal so uncandidly. Those who know nothing whatever of the facts or 
 the men may be misled by such assertions, but on no others will they im- 
 pose. It is hardly possible to prove that Dr. Arnold was a Tractarian, 
 or to deny that Jowett and Baden Powell were prominent " Evangeli- 
 cals." 
 
INTRODUCTOKY. 19 
 
 itableness." The High. Churchman of to-day does 
 Dot speak the language nor observe the customs of 
 those whom he professes to follow. Still less is the 
 concord between the Low Churchman of the present 
 and his predecessor. In his zeal against all that 
 smacks of Oxford, he forgets that there are funda- 
 mental principles which ; as an Episcopalian, it is his 
 duty to maintain. The party spirit bears him on and 
 on, until he has lost sight of the ancient landmarks, 
 and, while he fancies himself only in the advance- 
 guard of the Church, he is really in the camp of the 
 enemy. In his zeal for vital godliness he accepts 
 principles that are simply destructive. He claims to 
 be the successor of Wilberforce, Walker, Romaine, 
 Eaber, Venn, Wilks, and Griswold, and yet rushes 
 into a radicalism which they would have unhesi- 
 tatingly condemned. 
 
 If any one feels disposed to doubt this, let him 
 contrast the practices and the publications of forty 
 or fifty years ago with those of the present time. 
 Let him contrast the writings of Bishop "White, 
 Bishop Griswold, or Bishop Daniel Wilson, with this 
 work of Mr. Groode, which has actually been sent 
 forth from the press of a society that calls itself 
 Episcopal. 
 
 Against that Society the present writer would not 
 have a word to say, if it had not so gone with the 
 tide of partyism as to have forgotten its own princi- 
 ples and issued this book. To the spread of what is 
 properly "Evangelical Knowledge" he is as friendly 
 as any member of its Executive Committee, but he 
 respectfully protests against the principles of Mr. 
 Groode being set forth in that character. He con- 
 
20 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 tends that they are not at all evangelical in the true 
 and higher sense of the term, and that they are not 
 "evangelical" even in the limited or party sense. 
 The very purpose of the pamphlet should therefore, 
 he believes, have prevented its appearing upon the 
 catalogue of that or any other Episcopal society, even 
 if there were no other reasons for its exclusion. 
 
 But the result of its appearing from the press, and 
 with the imprimatur, of the Evangelical Knowledge 
 Society, has given additional power of mischief to a 
 production which, coming from a professed Episco- 
 palian, was already well enough calculated to do 
 harm. That he should make admissions, or advance 
 principles hostile to those of his own Church, was 
 surely bad enough; but that a Society organized 
 among us for the spread of scriptural knowledge and 
 the promotion of personal piety, and which, for the 
 sake of its professed purpose, has been liberally sup- 
 ported by Churchmen, should emploj^ the funds 
 placed at its disposal in printing such a work, and 
 should use all its influence in spreading it through 
 the country, is infinitely worse.* It is, indeed, a 
 
 * In 1859, one of the most eloquent advocates of the Evangelical Know- 
 ledge Society said at its triennial meeting: "It is perfectly loyal to the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church. " " True loyalty to the Church consists in 
 fealty to the Head of the Church, steadfastness in the faith of the Church, 
 firmness in upholding the order of the Church, and adherence to the Lit- 
 urgy of the Church f and, speaking of the ministry in the Three orders, 
 Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, " This apostolic ministry it regards as 
 being approved by Christ and sanctioned by the Holy Ghost!" Nothing 
 could be better than this, and yet in that same year the Executive Com- 
 mittee issued the book before us, in which it is argued that there are not 
 three orders in the Church — that a Bishop is only a presbyter filling a 
 higher office! 
 
 In contrast with the speech at the meeting above referred to was one 
 delivered this year in Philadelphia, at the anniversary, in which the Rev. 
 Dr. Dyer as Secretary proposed, among other objects to which the funds 
 of the society might be applied, the perpetuation and dissemination of 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 21 
 
 lamentable proof of the power of party spirit, and it 
 may lead to evils which its authors seem to have 
 neither the wisdom to foresee, nor the ability to 
 prevent. 
 
 What they endorse will almost necessarily be 
 accepted by all throughout the nation, who, in other 
 matters, accept their guidance, and then when such 
 opinions are received, irregular or revolutionary prac- 
 tices must follow, and the result of these must be 
 either open schism in the Church or the rejection of 
 offenders, or (what will be infinitely better than either, 
 but less willingly accepted) the painful unlearning of 
 errors thus carefully disseminated. Those evils have 
 already commenced, and commenced as might have 
 been foreseen among the members of that very " com- 
 mittee" which prepared the way for them by send- 
 ing forth " Groode on Orders." 
 
 But although the author of the work before us 
 ought not, while occupying a place in our ministry, 
 to have written any such production, and although 
 an Episcopal society ought not to have published it, 
 it cannot be passed without notice or reply. The 
 personal history, character, or office of a writer will 
 often give additional interest of one sort or another 
 to his works ; but after all they must be read and 
 weighed without regard to such considerations. A 
 book must be judged by its own merits or demerits, 
 
 " standard works like Mr. Goode's unanswerable defence of the validity 
 of non-episcopal orders." There were four Bishops and many clergymen 
 present, yet no one objected! The inconsistency and absurdity of such 
 a proposal will be apparent if we fancy the Secretary of the Presbyterian 
 Board of Publication recommending at one of its meetings to employ its 
 funds in publishing Jeremy Taylor's "Episcopacy Asserted," or Percival 
 on "Apostolical Succession!" But Presbyterians are not so inconsist- 
 ent or unwise. 
 
22 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 and not by names. So in regard to this now before 
 us: we know its author, and consider him, on ac- 
 count of this book, disloyal to his own Church; yet 
 it will not do to cast it aside, saying, "An enemy 
 hath done this!" We may feel very well assured 
 that he is not truly an Episcopalian, but even as 
 a Presbyterian he must be heard. Let us then con- 
 sider the book just as if the author wrote from a 
 Manse in Galloway, and not from the Deanery of 
 Ripon. 
 
 At its first appearance here it was received by 
 Low Churchmen generally with such applause as we 
 believe has not been given in this generation to any 
 production of the kind. It was puffed and praised 
 as if it were the greatest treatise upon Church polity 
 ever written ; and one editor of a Church paper ex- 
 pressed the belief that Mr. Goode was by special 
 Providence raised up to produce it. The able and 
 
 amiable Bishop of , in a charge to the Clergy 
 
 of his Diocese, confidently repeated its assertions, 
 and gave to its teachings the support of an official 
 endorsement. The Episcopal Eecorder has seve- 
 ral times within the past six years spoken of it in 
 terms of the highest praise, and the Editor of the 
 Parish Visitor appeared to be at a loss for words 
 to express his admiration. In his issue for July, 
 1859, he said : 
 
 " Goode on Orders is making not merely a strong impression ; 
 it is banishing and driving away the last doubt that hung upon 
 some minds from the boldness and continuity of assertion that 
 the Episcopal Church disallowed the validity of other than Epis- 
 copal orders. Mr. Goode now stands far in advance of any 
 living writer of controversy. He is as remarkable for candor, 
 honesty, impartiality, and profound regard for the whole truth, 
 as for his diligence and sagacity in searching for it." 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 23 
 
 And then he goes on to say : 
 
 " Every one, from the Bishop of Exeter down, who has dis- 
 puted his adequacy to the subject undertaken, has retired with 
 dishonor from the contest." 
 
 Again, in another issue, the same paper thus chal- 
 lenges all who have a word to say for the constitu- 
 tion of the Church : 
 
 " The advocates of the unchurching dogma are now fairly 
 called upon to go over the said argument and show wherein it 
 is unsound or inconclusive, or else take a public and eternal 
 farewell of said dogma." 
 
 In the same spirit it is still, by various editors 
 and others, declared to be " conclusive" and " unan- 
 swerable," although we have seen such criticisms 
 upon it as should have at least modified the boldness 
 of such assertions. 
 
 Lastly, it is the sole authority quoted by Eev. Drs. 
 Smith and Canfield, of New York, to justify their 
 irregularities. 
 
 Surely, then, considering all this, the present writer 
 cannot be accused of any undue love of controversy 
 if he undertakes to examine the "argument" of Mr. 
 Goode ; to expose the real end he has in view, and the 
 means by which he endeavors to attain it. In striv- 
 ing to do this, he will not offer his readers words in 
 place of facts, or statements instead of proofs. The 
 Editor of a well known Church paper says, that in 
 the controversy upon this subject there has been 
 
 " A parrot-like repetition of certain assertions, mere asser- 
 tions * * * that the law of the Church is positive against the 
 recognition of all others than an episcopally ordained ministry ;" 
 " but no serious attempt has been made to attack the impreg- 
 nable historical demonstration first brought forth by Goode, and 
 since frequently repeated and confirmed." 
 
24 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 The present writer is anxious to avoid all such 
 censure ; what follows, therefore, will be a very " seri- 
 ous attempt.' 1 But before engaging in it he would 
 inform his readers that the sentence just quoted is 
 calculated to leave a very erroneous impression, 
 namely, that on one side only of this controversy 
 mere statements have been put forth, without evidence. 
 For our own part we have endeavored to find any 
 one person who would undertake to substantiate the 
 very numerous " parrot-like assertions" that we have 
 seen published by the friends and disciples of Mr. 
 Goode. By them the so-called " demonstration" and 
 " facts" of that gentleman have been indeed "fre- 
 quently repeated ;" but so far as we know, and we have 
 sought diligently, they have never once been " con- 
 firmed" by the addition of even a single authority. 
 His book has been the grand quarry from which they 
 have taken all their material, and some of them have 
 not had the prudence even to hew and dress it that 
 it might seem their own. 
 
 The reader will confer a favor on the writer of this 
 review if he will keep that book at hand, and follow 
 closely and patiently the examination to which it is 
 subjected. 
 
CHAPTBE II. 
 
 GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 
 
 ¥E have several very serious objections to make 
 against the general scope and method of Mr. 
 Goode's work ; and inasmuch as these could not be 
 properly introduced in the detailed examination of 
 his " arguments" and "facts/' we deem it best to 
 give them here in a group by themselves. They 
 are as follows : 
 
 1st. The investigation has not been made in the 
 proper manner. It is obvious that the doctrines of 
 the Church can be established only by reference to 
 her acknowledged standards. She is responsible for 
 everything they contain, and not at all responsible for 
 what they do not contain or plainly imply. Conse- 
 quently Catenas are of no value, except as corrobo- 
 rative testimony. They can prove nothing against 
 the standards, and as to the Church's doctrine they 
 can prove nothing without them. But in the work 
 before us, reliance is placed chiefly upon the opinions 
 of individuals, while the formularies and other authen- 
 tic sources of information are but slightly considered. 
 The conclusion arrived at by such means could not 
 be correct, except by chance. 
 
 But even in the mode which he has selected, Mr. 
 
 3 (25) 
 
26 GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 
 
 Goode does not conduct the argument clearly and 
 fairly. It will be evident from what is subjoined, 
 that the acknowledged laws of debate have not been 
 regarded. 
 
 2d. The Author does not state precisely and fully 
 the doctrine he wishes to maintain. The consequence 
 of this is, that we are left to guess out his views — 
 a task which is not very easy ; as now, he seems to 
 be contending for a particular theory, and again, for 
 a very different one. Thus : his pamphlet or book 
 is really an argument for the full validity of Presby- 
 terian ordination, yet he never says so distinctly. 
 That theory necessarily involves the doctrine of 
 " Apostolical succession " (in the line of the Presby- 
 terate) ; but he denounces Apostolical Succession 
 without any reservation whatever, and suggests ob- 
 jections to it that would apply not merely to the 
 • Eomish view, but to any other. At one time he 
 acknowledges that Episcopacy is a " divine institu- 
 tion ;" at another he deprecates the use of the word 
 " divine," and speaks of Episcopacy as having "only " 
 apostolical institution; thus changing his own ground, 
 and suggesting a difference that has no existence. 
 Even as "apostolical" he in one place speaks of it 
 as binding, but in twenty others he quotes with, at 
 least, tacit approval, passages declaring that it is not 
 binding, but that every Church is left at liberty to 
 adopt it or not, at pleasure. It is evident that, with 
 looseness such as this, discussion cannot proceed 
 agreeably, fairly, or with any prospect of ever 
 coming to a conclusion. 
 
 3d. He does not state clearly and impartially the 
 views of his opponents, while he frequently points 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 27 
 
 an argument or a quotation against some opinion 
 that they do not hold. He goes even farther than 
 this. He attributes to those who differ from him, 
 sentiments from which they would shrink with horror. 
 For instance. He says their theory adds another to 
 the two only sacraments which our Lord Christ hath 
 ordained in his Church, " by raising Episcopacy to a 
 level with the things commanded, such as Baptism 
 and the Lord's Supper ! " And again ; he says, that 
 by the same theory, they send " down alive into the 
 pit such men as Luther and Baxter, Brainerd and 
 Jonathan Edwards ! " * 
 
 4th. He does not furnish exact definitions or ex- 
 planations of several important terms that he employs 
 almost continually, and he occasionally uses the same 
 term in very different senses. This necessarily cre- 
 ates ambiguity, and perplexes the discussion. We 
 have instances in the words " order," " office," " di- 
 vine," etc., etc. Even to the epithet "High Church- 
 man," which is in constant use, he does not appear 
 to attach any very definite meaning. Ex. Grra. : He 
 intimates, that for the last two centuries the Church 
 has been wandering from the old paths, in conse- 
 quence of some very important changes made by 
 the " Laudean party," who it is "certain DIB personally 
 entertain those exclusive views " which he undertakes 
 to combat. To those men, he says, the term " High 
 
 * The reader will observe that the Reverend Author does not offer a 
 particle of evidence in support of these weighty accusations. It would 
 be interesting to know the name of the rigid Episcopalian who would 
 fain send "down alive into the pit" men like Brainerd or Edwards. 
 But it would be still more interesting to know how even the most 
 "exclusive" theory of Episcopacy could lead to the perdition of men 
 like Luther and Baxter, who were duly ordained by Bishops in the line 
 of the Apostolical Succession ! ! 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 
 
 Churchman 91 was originally applied; and to them, 
 and those who agree with them on the point debated, 
 he professes to restrict it. But, on page 4-i, he tells 
 his readers that, ''even the highest among our eminent 
 High Church divines (as they are called) have never 
 ated the extreme notions maintained by the Trac- 
 tarians- and therefore were not High Churchmen ! " 
 This is certainly not a very logical conclusion from all 
 the premises, nor a very favorable specimen of clear- 
 ness and consistency. 
 
 5th. He does not allow the reader to form an un- 
 biassed opinion from the facts and arguments as he 
 himself presents them. They are preceded by an 
 " Introduction," in which the petitio principii, and the 
 argumentum ad hominem are used in a manner that 
 is totally indefensible. The question to be decided 
 depends in a great degree upon another, namely: 
 TThether the Church holds to the divine right of 
 Episcopacy and the necessity for Apostolical Succes- 
 sion. But before entering upon the discussion he 
 asserts that those doctrines are not taught by the 
 Church ; that they were unknown for at least a cen- 
 tury after the Reformation, and have ever since been 
 repudiated by our most eminent divines ! But this 
 is not all. He describes them as being " Anti-Evan- 
 gelical ;" as having a tendency to drive men away from 
 the Church ; as being at variance with the spirit of 
 Christian charity and "the facts of God's providence; 77 
 as having no foundation in Holy Scripture, and as 
 leading to consequences so dreadful that it is simply 
 "monstrous" in any one to teach them ! 
 
 Now all these descriptions and assertions might be 
 perfectly correct, and yet the mere use of them in 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 29 
 
 such a position would suffice of itself ^to imperil 
 Mr. Groode's reputation as a candid reasoner. How 
 much worse, then, does his employing them appear 
 when they are, one and all, things which his oppo- 
 nents indignantly deny, and of which he tenders no 
 proof. He enlists in his own behalf every principle 
 and every prejudice that can be brought to bear upon 
 the question, and assumes, as undeniable facts, the 
 very things he has yet to prove. This attempt to 
 preoccupy and bias the minds of his readers, makes 
 it evident that he is unwilling to trust to his own 
 "argument." But that is of little consequence; for 
 if the " introduction " is believed, the rest will not be 
 required. 
 
 6th. He does not always state facts correctly, nor 
 quote authorities with fairness. As to the facts, we 
 take it for granted that the reverend gentleman errs 
 only through want of knowledge, or mistake; but 
 when ample sources of information are within his 
 reach, it is questionable how far such an excuse 
 should avail, especially as regards matters that he 
 makes the basis of argument and on which he speaks 
 so dogmatically. As to the other point: We do 
 Mr. Groode the justice to say, that he does not alter 
 nor add to the words of any author he quotes. But 
 he does occasionally take from them. Here let us be 
 clearly understood. We do not require a writer, 
 when quoting, to fill his pages with irrelevant matter 
 because it happens to form the context of the pas- 
 sage he wishes to use. In every such case we prefer 
 seeing only what relates directly to the subject ; but 
 we want to see all that does. We do not object, then, 
 to Mr. Goode's omitting words or sentences (for in 
 3* 
 
30 GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 
 
 that there is no wrong, and we shall have occasion to 
 do it ourselves continually) ; but we do object to his 
 leaving out words or sentences which have a true and 
 proper connection with the question, and the omission 
 of which alters the character of the passage. For 
 example, the following quotation reads well, and 
 would be a valuable help to an advocate of Episco- 
 pacy: "By the confession of all, even of our adver- 
 saries, the power of ordination and jurisdiction is 
 common to all * * * * bishops." But woe to the 
 Episcopalian who should venture to print it so, when 
 some sharp-eyed antagonist would ferret it out and 
 find that it reads thus : " By the confession of all, 
 even of our adversaries, the power of ordination and 
 jurisdiction is common to ALL who are set over 
 churches, whether they be called presbyters or bishops!" 
 Two or three instances hardly less glaring than this, 
 are to be found in Mr. Goode's book, and will be 
 referred to in the next section. 
 
 But again, It is quite possible to give the words 
 of a passage precisely as they are, and yet quote 
 them very unfairly. The sense may be changed, 
 either by the suggestion of one entirely different 
 from that which the writer meant to convey, or by 
 the withholding of necessary explanation. 
 
 There is no unfairness to which a scheming con- 
 troversialist can resort with greater prospect of im- 
 punity than this, for, while it is much less likely to 
 be detected than positive change or omission of words, 
 it serves the same end. And if it should be discov- 
 ered, and the quoter be accused of dishonesty, he can 
 assume an air of injured innocence, and say, "What 
 have I done amiss ? have I not given the ipsissima 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 31 
 
 verba?" As an example of this trick, let us suppose 
 that some advocate of ministerial succession in the 
 Protestant Church should quote an Act of Assembly 
 of the Scotch Kirk to this effect : " We fully acknowl-' 
 edge and pledge ourselves to maintain the Protestant 
 succession." It might be received as an important 
 admission in his favor ; and yet it refers only to the 
 succession of Protestant sovereigns on the English 
 throne ! So also, by misuse of the same word, Dr. 
 Sacheverell himself might be triumphantly referred 
 to as an opponent of apostolical succession.* 
 
 But whether effected by actual change of words or 
 judicious trimming of quotations, or by the more 
 ingenious suggestio falsi just referred to, this " abuse 
 of authors," as the Eeformers called it, is a very vile 
 offence. So vile, indeed, that it is only with the 
 greatest reluctance, and on full proof, we should con- 
 sider any man guilty of it. We therefore trust it 
 may appear that the writer of the essay "on Orders" 
 has not wilfully resorted to it. He knows its baseness, 
 and has himself condemned it strongly, saying of his 
 Tractarian opponents, " Their Catenas parade with un- 
 blushing effrontery the names of divines who have directly 
 and clearly opposed their views, as of advocates in their 
 favor." And yet, in an argument against Episco- 
 pacy as a divine institution, Mr. Goode has ventured 
 to quote Hooker, Andrews, Saravia, Cosin, Bramhall, 
 and Bingham! 
 
 7th. He does not correct palpable errors, whether 
 of fact or of opinion, which form the staple of pas- 
 sages that he quotes ; and thus, without openly adopt- 
 
 * See Appendix, C. 
 
S3 GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 
 
 ing the sentiments of the authors he cites, he permits 
 them to influence the minds of his readers. We 
 grant that the question is not whether the opinions 
 of those authors were correct, but simply what those 
 opinions were, and consequently his course in this 
 particular is technically or logically proper, but, 
 morally considered, it is very reprehensible. The 
 generality of his readers will take for granted that 
 what Mr. Goode quotes without disclaimer *or com- 
 ment, especially if the spirit of it correspond with 
 the spirit of his work, has his full approval, or is 
 undeniably true ; and thus the effect of such quota- 
 tions is just as great as if he had made similar state- 
 ments in his own name. In the case before us they 
 have a power far beyond what would appear at first, 
 and out of all proportion to their bearing upon the 
 precise matter at issue. The question which Mr. 
 Goode professes to discuss is simply whether our 
 Church acknowledges the validity of Non-Episcopal 
 Orders. The quotations we refer to are assertions to 
 the effect that there was not originally, or through 
 divine appointment, any such Order as that of 
 Bishops. To the actual question then such passages 
 can have but little relevance, but on the great ques- 
 tion which lies beyond it they cannot fail to mislead 
 an unlearned and confiding reader. 
 
 The Episcopalian holds that the Apostles appointed 
 an Order of ministers superior to Elders, who were 
 to ordain and supervise Elders. The Presbyterian 
 denies this, and holds that there never was any 
 Order but one. Mr. Goode prints various extracts, 
 in which it is asserted that the higher Order, viz: 
 that of Bishops, was not founded by the Apostles ; 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 33 
 
 that in fact Bishop and Presbyter were the same in 
 every respect. If then Mr. Groode is to be regarded 
 as an Episcopalian, he has certainly been very remiss, 
 and by his carelessness appeared willing to yield a 
 point which by all members of his Church is re- 
 garded as sacred and fundamental. But, believing 
 as we do that he is not an Episcopalian, we fear that 
 in the course thus pursued there is something worse 
 than carelessness. 
 
 The erroneous statements referred to are chiefly in 
 extracts from Jerome, with or through whom the 
 mistake originated. In his Epistle to Evagrius he 
 says that in some respects the Presbyter is equal to 
 the Bishop, for the latter order was not a separate 
 and superior one at its first institution, but made so 
 afterwards, to prevent schism and strife. This mis- 
 taken opinion (it is a mere opinion, not testimony) is 
 based upon the acknowledged fact, that in the New 
 Testament the titles " Episcopus v and " Presbyterus " 
 are applied to ministers of the same class ; a fact 
 that proves nothing against the existence of a higher 
 order, or the divine right of a threefold ministry. 
 Now, wherever Mr. Goode can find this error of 
 Jerome's quoted or referred to by an Episcopal 
 writer, even though the latter may not endorse it, 
 he copies that passage ; and, although he has done 
 this in at least eight instances, he never once hints 
 that Jerome was wrong, or gives the explanation of 
 his words which eminent churchmen have furnished. 
 Thus he leaves the impression on his reader's mind 
 that Episcopacy really had its origin in the weakness 
 or ambition of man, and not in the wisdom and pur- 
 pose of Grod. 
 
84 GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 
 
 But the unfairness is still more marked. Not only- 
 does lie not explain the matter, but when his own 
 authorities quote from the very same sentences of Je- 
 rome words which would effectually correct the error, 
 so far at least as the proper powers and rights of the 
 Bishop are concerned, Mr. Goode actually leaves out 
 those portions of their quotations. He has done so more 
 than once. A line of dots supplies the place of the 
 words unfavorable to his theory, or they are got rid 
 of by saying, "the author, having given Jerome's 
 words in full, adds," etc., etc. An unsuspecting 
 reader would regard this as perfectly allowable ; but 
 when we supply some of the words which the Keve- 
 rend gentleman prefers not giving "in full," a dif- 
 ferent opinion may be formed. For instance, Je- 
 rome, wishing to show how much Presbyters are 
 superior to Deacons, takes this mode : Presbyters are 
 almost equal to Bishops ; indeed, as regards the Min- 
 istry, they are one and the same; "for what is there 
 which a Bishop performs that a Presbyter may not 
 do, except ordination !" These last words, decisive 
 as to the superior rights of the Episcopal Order, Mr. 
 Goode has omitted in every instance ! 
 
 8th. We have already referred to the fact that the 
 Eeverend gentleman does not plainly set forth his 
 own doctrine; but we have another objection to make 
 that bears some affinity to this. He does not avow 
 the object of his work. A man may state his position 
 and argue with logical precision, but if he says no- 
 thing of the practical results that he would expect to 
 follow from the adoption of his views, if he makes 
 no reference to any such matter, his readers will be 
 inclined to think that he is not candid, and that he 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 35 
 
 seeks some end that lie is either afraid or ashamed to 
 propose openly. Mr. Goode's course in the particular 
 already mentioned, and in this, is sufficient to show 
 that he has no confidence in the strength or justice 
 of his cause. As to the mere discussion, he so per- 
 plexes it by change and general indefiniteness, that 
 it is hardly possible at times to know for what, or 
 against what, he is contending. And as to the prac- 
 tical issue, he is prudently silent. 
 
 The very title of his book, as it appeared at first, 
 afforded sufficient evidence of the former statement. 
 It ran thus : " Does the Episcopal Church teach the 
 exclusive validity of ITS OWN ORDERS ?" And though 
 this was so proposed as the subject for discussion, it 
 was never treated of for a single moment ! This title 
 was very properly described at the time as " an ab- 
 surd claptrap question, the affirmative of which was 
 never held by any man." "Mr. Groode asks, does 
 our Church teach the exclusive validity of its own 
 orders ? and replies by endeavoring to show that it 
 does not teach the exclusive validity of Episcopal 
 orders, which is a totally different issue."* 
 
 For proof of the other statement we refer to the 
 entire book. There the reader will find no avowal 
 of the author's real object. The end for which his 
 work was written was not merely to establish an his- 
 torical fact, or determine a speculative question ; it 
 had a practical purpose, and to further that it has 
 been circulated zealously and quoted triumphantly, 
 
 * In consequence of the criticism above quoted, the publishers changed 
 the title, but that does not weaken the force of our objection. Either the 
 author did not know that while his title-page stated one question, his 
 book discussed another, or else he made the discrepancy for the purpose 
 of embarrassing the argument. 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 
 
 and yet that purpose is never once hinted at in the 
 hook. He labors to prove that, as the English 
 Church, at the time of the Eeformation, gave some 
 measure of countenance to the Protestant Churches 
 on the Continent, its so doing amounted to a positive 
 acknowledgment of their completeness as Churches, 
 and their perfect equality with herself. Few would 
 hope to gain, and few would be willing to grant, so 
 large a conclusion from such premises; but Mr. Goode 
 and his disciples are not satisfied even with that. 
 AVhat they desire is, not the confession that the Con- 
 tinental Eeformed Churches deserved the allegiance 
 of the Germans and Swiss three hundred years ago, 
 nor even that they deserve it still, and that we 
 ought to regard them with courteous sympathy ; but 
 that we should here, at .. our own doors, recognize 
 fully any and every sect that calls itself a Church, 
 and that we should cordially receive every man as a 
 truly ordained Clergyman who claims to be so re- 
 garded, no matter how or by whom he may have 
 been admitted to the ministry. The predecessors of 
 those for whom the reverend gentleman is laboring 
 were not the divines of Zurich, Geneva, Wittemburg, 
 or Scotland, but the disorderly and factious sectaries 
 of England; and the amount of sympathy or fraternal 
 acknowledgment which they or their " Churches" re- 
 ceived from our Reformers and their successors he 
 does not venture to state. The Anglo-Saxon dis- 
 senters, whose cause he is really pleading, he does 
 not even once refer to, but puts forward in their 
 stead those others whose circumstances were entirely 
 different. 
 
 9th, He does not keep to the question. This 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 37 
 
 would indeed be a difficult matter considering that 
 there is so much uncertainty as to what the question 
 is. But he takes a range in seeking for evidence 
 which not even his own indefiniteness of statement 
 can justify. There appears to be a purpose in this 
 — the same purpose that we find everywhere in the 
 work. Whether they bear upon the actual subject 
 of debate or not, he prints such passages in the writ- 
 ings of our divines as to any extent appear, or may 
 be made to appear unfavorable to Episcopacy. He 
 undertakes to show that the Church acknowledges the 
 validity of non-episcopal ordination, and in order to do 
 this he quotes 
 
 I. Any passage he can find in an Anglican 
 divine, stating that our Lord did not himself in 
 person institute Episcopacy — which is an open 
 question, but one that in no wise affects the point 
 at issue. 
 
 II. Any passage in which it is confessed that 
 Episcopacy is "not necessary to salvation" — a 
 fact that no Churchman will deny. 
 
 III. Any passage stating that there is not set 
 down in Holy Scripture any one form of " outward 
 government or discipline" perfect and complete 
 in all its details, and designed to be in every par- 
 ticular perpetually maintained in the Church — 
 a confession that even a " Puseyite" would read- 
 ily make, since not even one of that class would 
 expect to find in the New Testament a perfect 
 form of polity and discipline suited for all people 
 and all places in all time. The Holy Book cer- 
 tainly teaches nothing about the special duties 
 of Churchwardens, Archdeacons, or Deans, nor 
 would any Churchman consider it sinful to 
 abolish those offices. 
 
 4 
 
38 GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 
 
 IV. Any passage like those already alluded to 
 in which a doubt is expressed, or an assertion 
 made as to the essential "parity" or identity of 
 the Orders of Bishop and Presbyter — these 
 quotations only create confusion. They give no 
 support whatever to the writer's cause; for 
 even if we should grant, or he could prove 
 "parity of Order" with essential difference in 
 office, he would be as far as ever from his end, 
 since in the Church's view it appertained exclu- 
 sively to the office of a Bishop to ordain. 
 
 V. Any passage in which it is said or inti- 
 mated that Episcopacy can only be inferred from 
 Scripture, and from this it is argued that it can- 
 not be binding upon Christians — which reason- 
 ins; would remove the obligation of Female 
 Communion, Infant Baptism, and the observ- 
 ance of the Lord's day. 
 
 VI. Any passage stating plainly that Episco- 
 pacy is nothing more than a human invention, 
 the offspring of ambition, or expediency — which 
 testimony, as he quotes it, would go to prove that 
 the Church's doctrine is, that she herself has been 
 for over three hundred years a sort of impostor 
 claiming to have scriptural warrant which she 
 has not ! 
 
 Now let the reader pause for a moment and con- 
 sider what quotations of these various classes have to 
 do with the question whether the Church recognizes 
 Presbyterian orders as valid. They are wholly irrele- 
 vant, and not only so, but from their general character 
 they are calculated to cast discredit upon the Epis- 
 copal order. A fair reasoner, and especially an 
 Episcopalian, would therefore omit them ; but Mr. 
 Goode prints and argues from them ! 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 39 
 
 But the Keverend gentleman gives us also 
 
 VII. Passages in which some English divines 
 put guards upon the formal enunciation of their 
 doctrine, or state the exceptions that might be 
 made, as for instance, in case of " extreme neces- 
 sity" — these guards, modifications, or exceptions 
 are quoted as if they were the fixed doctrine held 
 by the writer. 
 
 VIII. Lastly, he furnishes passages in which 
 there is some civil or friendly allusion to the 
 foreign Reformed Churches, or some justification 
 of them on the score of necessity — and these 
 extracts are used to prove that the Church holds 
 that all who imitate their form of government 
 deserve the same measure of courtesy and kind- 
 ness, and are fully justified in doing without 
 Bishops, though they plead no necessity whatever. 
 
 From this analysis of his mode of reasoning, it will 
 be seen that Mr. Groode does not deal with the ques- 
 tion in that open, honest, manly way that shows a 
 real confidence in the cause maintained or that wins 
 respect even if it fail to convince the judgment. On 
 the contrary, there is a love for ambiguity ; a twist- 
 ing about of words; a straining of arguments and 
 authorities; a reticence upon some points of conse- 
 quence, and an undue resting upon others; a practical 
 avoidance of the question as stated by himself, and 
 a still more complete avoidance of the real issue that 
 lies behind it — w T hich all combine to stamp the work 
 as that of a special pleader. It could not be other- 
 wise; with a mind so full of an extreme theory it 
 would be impossible to conduct an impartial search 
 for the Church's doctrine. The Essay is simply an 
 attempt to justify the virtually Presbyterian views 
 
40 GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 
 
 adopted by Mr. Goode, and to make the Church's 
 teaching conform to them. Of course failure was in- 
 evitable. The circle has never been squared. That 
 or the reconciling of things essentially opposed is a 
 task too great even for the ingenuity and persevering 
 diligence of the Eeverend author. 
 
 Before leaving this general review of his work ; we 
 must say a word or two upon a matter of taste and 
 prudence. Charges of ignorance are freely preferred 
 against those who have heretofore engaged in contro- 
 versy upon the present topic with Mr. Goode. Such 
 a thing, however it might do in the columns of papers 
 friendly to the author, comes with very bad taste 
 indeed from the Editor of his book ; but far worse is 
 it when the Eeverend gentleman allows himself to 
 speak in this manner of his adversaries. He says 
 of them " deliberately/ 7 yea, even of the " very heads 
 of the party" that they are " very ill-informed indi- 
 viduals." 
 
 We question the propriety of such accusations; 
 they partake of the character of slander. They can 
 be preferred by any one. They can wound feelings, 
 or injure reputation even where there is not a particle 
 of foundation for the charge. Therefore a man of 
 fine feeling would not rashly employ them. If his 
 opponent be really an ignorant pretender, such a man 
 would rather prove his ignorance than proclaim it. 
 
 But we cannot see how anything is to be gained in 
 the end by such accusations. If made on insufficient 
 grounds, they may be credited for a time, but sooner 
 or later the truth overtakes them, and they bring 
 upon their author the odium he sought to fasten 
 upon his antagonist. If the evidence be furnished, 
 
GENEKAL OBJECTIONS. 41 
 
 the denunciations, or charges, might as well be omit- 
 ted. If it be not furnished, they are worthless. 
 What then are these ? Do we not require something 
 more than the mere dictum of Mr. Goode, or his 
 American Editor, to convince us that the Bishop of 
 Exeter, Chancellor Harrington, Archdeacon Churton, 
 the Eev. T. K. Arnold, and others, are ignorant 
 men. Their extensive and varied learning has always 
 been freely acknowledged, even by those who doubt 
 or deny their orthodoxy. If this general judgment 
 is to be reversed, we would like to know on what 
 grounds ; but without condescending to inform us, 
 without giving even one illustration of their sup- 
 posed deficiency, Mr. Goode, in marked violation of 
 good taste and fairness, assures his readers that they 
 are "exceedingly ill-informed!" 
 
 Still worse, however, are his positive charges of 
 falsehood, etc., etc. If a controversialist violates 
 truth, or practises arts that are or seem to be dis- 
 honest, and we are satisfied that he does this wilfully, 
 we do not expect his opponent to treat him with 
 studious courtesy. On the contrary, in such a case 
 we think it right to call a spade a spade, and expose 
 the trickster so that he may be excluded from the 
 lists of honorable disputation. It is only, however, 
 with great reluctance we should come to such a con- 
 clusion. We are bound to exercise that charity, 
 "which hopeth all things." But if the proofs are 
 too many and too strong to be resisted, if there is 
 no room left for reasonable doubt, we hold that we 
 are then fully warranted in condemning him, and in 
 making his guilt known. Yet we are never justified 
 in even insinuating such a charge, unless we give 
 4* 
 
42 GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 
 
 along with it the facts upon which it is based. Mr. 
 Goode has not done this. He has offered no evi- 
 dence whatever, although he says of his adversaries 
 that their course is marked by " unblushing effron- 
 tery,' 1 "unbridled arrogance/ 7 " duplicity/' and " fre- 
 quent disregard of truth." The latter charge he 
 repeats, saying, they resort to "all sorts of inconsis- 
 tencies and offences against truth!" 
 
 It might be supposed that language so strong, and 
 judgments so harsh as these, were hastily produced, 
 struck out, as it were, in the heat of conflict, but we 
 are sorry to say they have not even this in their 
 favor. Several of them occur in a chapter, headed 
 "Morality of Tractarianism," and are reprinted 
 here from another work written years before. Being 
 thus coolly reproduced, and without any evidence to 
 support them, they are wholly inexcusable. 
 
 But further : we question the prudence of making 
 such charges. They are so easily retorted that no 
 one should venture upon them who is not unusually 
 exact and circumspect. Our author is not so. He 
 has left himself very open to just such attacks. So 
 much so, indeed, that it is hard to believe that he 
 has not earned them. We would not dream of call- 
 ing Mr. Goode an ignorant man, either as to general 
 scholarship, or the special subjects he undertakes to 
 discuss, but yet he forces us, at times, to believe that 
 he is not acquainted with facts, or writers, that he 
 professes to know perfectly, and which he certainly 
 ought to know. His representations are at times so 
 widely different from the plain truth, that in kind- 
 ness to himself we must suppose him so far igno- 
 rant. He escapes more severe condemnation, only 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 43 
 
 because we charitably presume that his offences are 
 not intentional. 
 
 The laudatory references, made in newspapers and 
 pamphlets, to the erudition, the controversial skill, 
 and the past triumphs of the Eeverend gentleman, 
 may be easily pardoned. They are simply the usual 
 glorification of the party champion. Doubtless the 
 Philistines boasted greatly of the man they sent forth 
 to defy the armies of Israel ; and why should not 
 our radical brethren extol their own Groliath. Let 
 them do so. It is natural that they should. But 
 we cannot help thinking that while such eulogies 
 may be quite allowable in the columns of a journal, 
 they might, without any great disadvantage, have been 
 omitted from his own book. His victories might have 
 been more appropriately recorded elsewhere, while 
 his learning and ability might have been left to 
 assert themselves. " Good wine needs no bush." 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 EXPLANATOKY. 
 
 ALTHOUGH we do not write for the purpose of 
 setting forth and defending any theory, but 
 rather of reviewing and answering the work of an- 
 other, we think it will help to make the discussion 
 more easy and agreeable if at the outset we state 
 what we conceive to be the Church's view of the 
 matters in debate. Taking into consideration then 
 its standards, its history, and the " consent of eminent 
 divines," we deduce the following tenets : 
 
 I. That our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the 
 Christian ministry by commissioning certain 
 chosen persons called " Apostles" to preach and 
 to baptize all nations in his name, and to do all 
 things needful for the full establishment of his 
 Church, and that he promised to be with them 
 even to the end of the world. 
 
 II. That the extent of this commission and 
 promise implies that the ministry should con- 
 tinue to the end of time, and consist of those who 
 should receive a share of the authority origin- 
 ally given to the Apostles, and transmitted from 
 them in regular succession. 
 
 III. That the ministry as instituted by them, 
 in direct accordance with the will of our Lord, 
 
 (44) 
 
EXPLANATORY. 45 
 
 and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, con- 
 sists of three orders [that of the Bishop, the 
 Presbyter, and the Deacon], to each of which 
 belong special duties and privileges. 
 
 IV. That the ministry thus divinely instituted 
 is not left in the power of man to be changed, or 
 to be abolished, either in whole or in part, and that 
 any wilful departure from its Order as thus con- 
 stituted, or any material interference with the 
 rights of any member thereof, is an offence 
 against Grod. 
 
 V. That to ministers of the highest order 
 [that is to Bishops], and to them alone belongs 
 the right to ordain other ministers of the 
 Church. 
 
 These principles contain nothing more than we 
 ordinarily express in the two terms, Episcopacy and 
 Apostolic Succession. 
 
 Episcopacy, not as an expedient, or a system of 
 man's devising, but as possessing divine right. 
 
 Apostolical Succession as held by the primi- 
 tive Church ; freed from Eomish additions and per- 
 versions, and made consonant with sound reason and 
 Holy Scripture. Of this we shall treat more fully 
 further on. 
 
 As to Episcopacy — it is not easy to ascertain the 
 precise opinion of Mr. Groode. If we were to judge 
 from page vii of his " Introduction," we might sup- 
 pose that he regards it as " binding upon all;" but 
 on page 93, and in other places, the aim of his argu- 
 ment is to destroy the idea that it is "necessary." 
 This is the opinion that prevails throughout the book. 
 
 As to Apostolical Succession — he scouts it alto- 
 
46 EXPLANATORY. 
 
 gether. forgetting that it involves the whole theory 
 oi' a divinely commissioned ministry. 
 
 On these two points, then, we differ from the Reve- 
 rend gentleman ; our present business, however, is not 
 to prove his doctrine wrong, but to show that it is not 
 what our Church holds, and has held from the be- 
 ginning. 
 
 Divine Right. — When we claim this for any in- 
 stitution we mean simply that it has been appointed 
 by divine authority, and that it therefore challenges 
 the obedience of all men. Any system that can be 
 shown to have been divinely established with a view 
 to continuance, has this jus divinum ; all others, how- 
 ever excellent, are but human institutions, and cannot 
 claim to be received and obeyed by all. 
 
 Taking advantage of distinctions drawn for sake 
 of preciseness by certain eminent casuists, Mr. Goode 
 insinuates that those things only can be said to have 
 this divine right which were " ordained by Christ 
 himself," or else founded on a precise command of 
 God. The former notion would tend to prove that 
 the larger half of the New Testament contains nothing 
 that is binding upon us. The other would deprive 
 of all their authority things w^hich even the admirers 
 of our author must regard as having most certain 
 warrant. 
 
 Everything that the Lord God ordains for man is 
 obligatory upon man. It matters not how His will 
 has been manifested if the fact itself be clear. God 
 himself declared his mercy to our first parents, and 
 instructed them in the service which he would be 
 pleased to accept. Yet the worship of the Primeval 
 or Patriarchal Church had no higher sanction or 
 
EXPLANATORY. 47 
 
 authority than that of the Hebrews, which was estab- 
 lished through the instrumentality of Moses. And 
 is St. Paul, St. Peter, or St. John to be regarded as 
 so inferior * to the great lawgiver that the Christian 
 Church has less claim upon the honor and obedience 
 of men in general than the Levitical Church had upon 
 Israel ? Were not the Apostles also taught of God, 
 and " called of God as was Aaron," and. were they 
 not fully empowered to do even a greater work than 
 that performed by Moses? Does not refusing to 
 acknowledge as divine and obligatory that which 
 they established in accordance with their great com- 
 mission involve the opinion that it was really their 
 own work ? And is not this a direct ignoring of their 
 Apostolic character and inspiration ? Yet these are 
 things upon which we all depend, for only through 
 them do we know of a Saviour. All Christians go 
 without scruple to the Apostles 7 writings to learn 
 there fully the faith of the Church of Christ. Why 
 then must we be debarred from seeking there also 
 the constitution of the Church ? Or on what grounds 
 are we to be told, when it has been discovered, that 
 we are not obliged to conform to it ? And, if there 
 are none, what show of reason is there for what is 
 implied in our author's remark, that " our divines 
 for the most part contend only for the Apostolical 
 institution of Episcopacy ?" Why is it required of 
 me, on peril of my soul, to receive a creed from the 
 Apostles if I am at liberty to reject the Church 
 founded by them, and to which they gave that creed 
 in charge ? Will Mr. Goode answer these questions, 
 
 * See St. Matthew xi. 11. 
 
18 EXPLANATORY. 
 
 or is he prepared to accept the absurd idea that when 
 an Apostle was writing, he was moved by the Holy 
 Ghost, but when preaching or organizing a Church, 
 he was not an authorized exponent of the divine 
 will ? 
 
 We should suppose that no Christian man, treat- 
 ing of the deliberate, formal, official acts of the Apos- 
 tles, woul4 seek to lessen their importance, or at- 
 tempt to make a distinction between "apostolical" 
 and " divine" institutions ; yet this distinction our 
 author seeks to establish. In opposition to his 
 theory we could quote a volume of opinions from 
 even Non-Episcopalian divines, if it were necessary ; 
 but a few will serve, as well as a thousand. 
 
 Beza says [de gradibus Ministrorum, cap. 23] : 
 
 "If this change [to government by Bishops] proceeded from 
 the Apostles, I would not doubt thoroughly to ascribe it to 
 divtne disposition, as I do other ordinances of the Apostles." 
 
 Zanchy, in his memorable letter to Queen Elizabeth, 
 
 describes things " essential/' thus : 
 
 "They are either instituted of God by Moses, or delivered 
 by Christ, who is God manifest in the flesh ; or ordained by the 
 Holy Spirit acting and speaking in the Apostles." — Zurich 
 Letters, Vol. II., page 350. 
 
 Eichard Watson, the celebrated Methodist theo- 
 logian, writing concerning the divine institution of 
 the Christian Sabbath, says : 
 
 ''Even if it were conceded that the change of the day was 
 made by the agreement of the Apostles, without express direc- 
 tions from Christ (which is not probable) ; it is certain that it 
 was not done without express authority confided to them by 
 Christ." 
 
 Robert Hall, speaking of the Apostles, says : 
 
 " He who refuses to submit to the guidance of persons thus 
 attested and accredited, must be considered as virtually renounc- 
 
EXPLANATORY. 49 
 
 ing the revelation imparted, and as the necessary consequence 
 forfeiting his interest in its blessings." 
 
 Thomas Cartwright, the great Puritan, notwith- 
 standing his subsequent change, may be classed 
 among Non-Episcopalians, and he says : 
 
 " The example of the Apostles, and general practice of the 
 Cliurch under them, draweth a necessity." 
 
 To these we add the judgment of an eminent 
 churchman, to whom Mr. Goode will not object. 
 The excellent Bishop Hall, of Norwich, in his " Epis- 
 copacy by Divine Eight Asserted," maintains : 
 
 " 1st. That government, whose foundation is laid by Christ, 
 and whose fabric is raised by the Apostles, is of divine insti- 
 tution/ 7 
 
 "2nd. The practice and recommendation of the Apostles is 
 sufficient warrant for an Apostolical institution." 
 
 And that by Apostolical, he here means divine will 
 
 appear from what follows : 
 
 " In eminent and authorized persons even examples are rules, 
 much more so in sacred, neither did the Spirit of God confine 
 itself to words, but expressed itself also in the holy actions of 
 Ms inspired servants." 
 
 Having thus shown that in the judgment of men 
 of various creeds, Apostolical institution is divine 
 institution, we infer that even if our Lord himself 
 did not establish Episcopacy, or at least a ministry 
 of divers orders, the fact of its having been estab- 
 lished by his chosen Apostles, gives it divine right, 
 and so makes it binding. 
 
 Our author says this is "raising Episcopacy to 
 a level with things positively commanded." We 
 confess that it is. But, when he adds such things 
 "as Baptism, and the Lord's Supper!' 1 we protest. 
 These are, indeed, things positively commanded, but 
 we have always regarded them as something more. 
 5 
 
50 EXPLANATORY. 
 
 If the Reverend gentleman thinks differently, he will 
 probably be convinced by reading the definition of 
 
 >acrament given in the Church Catechism. 
 
 Here then we leave this subject, for the present ; 
 in the next chapter we shall treat of the difference 
 between "Apostolic precedent" and " Apostolic com- 
 mand," as insisted upon in the book before us. 
 
 Necessary. — When in this discussion we declare 
 anything to be "necessary" or binding, we mean 
 simply that it is required of us by the divine law; it 
 is a thing which, because it is appointed by God, we 
 are not left at liberty to accept or neglect at pleasure ; 
 it is a thing which, under ordinary circumstances, 
 we cannot reject without sin. Yet it by no means 
 follows, as Mr. Goode suggests, that such a thing 
 must be "absolutely necessary." To regard Episco- 
 pacy in this light would be to raise it, not only "to 
 the level" of the Sacraments, but far above them, for 
 they are only "generally necessary." To regard it so 
 would be to put it in a position where it must stand 
 alone ! There is no one thing absolutely necessary 
 as a condition of salvation. Eepentance is not, faith 
 is not, personal holiness is not — because infants are 
 saved without any of these. Theological knowledge 
 or a pure belief is not — for multitudes will be saved 
 at last whose creed was erroneous or defective, and 
 doubtless millions will enter into bliss eternal who 
 in life knew little of mooted points in divinity. 
 Why then should Church order be regarded as more 
 necessary than any or all of these ? Our author 
 w r ould answer, " Why, indeed?" and would try to 
 leave on the minds of his readers the impression that 
 it is so considered by those who differ with him on 
 
EXPLANATORY. 51 
 
 the general subject of his work.* But he cannot 
 succeed. If Archdeacon Denison, or any other indi- 
 vidual, have set forth such an opinion, on him be the 
 responsibility. The Church teaches no such doc- 
 trine. Our author is welcome to this acknowledg- 
 ment. We do not believe that a man will fail of 
 attaining eternal life simply because he does not 
 belong to a properly or perfectly constituted Church ; 
 but we do believe that he ought to belong to such a 
 Church, and that his doing so would conduce greatly 
 to his spiritual advantage and comfort. We hold 
 that Episcopacy being the divinely appointed polity, 
 any organization that rejects it, being thus deficient in 
 structure and authority, is not a true or complete 
 Church. We regard such rejection as schismatic and 
 sinful ; yet we have not the least hesitation in believ- 
 ing that our merciful Lord will pardon this as well 
 as many other errors and defects in those who are 
 misled. 
 
 Mr. Groode quotes with triumph various passages 
 containing acknowledgments similar to this, but we 
 cannot see how they are to help his cause, unless, in- 
 deed, he is able to prove that a thing which is not 
 absolutely necessary is not necessary in any sense. 
 
 Apostolical Succession. — As this very name 
 has become odious to many who judge of the doctrine 
 by the misrepresentations of those who do not hold it, 
 
 * Page 33. — Cartwright,."like Archdeacon Denison, maintained that 
 matters of discipline and kind of government are matters necessary to 
 salvation." 
 
 Page 44. — Episcopacy "has not been authoritatively laid down by 
 Christ or his apostles as of indfsjiensible obligation, and therefore is not 
 binding upon all churches." How a system could be binding upon some 
 Churches and not upon all, the author does not state. 
 
 Page 93. — "Absolute necessity." 
 
02 EXPLANATORY. 
 
 or by the perversions and exaggerations of some who 
 do, it is necessary to state plainly what it is. and what 
 it is not. The doctrine of M Succession" is based upon 
 the principle that man cannot originate a Church ; 
 that is Christ's prerogative. Man cannot, therefore, 
 qualify his fellow man to act as a minister in Christ's 
 Church. Xo one can give to another what he does 
 not possess,, therefore no layman, or number of lay- 
 men., can by any possibility give authority to minis- 
 ter in the "Word and Sacraments, for the simple reason 
 that they themselves have not that authority. Each 
 and every clergyman then must receive his com- 
 mission from at least one who is already in the min- 
 istry; he in turn from others holding the same great 
 office,, and so on back from generation to generation, 
 until we reach those to whom Christ said, " As my 
 Father hath sent me, even so send I you, Go ye there- 
 fore into all the world and preach the gospel to every 
 creature, and Lo, I am with you always, even unto the 
 end of the world/' To all who a^e duly ordained 
 then in this succession belong the special promise of 
 the Lord, the right to preach his Gospel, administer 
 his Sacraments, and exercise discipline in his Church; 
 and these rights or powers belong to no person what- 
 ever who is not so ordained. However pious, zealous, 
 eloquent, or learned a man may be. if he has not been 
 regularly called and sent into the Lord's vineyard by 
 those having lawful authority he is not truly a min- 
 ister of Christ. 
 
 The doctrine thus briefly stated is held and acted 
 upon (with more or less strictness) by every body of 
 Christians that believes in a regular ministry. Even 
 those who systematically denounce, practically main- 
 
EXPLANATORY. 53 
 
 tain it, and others who oppose it zealously have to 
 do so in spite of their own standards. Let us take 
 the case of the Presbyterians, in whose behalf Mr. 
 Goode's book has been written. We will have no 
 difficulty in showing that they, both in their teach- 
 ing and practice, uphold the principle of succession. 
 Their ministers are set apart or " ordained" by a 
 Presbytery, or body of ministers, each one of whom 
 has been himself previously commissioned by prayer 
 and the imposition of hands of other presbyters, and 
 so on back to the Eefor matron, at which time their 
 peculiar system originated ;* and as those who estab- 
 lished it were (in their opinion) duly authorized 
 ministers, the line goes back as before to the Apos- 
 tles. Thus they endeavor to preserve a successive 
 ministry, and so they recognize the theory. But 
 they go further than this. Some ministers of that 
 Church will grant the occasional use of their pulpits 
 to preachers whose commission is questionable ; but 
 the denomination will not receive into their ministry 
 any one, however good or gifted, who has not received 
 his authority in due course from men whom they 
 consider qualified to bestow it. 
 
 Such is their practice.^ Their public teaching 
 corresponds with it. For instance, we ourselves 
 once heard a very eminent professor speak thus at 
 the " ordination" of a former pupil : 
 
 " Though we utterly reject the claims advanced by Epis- 
 
 * " Zuingle asserted the rights of the people in general. Here we see 
 the beginning of the Presbyterian system." — (D' Aubigne's History of the 
 Reformation, vol. iii. p. 248.) 
 
 ■j* The writer is aware that there have been irregularities in this par- 
 ticular, especially in this generation, and in this country, but that Fact 
 does not weaken the statement above. Irregularities cannot be admitted 
 as evidence against law j we reason from the rule, not from exceptions. 
 5* 
 
64 EXPLANATOKY. 
 
 oopalians, we are not, by any means, levellers. We have no 
 sympathy with those who think that laymen can originate a 
 ministry. To ordain ministers of the word is in the power of 
 those, and only those, who have themselves been lawfully admit- 
 ted to that holy calling." 
 
 Still more explicit are these words of a dis- 
 tinguished member of the same Church : 
 
 " I believe in Apostolical Succession, through a line of pres- 
 byters." 
 
 To the same purpose is the following testimony 
 
 from men of the highest standing in the body. 
 
 Eev. Dr. Miller, says : 
 
 11 None are regularly invested with the ministerial character, 
 or can, with propriety, be recognized in this character, but 
 those who have been set apart to the office by persons lawfully 
 clothed with the power of ordaining." — (Letters on Christian 
 Ministry, p. 8.) 
 
 " It is only in so far as any succession flows through the line 
 of Presbyters, that it is either regular or valid." — (Letters, etc., 
 etc., p. 347.) 
 
 Eev. Dr. McLeod, says : 
 
 " A person who is not ordained to office by a Presbytery has 
 no right to be received as a Minister of Christ, his administra- 
 tion of ordinances is invalid, no divine blessing is promised 
 upon his labors ; it is rebellion against the head of the Church 
 to support him in his pretensions ; Christ has excluded him in 
 his providence from admission through the ordinary door, and 
 if he has no evidence of miraculous power to testify his extra- 
 ordinary mission, he is an impostor!" — (Ecclesiastical Cate- 
 chism, p. 30, quoted in How's Vindication, p. 18.) 
 
 But the best proof is to be found in their stand- 
 ards. Of these, the first and chief is the Confession, 
 etc., of the Westminster Assembly ; its teaching is 
 as follows : 
 
 "No man ought to take on him the office of the Ministry, 
 
 without a lawful calling." 
 
 " Ordination is always to be continued in the Church." 
 
 " Every Minister is to be ordained by imposition of hands 
 
 with prayer and fasting, by those preaching presbyters to whom 
 
 it doth belong." 
 
EXPLANATORY. 55 
 
 By this rule even the "lay-elders," so called, are 
 excluded from participating in this work. It is con- 
 fined exclusively to those who are themselves in the 
 Ministerial Succession. If then a party of those 
 "lay-elders" should solemnly lay hands upon some 
 individual, and thus, in their intention, set him apart 
 to the work of the Ministry, no Presbyterian could 
 acknowledge that person as rightly empowered, no 
 Presbytery would admit him. He might be very 
 able, very useful, or even very holy, yet he would 
 be rejected. His right to use his gifts in the sacred 
 office of the Gospel Ministry would be totally denied, 
 because he had not received what they believe to be 
 regular and valid ordination. 
 
 Here, then, is complete agreement with us, as to 
 general doctrine, and the practice based upon it. 
 The}^ maintain what they regard as a true succession 
 in the Ministry ; we do the same. They refuse to 
 accept those whom they consider improperly or- 
 dained, or not ordained at all ; we do just the same. 
 Consequently, every accusation of " uncharitable- 
 ness," or " exclusiveness" preferred against us, affects 
 them also. If we are " popish" in this matter, so are 
 they. If, as Mr. Goode, or his Editor, believes, it is 
 " monstrous" for Churchmen to hold the doctrine of 
 " succession," it is surely no less monstrous for his 
 Non-Episcopal friends to do so. They do not differ 
 from us, to the least extent, in the general principle, 
 nor as to the rights of those who are duly ordained, 
 but as to the party possessing the right or power to 
 ordain. The only question, between us and them, 
 is, does this power belong to "preaching Presbyters," 
 or to the Bishops of the Church ? 
 
56 EXPLANATORY. 
 
 Into the merits of this question we are not now 
 called upon to enter. It is sufficient for our purpose 
 to have proved that the doctrine here defined, though 
 in these days denounced by flippant and partisan 
 writers, is j^et really held by the most important of 
 the Non-Episcopal denominations. 
 
 It must be borne in mind, however, that as those 
 who hold Presbyterian views of Church government, 
 have of late years assailed this doctrine so bitterly, 
 they are popularly regarded as having abandoned 
 all their share in it, and so now-a-days whenever 
 Apostolical Succession is mentioned, it is understood 
 as meaning that which we hold, viz., succession in 
 the line of the Episcopate. It is, in this sense chiefly, 
 if not exclusively, that it will be used in the follow- 
 ing pages : 
 
 There are views of this doctrine, or opinions 
 closely connected with it, which had their origin in 
 the Church of Eome, and for which we find no war- 
 rant in the standards or recognized teachings of our 
 own. These views are always associated with an 
 undue estimate of sacramental virtue and minis- 
 terial (or " priestly") power. They place the mere 
 opus operatum of a duly commissioned Priest far 
 above the most reverent act of devotion that could 
 be performed by one whose authority to minister is 
 at all questionable. On this theory, if a man be 
 only a regularly ordained Minister in the line of the 
 Succession, his acts necessarily confer grace; he has 
 the power to forgive sins, and to speak authori- 
 tatively in the name of Christ, although his doctrine 
 may be heretical, or his life abominable. We freely 
 confess that we would find difficulty in producing 
 
EXPLANATORY. 57 
 
 any very great number of extracts to justify this 
 description.* Such views substantially prevail in the 
 Church of Kome, and have prevailed among those 
 Protestants who have apostatized to her ; but the 
 plain enunciation of them is not common. Yet 
 what we find it hard to prove against a few extre- 
 mists, our author does not hesitate to charge upon 
 all holders of the true doctrine. The exaggerated 
 or Eomish theory is that the possession of the Apos- 
 tolical Constitution, and a properly transmitted au- 
 thority, is enough to constitute a true or perfect 
 Church. Thus Succession is held to be everything, 
 or almost everything, while by Mr. Goode and his 
 followers, it is held to be nothing. Against both 
 extremes our Church protests by her careful preser- 
 
 * Mr. Keble says the "vital and decisive" part of the doctrine of Suc- 
 cession is the necessity of the Apostolical commission to the " derivation 
 of Sacramental grace ;" and again : " The treasury of sound doctrine was 
 to be guarded by the grace of the Apostolical Succession." "Episcopal 
 grace is by God's ordinance the guardian of sound doctrine." 
 
 Dean Hook has not gone so far as some of his quondam associates, 
 yet in the following sentences from his Sermons on the Church, he has 
 certainly gone somewhat farther than he is warranted. " Unless Christ 
 be spiritually present with the Ministers of religion in their services, 
 those services will be vain." "The only ministrations to which he has 
 promised his presence is to those of the Bishops, who are successors of 
 the first commissioned Apostles, and the other Clergy acting under their 
 sanction, and by their authority." This is quite true, if it mean that 
 no official ministrations are authorized and regular, but those of properly 
 ordained men, and none so likely to be fully acceptable to God, but it is 
 not true, if it means that a blessing cannot accompany the devotions of 
 persons, who are irregularly ordained, or not ordained at all. The 
 venerable gentleman forgets that there are more promises than one. 
 Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said : " Wherever two or 
 three are gathered together, in my name, there am I in the midst of 
 them !" 
 
 In the preface to the 3rd and 4th Volume of " Froude's Remains," the 
 Editor (J. H. Newman) says: " To seek communion with Christ through 
 any Non-Episcopal Association, is to be regarded (not as a schism merely, 
 but) as an impossibility." This sentence justifies of itself what has been 
 said above. Its author afterward avowed that his object was " The 
 unprotestantizing of the Established Church." But after such a decla- 
 ration of opinion, the confession was hardly needed. 
 
(58 EXPLANATORY. 
 
 vation af "Evangelical Truth, and Apostolic Order." 
 With her, Succession is much } but purity of doctrine 
 is moke, and both are necessary to constitute a Church 
 in the true and full sense of the term. 
 
 The error as to the authority and worthiness of 
 the individual minister is traceable in the main to 
 that heretical doctrine of the Eoman sect, which 
 makes Holy Orders a Sacrament. As we utterly 
 reject that doctrine, so we reject also the corollary, 
 that the grace required for the proper discharge of 
 the sacred office is conferred in and by the act of 
 Ordination. In our view that solemn rite is for the 
 conveyance of authority, and not of internal qualifi- 
 cations. 
 
 It is not a sufficient reply to this to say, that when 
 the Bishop in ordaining lays his hands upon the 
 candidate he says, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost ;" 
 " "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted," etc., 
 etc. These words are used because it is judged best 
 to keep as close as possible to the model set before 
 ns in Holy Writ ; and inasmuch as they were em- 
 ployed by our Lord when appointing the Apostles to 
 act as his ambassadors, the Church retains them in 
 the service by which others were sent forth to carry 
 on their work. It is not supposed (at least by any 
 Protestant) that, in consequence of the words spoken 
 by our Lord, the Apostles themselves had absolutely 
 power to forgive sins, for that appertaineth to God 
 a] one. And certainly the Church which acknowl- 
 edges this cannot be regarded as claiming that she 
 can give this power to fallible men, or that her 
 Bishop's use of the words is more efficacious than 
 Christ's. Neither will it be contended that the Sa- 
 
EXPLANATORY. 59 
 
 viour's saying "Keceive ye the Holy Ghost," even 
 accompanied as it was by the symbolic action of 
 breathing on the disciples, conveyed to them all 
 necessary qualification for their work; for he himself 
 desired them to tarry at Jerusalem until they should 
 be endued with power from on high ; from which it is 
 manifest that they were not at that time so endued. 
 It was only when the Holy Spirit descended upon 
 them at Pentecost that they received their tongues 
 of fire and were replenished with those sevenfold 
 gifts which enabled them to go forth conquering and 
 to conquer. If then, in what may be properly re- 
 garded as the ordination of the Apostles by their 
 divine Master, neither the acts nor the words He 
 employed conveyed the grace necessary for the dis- 
 charge of their office, no acts or words that any 
 Bishop or other man may use can possibly convey 
 such grace. From our Lord, as Head of the Church, 
 the twelve received their commission ; from the Holy 
 Grhost they received their spiritual qualification.* 
 And so must it be at all times. The Church can 
 by her official act bestow the authority, but she 
 cannot impart the virtues necessary for the proper 
 exercise of the Christian ministry. A man can re- 
 ceive an ordinary and lawful commission only from 
 Christ, through her, but the fitness must come from 
 the Lord, the Spirit, f 
 
 * " Ordinario Vocatio fil a Deo et per homines. Quatenus est a Deo, est 
 interna, quatenus est per homines est externa." — (Bishop Pearson, Minor 
 Theological Works, Vol. i., 291; Goode on Orders, 79.) 
 
 -f- To the present writer it does not seem possible to avoid the force of 
 the common objection against the doctrine of Succession, if more is 
 claimed in it than the transmission of authority. But when a clergy- 
 man, holding what we regard as the Church's view, is asked how he can 
 
00 EXPLANATORY. 
 
 Every Churchman believes, indeed, that a God- 
 fearing candidate, coming with humble and prayerful 
 heart to his ordination. wiU, in answer to his own 
 supplications and those of the Bishop, Presbyters, 
 and people there assembled, receive a blessing, an 
 increase of grace, strengthening his good resolutions 
 and his faith, and comforting his heart with the assur- 
 ance that he shares in the promised presence of the 
 Lord. But very different from this is the idea that 
 a formal, cold-hearted, professional candidate is so 
 blessed, or that a vile hypocrite, upon whom the 
 hands of a Bishop may be duly laid, receives the 
 sanctifying graces of the Holy Spirit, ex opere operate. 
 Such a notion is both wicked and absurd. Mere or- 
 dination works no such magical change ; although it 
 may have been canonically performed, he that was 
 formal before is formal still, he that was unholy is 
 unholy still. 
 
 But to return to " Succession." We would warn 
 the reader against mistaking the meaning of the word 
 as it occurs in quotations from the Fathers and other 
 Christian writers up to the seventeenth century. 
 In the first three or four centuries, when heretical 
 teachers claimed to be exponents of the true faith, 
 they were called upon to show their " succession." 
 This did not mean the fact of their having been or- 
 dained in the regular line of the ministry, but a list 
 of Bishops in any one See holding their doctrines. 
 This is the sense in which the word was frequently, 
 
 value a succession that passed through the vileness of Romanism, he can 
 very readily reply, " Why may I not receive a good commission through, 
 the hands of an unworthy predecessor?" Alexander Borgia and Hilde- 
 brand might hand down legitimate authority, but they could not possibly 
 convey the Holy Ghost. 
 
EXPLANATORY. 61 
 
 if not always, employed during the Reformation 
 period. Thus Harding says to Jewel : — 
 
 "If you can prove no succession, then whereby hold you V 
 "How many Bishops can you reckon whom in the church of Salts- 
 bury you have succeeded, as icell in doctrine as in outward sitting 
 in that chair ?" 
 
 To this Jewel replies, inter alia: — 
 
 ' If it were certain that religion and the truth of God passeth 
 evermore orderly by succession, and none otherwise, then were 
 succession * * * * a very good argument of the truth. But 
 Christ saith * * * By order of succession 'the Scribes and 
 Pharisees sit in Moses' chair/ Annas and Caiaphas, touching 
 succession, were as well Bishops as Aaron and Eleazar." 
 " Howbeit, as the Scribes and Pharisees succeeded Moses, per- 
 verting and breaking the laws of Moses, even so do the Bishops 
 of Home this day succeed Christ, perverting and breaking the 
 laws of Christ." — (Defence of Apology, vol. ii., page 323, etc.) 
 
 Again he says : — 
 
 "Lawful succession standeth not only in succession of places 
 and persons, but also and much rather in doctrine." — (Ibid., 
 page 201.) 
 
 To the same purpose Whittaker says : — 
 
 "Though we should concede the succession of that [the 
 Romish] Church to have been unbroken and entire, yet that 
 would be a matter of no weight ; because ice regard not the ex- 
 ternal succession of persons and places, but the internal one of 
 faith and doctrine." — (Disputations on Scripture, page 510.) 
 
 Such extracts as these are sometimes quoted in the 
 present controversy, but they have no proper connec- 
 tion with it.* The word succession is indeed used in 
 them, but its signification is wholly different from 
 that which it now bears. Our Church has never 
 valued that "succession of persons and places" to 
 which reference is made in these quotations; but 
 she has always required and maintained the other, 
 
 * See Gallagher's " True Church man ship/' page 36, etc. For more on 
 this subject, refer to Appendix, C. 
 6 
 
62 EXPLANATORY. 
 
 namely, a complete ministry, derived from the Apos- 
 tles by unbroken transmission of authority. And, 
 in connection with this, she no less positively requires 
 and maintains succession in the Apostles' doctrine. 
 Of these two, Koine preserves and extols the former. 
 Protestant Non-Episcopal bodies are no less zealous 
 for the latter. Our Church properly values and up- 
 holds both. 
 
 Necessity. — In the controversy about church 
 polity and Orders, this word is used to signify that 
 constraint which force of circumstances may put upon 
 any people, obliging them to depart from settled usage 
 or Scriptural rule. 
 
 "Xecessitas non habet legem'''' was a Koman proverb, 
 the propriety and force of which must be acknowl- 
 edged by all. In reference to our present subject, 
 one of the most eminent of the defenders of our 
 Church uses almost the very words, viz., "Nisi coe- 
 gerit dura necessitas cui nulla lex est posita." {Hadrian 
 Sar avians Reply to Beza) The principle then is freely 
 admitted. Necessity excuseth every defect or irreg- 
 ularity which it really occasions. 
 
 The plea of necessity was advanced by some of 
 the Continental Keformers to excuse their departure 
 from the Scriptural polity of the Church ;* and 
 
 * Luther, Melancthon, and their associates say, in the memorable Augs- 
 burg Confession : •' The Bishops do either force our priests to disclaim and 
 condemn this kind of doctrine, which we have here confessed, or by a 
 certain new and unheard of kind of cruelty put the poor and innocent 
 souls to death. These causes are they which hinder our priests from re- 
 ceiving their Bishops, so as the Bishop is the cause why that canonical 
 government or policy which we earnestly desired to conserve is in some places 
 now dissolved." 
 
 "And now here again we desire to testify to the world that we will 
 willingly conserve the ecclesiastical and canonical government, if only the 
 Bishops will cease to exercise cruelty upon our Churches. This our will 
 shall excuse us before God and before all the world unto all posterity; that 
 
EXPLANATOKY. 63 
 
 their English, brethren, who were in some respects 
 more favorably situated, did not feel at liberty to re- 
 fuse the plea, or to upbraid them on account of the 
 deficiencies which they themselves professed to de- 
 plore. In tenderness, therefore, to their feelings, they 
 refrained from all unnecessary allusion to the subject. 
 Having themselves to do battle against Eome, the 
 great enemy of all, they were rejoiced that their 
 brethren had been emancipated from its creed and 
 power; and they knew too well the necessity for 
 union against a foe so mighty and so unscrupulous, 
 to repel those who offered to aid them in the strife. 
 If indeed no plea of necessity had been advanced, it 
 may be well questioned whether the English Re- 
 formers could have made even so much of an alli- 
 ance as they did ; but since it was put forth, there 
 could be no reasonable ground for refusal. On this 
 account, then, the divines of the English Church did 
 unquestionably entertain and express the most kindly 
 feelings toward the ministers and people of the foreign 
 Reformed Churches. But this fact proves nothing 
 for Mr. Groode. To sympathize with the Protestants 
 of Germany or Geneva is one thing ; to acknowledge 
 their Churches as perfect, or their ministers as validly 
 ordained, is another. Proofs of sympathy and fra- 
 ternal feeling may be produced in abundance, but 
 acknowledgments of validity, etc., will be sought in 
 vain. 
 
 it may not be unjustly imputed unto us that the authority of Bishops is 
 impaired amongst us, when men shall hear and read, that we, earnestly 
 deprecating the unjust cruelty of the Bishops, could obtain no equal meas- 
 ure at their hands." — {Confess. Augsburg, in Symbolical books of Lutheran 
 Church, and also in appendix to Page's edition of Burnet on the Thirty- 
 Nine Articles.) 
 
 For more on this subject, see Appendix, B. 
 
64 EXPLANATORY. 
 
 And yet, if such could be furnished, a candid rea- 
 soner would not attempt to wring from that fact an 
 argument in favor of those who have no necessity to 
 plead. 
 
 The course of the Continental divines, with refer- 
 ence to the subject before us, was by no means uni- 
 form. Some of them were very inconsistent ; but 
 the English Church was by no means called upon to 
 notice the writings of individual men, however prom- 
 inent they might be. Therefore, when some, espe- 
 cially of the second generation, defended that pecu- 
 liarity of their system which its founders professed 
 to lament, she did not issue any protest or anathema. 
 They were beyond her jurisdiction ; and therefore 
 she did not feel at liberty to interfere, further than 
 by continuing, as from the first, to bear public testi- 
 mony, by her formularies and her practice, to the 
 truth she held. Her divines did indeed, from time to 
 time, enter the lists of discussion with the Continental 
 assertersof Presbyterianism ; but so careful was the 
 Church to avoid all cause of complaint on the part 
 of those w^ho were yet weak, and by whom opposition 
 was in any way deprecated, that even her staunchest 
 defenders wrote only on general principles, making 
 no direct assault upon the Churches to which their 
 adversaries belonged. This generous consideration 
 was not always appreciated.* 
 
 But while some of the foreign divines tried to 
 defend and to propagate their defective and unscrip- 
 
 * Beza, who complained that Dr. Sutcliff printed an argument that 
 touched him, did not himself scruple to interfere with the peace of the 
 Kn^lish Church, and even went so far as to recommend that -the power 
 of the sword should be used to propagate hi3 favorite system. — (See his 
 correspondence with Whitgift, in Strypes's Life of W., appendix.) 
 
EXPLANATORY. 65 
 
 tural system, others of more reasonable spirit ac- 
 knowledged its real character,* and some openly 
 declared that, if such a thing were possible, they 
 would gladly re-establish the Apostolic polity. Thus 
 the "plea of necessity" was continued. 
 
 In addition to the ample evidence given elsewhere, 
 that the Continental Reformers bore their testimony 
 to the excellence and the Scriptural authority of Epis- 
 copacy, and expressed great regret at being (as they 
 believed) obliged to do without it, we print here one 
 or two passages, which will be sufficient to establish 
 the statement just made. 
 
 Hierome Zanchy, writing to Queen Elizabeth, A.D. 
 
 1571, says: — 
 
 "Your Majesty should rather consider and employ all your 
 consideration, authority, and influence to this end, that you 
 may have in the first place Bishops truly pious and well in- 
 structed in sacred learning, as, by the blessing of God, you 
 already possess very many ; and [you] should encourage and 
 attend to them." " The Elders [or Presbyters] in like man- 
 ner, and the Deacons, are to be admonished, that every one be 
 diligent in his office." **■** " For these three orders of men 
 are the nerves of the Church, vpon which its safety or downfall 
 depends." — (Zurich Letters, Vol. ii., 352.) 
 
 Even Theodore Beza himself, in his letter to Arch- 
 bishop Whitgift, says : — 
 
 "In my writings touching Church government I ever im- 
 pugned the Romish Hierarchy, but never intended to touch or 
 impugn the ecclesiastical polity of the Church of England/' 
 
 Again, in his reply to Saravia, he speaks of Epis- 
 copacy as " a singular blessing of God, and prays that 
 the English Church may always enjoy it!" . 
 
 In nowise different from these are the sentiments of 
 Isaac Casaubon, Fregevil, and others cited by Bishop 
 
 * See Appendix, B. 
 6* 
 
66 EXPLANATORY. 
 
 or of Peter du Moulin, Gaclies of Charenton, De 
 Le Angle, Lectures of Geneva, Dr. Du Moulin, Mon- 
 sieur Bose, etc., etc., as shown by Dr. Durell, in his 
 " View of the Foreign Reformed Churches," and 
 quoted also in "How's Vindication," pp. 193-202. 
 At the Synod of Dort, [A.D., 1618-19] : 
 
 11 When the Bishop of Landaff [Carleton] had, in a speech of 
 his. touched upon Episcopal government, and showed that the 
 want thereof gave opportunities to those divisions which were 
 then on foot in the Netherlands, Bogermannus, the President 
 of that Assembly, and in a good allowance of what had been 
 spoken, said : ' Alas, my Lord, we are not so happy ! ' Neither 
 did he speak this in a fashionable compliment (neither the per- 
 son, nor the place, nor the hearers were fit for that), but in a 
 sad gravity and conscionable profession of a known truth. " — 
 [Bishop Hall's Episcopacy by Divine Eight, part 1, sec. 4.) 
 
 Bishop Carleton himself testifies that in a confer- 
 ence with some of the most learned divines of that 
 Synod, they declared that they 
 
 " Had a great honor for the good order and discipline of the 
 Church of England, and heartily wished they could establish 
 themselves upon this model ; but they had no prospect of such a 
 happiness ; and since the civil government had made their desires 
 impracticable they hoped God would be merciful to them." — 
 (Brandt 1 s Reformation, Vol. iii., p. 288. Collier 's Ecclesiastical 
 History, Vol. ii., p. 718. How's Vindicatiou, p. 206.) 
 
 Those who remonstrated against the conduct and 
 theological decisions of that Synod, did not differ 
 from it on this point, as may be seen by the judgment 
 of Grotius, quoted in the Appendix. Nor was there 
 any difference in the opinion of the more moderate 
 of their divines in later times. As for instance, Le 
 Clerc, the eminent Presbyterian clergyman of Am- 
 sterdam, in his addition to the famous work of Gro- 
 tius, says : u Si Ejnscopi tunc tempons idem" etc., etc., 
 etc. [in preference to giving the whole passage in 
 
EXPLANATORY. 67 
 
 Latin, we print some sentences from Clark's trans- 
 lation] : 
 
 " If the Bishops everywhere at that time had been willing 
 to do of their own accord what was not long after done in Eng- 
 land, that [the Episcopal] government had prevailed, even to 
 this day, amongst all who separated from the Romish Church/' 
 " For if we would judge of the matter truly there was no other 
 reason for changing the government than this, that whilst the 
 ancient government remained nothing could be procured, however 
 just, in itself Therefore the Presbyterian form is appointed 
 in many places, which, after it was once done, was so much for 
 the interest of all them who presided in the state affairs in those 
 places, and is so at this time (A. D, 1709] not to have it changed, 
 that it must or necessity be continued. Wherefore prudent 
 men, though they above all things wish for apostolical form of 
 Church Government, and that it might be everywhere alike ; 
 yet they think things had better be left in the state in which they 
 now are than venture the hazards that always attend the attempt 
 of new things." — (Le Clerc's Edition of Groiiv ■? de Veritat. 
 Relig. Christ., reprint, 12mo., London, 1823, pp. L08, 209. 
 
 Protestations like these would, of course, have 
 great weight with the authorities of the English 
 Church. They caused that friendly silence to which 
 we have referred above, and made the judgment of 
 individual divines as gentle as even charity could 
 demand. Thus, says the eminent Bishop Andrews 
 in his second letter to Molinoeus : 
 
 " Quceris turn peccentne in jus divinum ecclesioz vestrce? Non 
 dixi. Id tantum dixi. Abesse ab ecclesiis vestris aliquid, quod de 
 jure divino sit : culpa autem vestrd non abesse sed injuria tem- 
 porum." — (Opusada, London, 1629, p. 195.) 
 
 He was obliged in conscience to say that there was 
 a great defect in their churches ; but the blame he 
 was willing to lay upon the circumstances in which 
 they were placed. 
 
 To the same effect precisely, Dr. T. Puller, in his 
 "Moderation of the Church of England," says: 
 
 " Although our Church hath had the peculiar happiness of 
 
1>S EXPLANATORY. 
 
 a Monarchical Reformation, and retained the blessing of Epis- 
 copal government ; yet such is the moderation of our Church, 
 Bhe imputes the want of the same in other Reformed Churches, 
 muck to any J'ault'of those churches themselves, but rather 
 to the injuri/ 0/ the times." — (Page 261.) 
 
 One who was towards the Church of England 
 cither a friend or a candid adversary, could not, as it 
 seems to us, misunderstand or misrepresent this 
 courteous forbearance. Yet it has been referred to 
 as if it showed something more than a charitable 
 desire to overlook irregularities that w r ere confessed, 
 and to avoid controversy as long as it was possible. 
 Some persons cannot see the difference between not 
 denouncing and actually approving, and it would ap- 
 pear that our author is one of them. We cannot on 
 any other supposition account for his publishing the 
 following as if it served his purpose. It is from Dr. 
 Crakanthorp's Defensio Ecclesise Anglicanse : 
 
 " We desire, indeed, from our hearts that since that law of 
 necessity is taken away, all their churches would also determine 
 to return to that mode of ordaining , and that original order most 
 constantly obsw^ved by the universal Church, and that they would 
 restore to the Bishops their authority ; but this we wish, we do 
 not compel. We have neither right nor power over these churches, 
 nor do we desire it." 
 
 This is precisely as if a man should say, " I wish 
 from my heart my neighbor would do right, and be 
 a better man ; but I can only regret his course, I can- 
 not amend it, I have no power to control him, nor do 
 I desire it." Would any one think of quoting this 
 as indicating a very high and especial esteem for the 
 party spoken of? Would any fair-minded person 
 use it to prove that the speaker acknowledged the 
 propriety of his neighbor's course on the very points 
 referred to ? 
 
EXPLANATOKY. 69 
 
 However favorably the English Church may have 
 regarded the foreign Protestants for the sake of the 
 side they took on the great questions then at issue 
 or however much she desired to maintain a friendly 
 peace with them, she never once made any such 
 " acknowledgment" or admission as Mr. Goode as- 
 serts : nor can her general friendliness be tortured 
 into anything like a recognition of " the validity of their 
 orders ;" but, on the other hand, the course pursued 
 toward their Puritan imitators shows conclusively 
 that she did not admit the sufficiency of Presbyterian 
 ordination when it had no " necessity" to excuse it, 
 and claimed to be acknowledged on its own merits. 
 
 The whole plea of necessity has been strongly 
 opposed by some writers of our Church on the fol- 
 lowing grounds — 1st. Certain Bishops, such as 
 Herman, of Cologne, John Thurzo, of Breslaw, and 
 others, were so far favorable to the Eeformation that 
 through them a valid consecration to the Episcopal 
 office might have been attained. 2nd. But even if 
 this were not possible there could be no just grounds 
 for interfering with the arrangements of the univer- 
 sal Church, and disregarding the authority of Scrip- 
 ture. The salvation of men did not depend so com- 
 pletely upon the continuance of the ministerial office 
 that they were warranted in violating law for the 
 purpose of perpetuating it. If the line of ordainers 
 had indeed been allowed to fail, that fact would ex- 
 cuse the absence of ordained men, but it certainly 
 did not confer new powers on any one, and therefore 
 would not excuse the assumption of such powers. 
 How could any individual say that he personally was 
 obliged to ordain a man, or how could any other plead 
 
70 EXPLANATORY. 
 
 that he was compelled to receive ordination at the 
 hands of a Presbytery ? * 
 
 There is great force in these objections ; neverthe- 
 less we think it far better to grant all that the Foreign v 
 Churches claimed in the way of necessity, inasmuch 
 as the English Church certainly did so at the time.f 
 
 Order and Office. — The Apostles appointed certain 
 persons to assist and to succeed them in the work of 
 preaching the Gospel ; and forasmuch as those per- 
 sons were set apart in common for one great work^ 
 they belong so far to OXE order, that is they were all 
 Ministers of Christ. But the Apostles did not assign 
 to all the same duties and powers. Some had one 
 sort of service to perform and some another, and to 
 those of each class was given the authority necessary 
 for the fulfilment of its proper function. The classes 
 into which the Ministry was thus 'divided were three, 
 and similar (as we hold) in all essential points to those 
 now known among us as Bishops, Presbyters, and 
 DEACONS. If then we now-a-days speak with reference 
 to the rank of any Minister, we say " he belongs to. 
 
 * See Bishop Whittingham's Xotes, pp. 35±, 355, etc., American Edi- 
 tion of Palmer on the Chureh. Also, Bishop H. X. Onderdonk, Xote E 
 appended to his work "Episcopacy tested by Scripture/' Bishop Hobart 
 in a note to the "Collection of Essays," published in 1806. says he "had 
 no reference to those cases of necessity in which some Episcopalians think 
 Presbyterian ordination may be admitted. 
 
 f Bishop Hall, addressing Grahame, says of " Churches abroad," 
 "They plead to be by a kind of necessity cast upon that condition which 
 you have willingly chosen. They were not, they cocld not be what you 
 were and might still have been !" 
 
 Archbishop Laud says, in his Conference with Fisher, § 21, Xo. 3, 
 "The [foreign] Protestants did not depart: for departure is voluntary, 
 so was not theirs. I say not theirs, taking their whole body and cause 
 together. For that some among them were peevish, and some ignorantly 
 zealous, is neither to be doubted, nor is there danger in confessing it." 
 
 Testimony to the same effect could be given from many others, but 
 these are sufficient. 
 
EXPLANATOKY. 71 
 
 the Order of Deacons/' or " Presbyters;" while, if we 
 are considering his work, we say his is the Office of 
 " a Deacon," or " a Bishop," as the case may be. 
 There could be no misunderstanding this. But the 
 Church of Eome added four Orders to the three that 
 were divinely appointed ; and, as additional degrees 
 were, from time to time, formed in her towering 
 hierarchy, and new Orders could not continually be 
 added, she had at last several ranks of persons belong- 
 ing to one Order! and these were described as differ- 
 ing, each from the other, merely in dignity and office. 
 Thus ambiguity arose. In the English Church [and 
 even in our own] we have clergymen filling certain 
 positions w r hich have attached thereto special duties 
 and rights ; but it is not supposed by any one that 
 these — that is to say, Archdeacons, Deans, or Pre- 
 siding Bishops — are separate Orders. This is the 
 key to the whole difficulty. While it is perfectly 
 legitimate to speak of the sacred Office of a Bishop, 
 or a Deacon, it would be totally wrong to say " the 
 holy Order of Archbishops." Both words can be 
 used for those degrees in the ministry which are of 
 divine institution, but to them the title of " Order " 
 is now generally restricted. If this is borne in mind 
 all the hair-splitting of Schoolmen, and all the confu- 
 sion which the Eoman canonists or Mr.'Goode can 
 make, will not prevent our seeing the point at issue. 
 Some, or indeed most of those whom he quotes as 
 holding to parity of Order, believed also that the dif- 
 ference in Office which they acknowledged was of 
 divine appointment; but Mr. Goode does not mean to 
 represent it in this light. Whatever may have been 
 their view, he uses their words to support his own, 
 
72 EXPLANATORY. 
 
 and that is simply this — that a Bishop differs from 
 an Elder only in so far as an Archbishop differs from 
 other Bishops, which is just so far as, by human au- 
 thority, he has been called to higher honor and juris- 
 diction; that in fact he has no more Scriptural warrant 
 for his peculiar position and work than an Archdeacon 
 has for his! 
 
 If the Diaconate be granted as a Scriptural Order, 
 then, on this theory, there are only two Orders in 
 the Christian Ministry ; if it be cast aside as also a 
 " human institution," then there is but ONE ! 
 
 Contrary as this theory is to our settled belief, we 
 confess that its advocates can make a respectable 
 show of argument for it ; but we are amazed at the 
 hardihood of the man who undertakes to show that 
 it is the doctrine of the Episcopal Church ! 
 
 Church. — The definition of the visible Church 
 
 of Christ, as given in the Nineteenth Article, is as 
 
 follows : — 
 
 " A congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word 
 of God is preached, and the sacraments -"be duly administered 
 in all those things that are of necessity requisite to the same/' 
 
 This seems to be sufficiently clear and full, but it 
 has not by any means put an end to controversy upon 
 the matter. There are almost as many different opin- 
 ions about the meaning of the Article as there were 
 before about the word it defines. 
 
 One person will require, according to this explana- 
 tion, that every member shall be in deed and in truth 
 a "faithful " man ; and, if this be not the case, he with- 
 draws himself from that which he declares cannot be 
 the Church of Christ.* Another will insist upon the 
 
 * This is almost always the plea of the Separatist. 
 
EXPLANATORY. 73 
 
 preaching of what he believes to be "the pure word of 
 God;" and if it is wanting, he unhesitatingly says, 
 "No Church I"* While a third no less rigorously 
 demands that what he considers necessary to the due 
 administration of the sacraments shall be found in it; 
 and if not, he says, "No Church !"f 
 
 In our opinion, they are all in error. The first 
 [or Puritan] interpretation, is plainly overthrown by 
 the Twenty-Sixth Article, which says that "in the 
 visible Church the evil are ever mingled with the 
 good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority." 
 The second [or strict doctrinarian] view is refuted 
 by the second paragraph of the Article itself, for 
 therein is mentioned several Churches in which the 
 pure word of Grod is not preached. The third view 
 seems, at the very least, as reasonable as the second, 
 and to many will appear even more so, but it has not 
 a particle of warrant in any of our official documents, 
 and it seems to be in direct contradiction to the spirit 
 of St. Paul's saying, " Ecclesia kat' oikon," as well as 
 that of Tertullian, quoted by Bishop Jewel: "Yea, 
 and be there but three together, and though they be 
 laymen, yet is there a Church/" From these quota- 
 tions, we see that the title may be given, as in some 
 respects appropriate, even where there is no warrant 
 whatever for administering sacraments or exercising 
 any regular function of the ministry. 
 
 So then literal conformity on the part of any 
 society to the Church's own definition is not indis- 
 
 * Richard Hooker and Bishop Bull were regarded as almost heretics, 
 because they acknowledged that the Church of Rome was a Church at 
 all, or that salvation could be obtained by any one living in communion 
 with her. 
 
 f Newman and Keble, as quoted before, on page 57. 
 7 
 
71 EXPLANATORY. 
 
 pensible to acknowledgment of ecclesiastical cha- 
 racter ; and if this be so, still less requisite is con- 
 formity to the opinions or requirements of an in- 
 dividual or a party. One person might insist that 
 unless the doctrine of "imputed righteousness/' or 
 "perseverance," be taught, the truth is not set forth, 
 and consequently there is no Church ; and another 
 may hold that unless there is a complete and regularly 
 consecrated ministry, there can be no administration 
 of sacraments, and consequently no Church of Christ 
 in any sense whatever, but both are wrong; they 
 undertake to determine what the Church has not 
 determined, and on the authority of their own pri- 
 vate judgment they deny wholly, that which more 
 moderate men are willing to acknowledge in part. 
 
 There is a sense then in which the name of Church 
 may be freely granted to all those Christian bodies 
 for which it is claimed. Let it be understood to 
 mean no more than that the Society is part of the 
 great body of persons who believe in the Lord Jesus 
 — let the Church Catholic be regarded, as the Con- 
 gregation of all those who profess and call them- 
 selves Christians — who hold either in form or sub- 
 stance the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and who are 
 baptized in the name of GOD, The Father, The 
 Son, and The Holy Ghost, and then there can be 
 no hesitation in granting that the "Evangelical 
 denominations" are included in it. The name of 
 "Church" may be freely given to the Eomanists, on 
 the one hand, or to the Presbyterians, on the other. 
 But in neither case does such use of the word imply 
 that the body is all that it ought to be in doctrine or 
 
EXPLANATORY. 75 
 
 constitution, or that we should receive its Ministers 
 as orthodox and validly commissioned. 
 
 The definition just offered, is, we believe, implied 
 in the " prayer for all sorts and conditions of men" 
 in our matchless Liturgy. It is certainly not narrow 
 or uncharitable, nor is it too lax. It grants no more 
 than the whole world concedes, and what we believe 
 God himself will acknowledge. It surrenders nothing 
 that is a matter of faith or conscience. 
 
 It is somewhat strange, however, that even in this 
 most general sense the English Church has never once 
 in an official document given the title to any Non- 
 Episcopal body.* This fact does not, in our opinion, 
 justify the inference that many draw from it, but yet 
 it deserves some consideration. If, as our author 
 thinks, there was evident care taken in drawing up 
 our formularies and profession of faith, " not to ex- 
 clude" Non-Episcopalians, this fact certainly goes as 
 far to show that care was taken not to recognize them. 
 
 To get over this great difficulty, Mr. Goode and 
 his followers endeavor to show that the bodies they 
 patronize were held in full honor and esteem by the 
 English Church, and they proceed thus : 1st. They 
 boldly claim as Presbyterian a Church which had 
 both Bishops and Archbishops, and then in the fact 
 that it was named among those that were to be 
 publicly prayed for, they affect to find a recognition 
 of Non- Episcopal Churches !f 2nd. They point to 
 the desired title as occurring in a private letter, or 
 
 * Such mention may have been made, but after diligent search we have 
 not found it. 
 
 f Goode on Orders, pp. 19, 20. Also, True Churchmanship Vindicated, 
 by Rev. M. Gallagher, p. 30. 
 
76 EXPLANATORY. 
 
 some other document, for the language of which the 
 Church is not responsible, and this they represent as 
 official acknowledgment. Thus our author, speaking 
 of the Act of Uniformity, A. D., 1662, says that 
 there is even in it a distinct " recognition " of the 
 Non-Episcopal bodies."* We turn to the law [14 
 Car. ii. Cap. iv.], and there we read : 
 
 " $ 15. Provided: That the penalties of this Act shall not 
 extend to the foreigners, or aliens of the foreign reformed 
 churches allowed, or to be allowed, by the King's Majesty, his 
 heirs and successors, in England." 
 
 And so mere mention of the word " Churches," and 
 that in an Act of Parliament, which those writers claim 
 to have been " dictated by state policy," is a full or 
 u distinct recognition of the Non- Episcopal bodies /" 
 
 In the preface to our American Prayer Book, the 
 word occurs in the same way, mere mention is made 
 of other religious bodies by the title they receive in 
 common parlance, and this is triumphantly pointed 
 to as a very positive recognition.*}* On the same 
 principle, whenever we mention a '"Unitarian," we 
 must be supposed to acknowledge that, the word 
 properly describes the character of his belief. Or if 
 we say a Minister is a " Baptist," we acknowledge 
 that he belongs to the body which alone baptizes 
 properly ! No such claim is ever advanced, and it 
 would not be granted, for a moment, if it were. The 
 use of such words involves no " acknowledgments" 
 or admissions whatever. Unless we would be con- 
 sidered markedly uncivil, we must conform to the 
 
 * See the same assertion in the Review of the Pastoral Letter, issued 
 by Bishop H. Potter, by Rev. Dr. Canfield, p. 18. 
 
 f Letter to Right Rev. Horatio Potter, D. D., Bishop of New York, 
 by the Rev. E. H. Canfield, D. D., p. 9. Also, his " Review," p. 8, and 
 Gallagher's " True Churchmanship," p. 10. 
 
EXPLANATORY. 77 
 
 common speech of the times, and give to all others 
 the titles which they claim, or which custom has 
 sanctioned, and this we may do without any, the 
 least, compromise of principle. No fair antagonist 
 will attempt to find anything like a " recognition" or 
 " admission" in such courteous yielding to ordinary 
 usage.* If this is a new thing with our author, if 
 he is not familiar with such phrases as "the Uni- 
 tarian Church," or " the Universalist Church " his 
 American friends and disciples certainly are, but 
 they would never dream of supposing that such 
 language involved full recognition of the bodies 
 tli us indicated. Yet doubtless even these were 
 among the "Churches" so called in the preface to 
 our Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 Unchurching. — This is a word of mischievous 
 character, seldom or never used (at least in this day), 
 by any one friendly to the Episcopal Church. It is 
 mischievous because it is indefinite, and yet carries 
 odium with it. The accusation against us that we 
 unchurch other bodies makes us appear as most un- 
 charitable ; but when examined closely, it means 
 simply this : that we are not latitudinarian. We 
 have a decided and conscientious preference for the 
 Church to which we belong, and therefore will not 
 admit that other religious bodies are in all respects 
 as Scriptural and complete as it is. This is the head 
 
 * If the Reader will take the trouble of examining Dr. Hook's Church 
 Dictionary, he will find it stated, that Church Clergymen (however 
 "high" their views) never hesitate to give the title, " Rev./' to the "Dis- 
 senting teacher," whose clerical character they will not, for a moment, 
 admit. And if he will look into Butler's book on the " Confessions of 
 Faith," he will see in probably a hundred places the word "Church" 
 applied to the Protestant denominations, by a Roman Catholic controver- 
 sialist* 
 
 7* 
 
78 EXPLANATORY. 
 
 and front of our offending. This causes all the 
 complaints. If we say to Non-Episcopalians, "We 
 are perfectly willing to acknowledge you as Chris- 
 tians, and to confess that in connection with your 
 societies salvation may be had ; but we think your 
 doctrines erroneous, or your organization mainly de- 
 fective, or your ministry unauthorized," such a pro- 
 fession would not be favorably accepted. The answer 
 would be, "That, sir, is just as bad as unchurching 
 us;" but it is far from it. The real extent of our 
 uncharitableness is simply this : Not that we deny 
 to the* various Non-Episcopal societies all Christian 
 or Churchly character, which alone would be "un- 
 churching " them, but that we do not look upon them 
 as the equals, or even, possibly, as the superiors of 
 our own. 
 
 We are aware that some few Ultraists have de- 
 clared that bodies having a defective organization 
 cannot possibly be regarded as Churches in any sense; 
 and that their members, if they can be saved at all, 
 will be saved only through " uncovenanted mercy." 
 "But with this view we have no sympathy ; we repu- 
 diate it utterly, and we deny that the Episcopal 
 Church is responsible for it. So few are the holders 
 of it, that we believe it would be impossible to find 
 even twelve men of any weight in our body who have 
 ever defended it. Yet this is the doctrine generally 
 described by opponents as that of the whole Protest- 
 ant Episcopal Church ; and it is that which, by Mr. 
 Goode, is attributed to all who differ with him on the 
 subject now discussed.* 
 
 Properly speaking, there can be no such thing as 
 
 * " Goode on Orders," Introduction, p. viiL 
 
EXPLANATORY. 79 
 
 unchurching, save by the parties concerned. If they 
 possess the true and necessary characteristics of 
 Churches, they are such in despite of what we or 
 any others might say ; and if they do not possess 
 them, all the wrangling that could be done from 
 now until doomsday could not better their case. 
 Their right does not at all depend on our favor, 
 but on their own faith and practice. 
 
 "High Churchman " and "Low Churchman." 
 — These names were at first used to designate parties 
 who differed rather about political than religious 
 matters. And although they have lost this "original 
 application, it must be confessed that there is some- 
 thing even yet in the differences between the two 
 which closely resembles those between the political 
 parties in all free countries. The High Churchman 
 is simply the Ecclesiastical "conservative," and the 
 Low Churchman the Ecclesiastical " liberal." ' 
 
 It would not be possible to describe either in a 
 manner that would give satisfaction, or indeed with- 
 out running to some extent into the misrepresenta- 
 tions and extreme statements against which they each 
 have reason to protest. The present writer regards 
 the normal representatives of both classes as loyal 
 to the Church, devotedly attached to its services, and 
 firmly persuaded of its full sufficiency and authority. 
 They both give the first place in their reverence and 
 regard to the Holy Scriptures, and the second to the 
 Book of Common Prayer ; and they both desire (and 
 desire equally) to see the work of the Lord prosper 
 in their hand. The differences between them may 
 be fairly stated thus : 
 
 The High Churchman values the regular ordinances 
 
EXPLANATORY. 
 
 of public worship, and especially the Sacraments, 
 more highly than his " Evangelical " brother does, 
 lie attaches more importance to the polity and disci- 
 pline of the Church, and is more jealous than the other 
 of anything that looks like or seems to threaten a 
 breach of its unity. He is a lover of good works, 
 and always insists upon them as necessary to the 
 completeness of the Christian character. He is not 
 given to novelties either in doctrine or practice. He 
 follows the faith of his fathers, not simply because 
 it was theirs, but because it commends itself to his 
 intellect and heart ; and he finds its best exposition 
 and defence in the writings of the theological giants 
 of his own Church. Jewel and Hooker, Andrews, 
 Hall, Chillingworth, Barrow, Jeremy Taylor, Sander- 
 son, Bull, Hopkins, Hammond, Pearson, Farindon, 
 and Waterlaud, are his favorites; and in them he 
 finds a strength and fullness for which he might 
 search in vain elsewhere. Therefore his library con- 
 tains comparatively few new books. And so it is 
 with his Church. It has an old-fashioned air ; its 
 decorations are what they always were ; its services 
 do not vary in accordance with the prevailing notions 
 or supposed necessities of the age. 
 
 The Low Churchman is more afraid of formalism 
 than of irregularity. He has certainly no love for 
 schism, but is not quite so averse to it, nor so suspi- 
 cious of it, as his brother. He loves the Liturgy, 
 but yet acknowledges that he w r ould fain see a few 
 changes in it. His attachment is not so perfect that 
 he will not, when occasion serves, dispense with its 
 use. He also is zealous for good works, but fearing 
 that, if much insisted on, they might be regarded as 
 
EXPLANATORY. 81 
 
 meritorious, lie prefers to make faith the chief subject 
 of his discourse. He has less reverence for antiquity, 
 and more sympathy with the spirit and labors of the 
 present, than the other. He imports much of his 
 theology, or at least finds much that is agreeable to 
 him, in other than Episcopal divines. Like his High 
 Church brother, he too has Hooker, Hall, Pearson, 
 and Hopkins in his library, but alongside are Owen, 
 Erskine, Baxter, Bates, Doddridge, and Dwight, or 
 possibly Eichard Watson and the saintly Fletcher. 
 He looks upon his own Church as the purest and 
 most complete branch of the great household of faith, 
 but he has great charity for those who belong to other 
 folds, and he is always ready to say from his heart, 
 " Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus 
 Christ in sincerity." 
 
 There are ultraists in both these parties, and, like 
 most other extremes, they meet. The particular in 
 which they agree is this, that neither are fully satis- 
 fied with the Church just as it is. Although they 
 would carry out their views in very different ways, 
 they agree in believing that it requires improvement. 
 Like the coats in Dean Swift's story, the Church 
 would soon assume a motley aspect, if these were 
 allowed to fashion it here and there, after their new 
 theories. One would bedizen it with extra lace and 
 other ornaments ; the other would rather tear off the 
 little that is left. Meanwhile, he who is entirely con- 
 tent with it in its present state, and so feels bound to 
 resist the efforts of both, is looked upon as a common 
 enemy.* But enough on this subject. 
 
 * Bishop Henshaw, in his Memoir of Bishop Moore, has (in the way 
 of supposition) sketched the High and the Low Churchman in the two 
 
82 EXPLANATORY. 
 
 As regards the question before us, the High and 
 the Low Churchman unite»in considering Episcopacy 
 a divine institution, and a properly derived authority 
 a sine qua non to lawful ministering in the Church. 
 
 phases of those characters, namely, the normal or moderate, and the ex- 
 treme. His description of the latter is in substance this: 
 
 The extreme High Churchman depends on union with an Apostolic 
 ministry and the reception of Sacraments duly administered. He rever- 
 ences tradition, or at least the opinions of the Fathers, as constituting 
 with Holy Scripture the rule of Faith. He discountenances all religious 
 associations or services, however good their object, that are not in direct 
 harmony with the spirit or appointments of the Church, and seems to 
 regard a prayer-meeting as more dangerous than a meeting for worldly 
 amusements. He holds the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration in its 
 strongest sense, and is willing to rest in it, being comparatively indif- 
 ferent to renovation of heart. 
 
 The extreme Low Churchman attaches little importance to Episcopacy ; 
 he regards it as resting on no higher ground than that of expediency, and 
 therefore not at all necessary to the being of a Church, nor even neces- 
 sary (when rightly considered) to Ms perfection. He looks upon the Sac- 
 raments as mere matters of form and ceremony [to be observed in obe- 
 dience to divine command], rather than as signs and seals of the covenant 
 of grace [or "means whereby we receive" spiritual strength and com- 
 fort]. His regard for the Liturgy is loose and languid, and he is willing 
 to abridge or mutilate it, or even to omit it altogether, as convenience or 
 caprice may dictate. 
 
 It will be seen from these sketches that the good Bishop was not wholly 
 free from bias. To the Ultraist on one side he gives only the character 
 of an irregular Churchman; while the other is represented as no more 
 than a mere formalist, destitute of all true religious feeling or practical 
 godliness. This is not just. That there are such we do indeed believe; 
 but no less firmly do we believe, much as we differ from them, that many 
 even of those called "Puseyites" are eminently devout and earnest- 
 minded Christians. 
 
 With the exceptions thus indicated, the descriptions are fair. They 
 might be supplemented thus: 
 
 The extreme High Churchman pays scrupulous regard to the Rubrics, 
 regarding them as an iron rule, while the other looks upon them as pos- 
 sessing no real force or importance, mere dead letters, so far as they in- 
 terfere with modern notions or convenience, or what he calls " charity." 
 The extreme Low Churchman is generally [not invariably] a Calvinist ; 
 the other rejects all predestinarian views. In their views of the Sacra- 
 ments they differ no less. The latter holds a doctrine not unlike the 
 consubstantiation of the Lutheran; the other holds that of Zuingle, or 
 even of the Socinians. The extreme Low Churchman looks upon the 
 Pope as the true and only Antichrist, and fancies that he can see a lean- 
 ing towards him in the cut of a coat, or the wearing of a clerical vest; 
 the other believes that "there are many Antichrists," especially those 
 who " deny the Father and the Son," and he sees in loose views of Church 
 polity a tendency to this destructive system. The extreme High Church- 
 
EXPLANATOKY. 83 
 
 They also agree in believing that real necessity in 
 this, as in every other matter, abrogates law, and 
 makes valid whatever is performed under it. But 
 the High Churchman is not quite willing to grant 
 that there was insuperable difficulty in the way of 
 the Continental Eeformers ; still less will he acknowl- 
 edge that their descendants have the least excuse for 
 retaining an imperfect ministry. He is impatient of 
 their course. 
 
 The Low Churchman thinks the original necessity 
 was real, or at least he is willing to grant everything 
 in that way which was claimed at the time. He is 
 also willing to grant that what it was lawful for Farel 
 and Yiret to do, was no less lawful, or excusable, in 
 Beza or Sadeel. He is also disposed to regard the 
 political and other circumstances of Continental Pro- 
 testants even now as sufficient to constitute a quasi 
 necessity, and thus to legalize their still defective 
 polity and irregularly appointed ministry. So that, 
 although he greatly prefers the Apostolic Order and 
 the duly commissioned Clergy of his own Church, if 
 he were in France or Germany he would not hesitate 
 to commune with the Non-Episcopal Churches there; 
 he could not bring himself to consider or treat them 
 as wilful schismatics, having neither ministry nor 
 sacraments. 
 
 man has not much sympathy for any who are outside the pale of the 
 Church as he regards it, while those are the very persons for whom the 
 other has the most. The extremely "low" are fond of the doctrines 
 and terras of Puritanism, and engage as far as they can in its "new 
 measures." The extremely "high" have no less marked fondness for 
 doctrines, terms and practices that are not Protestant. They regard the 
 Lord's supper as a real sacrifice; they believe in authoritative or positive 
 "absolution;" they set up confessionals. They take special delight in 
 altars, super-altars, lights, and multitudinous crosses, in vestments and 
 various-colored "altar-cloths," that are not recognized "in this Church." 
 They speak of "matins" and "even song," of "vespers," "octave" and 
 " compline !" 
 
B4 EXPLANATORY, 
 
 As to the case of Non-Episcopalians here or in 
 Great Britain, where no necessity ever was or could 
 be pleaded, there is less room for difference. All 
 consistent Churchmen regard them as wilfully reject- 
 ing a divine institution and preserving an unauthor- 
 ized ministry. But those called High Churchmen 
 and Low Churchmen differ as to the degree of crim- 
 inality there is in such a course. The former con- 
 sider the dissenter as living in Schism, a state of 
 positive sin, which should be neither countenanced 
 nor excused. The latter would like to blunt the 
 edge of this judgment. He is obliged, indeed, to 
 condemn, but he does it with regret, and with the 
 avowal of his belief that the guilt may in the end 
 prove less than we suppose. The more marked his 
 Low Churchmanship, the more ready he is to look 
 upon the condition of Non-Episcopalians as not 
 necessarily involving any criminality, although he 
 cannot venture to say it is proper. He would prefer 
 being wholly silent upon the matter. 
 
 Fear of passing uncharitable judgment, or unwil- 
 lingness to state disagreeable truths, makes him avoid 
 as far as possible all reference to this precise point, 
 and £ll discussions that would lead to it;* and thus he 
 necessarily appears less zealous in his attachment to 
 
 * No more worthy representative of the class here referred to could be 
 named than the late Rev. Dr. Bedell, of Philadelphia; yet his own con- 
 fession fully sustains the statement made above. "He said that, like 
 many who thought and acted wirh him, he had for years said little on 
 the peculiarities of our Church, but the period had arrived when they 
 (should be taught and preached. While many in their preaching had given 
 them too much prominence, he had given them too little ; but the state of 
 the times seemed to require it." " He then added very emphatically, ■ If 
 God spares my life, I intend delivering a course of sermons on Episcopacy 
 this winter.' " — (Tyuy's Memoir, page 228.) 
 
 Unf'orrunately the good intention was never carried out; the acknowl- 
 edged defect was never supplied. 
 
EXPLANATORY. 85 
 
 the principles of his own Church than he ought to 
 be. If indeed the whole subject of Succession or 
 ecclesiastical government is put before him, he will 
 declare and defend the doctrine of his Church, but 
 beyond the statement of general principles he will 
 not go. If told that even those principles condemn 
 all dissenters, he says, " Nay ; I make no special ap- 
 plications, I draw no inferences."* 
 
 We object to this course on the ground that it is 
 neither candid nor consistent. To avoid the conclu- 
 sions that necessarily follow from his own reasonings, 
 or to disclaim them when pointed out by others, is 
 not the part of a sensible and honest man. If the 
 premises are true and the reasoning correct, we 
 must accept the inferences. We cannot escape them. 
 So long as we try to do it, going just so far and no 
 further, we are like him who keeps zealously saying 
 all through his life, u Two and two are — ," "two and 
 two are — ," yet never has the courage to bring out 
 the inevitable " four ! " f 
 
 But whether we say it or not it will be said, and if 
 it should happen that any who hear it are aggrieved, 
 they will not think the more highly of us for our 
 attempt at concealment. For instance, when the Non- 
 Episcopal minister who has been treated as a brother, 
 and has had every reason to suppose that we looked 
 upon him as our equal in office, finds that this is not 
 really so, — when he sees clearly that, after all, our 
 principles do invalidate his authority, he will cease 
 to respect us — not for the sake of the principles, but 
 
 * Examination of Mr. Barnes's " Reply," by one of the Editors of the 
 Episcopal Recorder. Philadelphia, 1844, page 116. 
 
 j" This illustration is borrowed from a sermon by the Rev. Dr. Butler, 
 of Philadelphia, who applies it to those who are on the " Road to Rome." 
 
 8 
 
EXPLANATOKY. 
 
 of the concealment. An open, manly avowal of the 
 belief we conscientiously hold would not prove half 
 so offensive as this apparent double-dealing. And 
 thus in place of earning favor we provoke indigna- 
 tion, instead of friendly regard we meet contempt. 
 Surely then " Honesty is the best policy ! " 
 
 But we object to the course referred to for another 
 very important reason. It is unfaithfulness and 
 tends to greater unfaithfulness. "The fear of man 
 bringeth a snare" — one from which it is not easy to 
 get free. The more we yield the more we are re- 
 quired to yield until nothing is left. He who for the 
 sake of what is so erroneously styled "charity" sup- 
 presses truth, will by and by surrender it. He that 
 is either afraid or ashamed to acknowledge the results 
 of his own reasoning will soon repudiate them, and 
 then w r hen farther pressed, rather than retrace his 
 steps he will deny the premises also.* In this way he 
 who was a true Episcopalian becomes one of an ultra 
 party whose proper place is elsewhere, and in his 
 new zeal he condemns all w r ho are not as ready as 
 himself to slight sacred obligations and abandon the 
 distinctive principles of his Church. 
 
 To such a person a book like Mr. Goode's is thrice 
 w r elcome. To him its "arguments" appear all that 
 can be desired, and its "facts" indisputable. Why 
 should he not rejoice over it and extol it when it so 
 thoroughly meets his w 7 ants ? It asserts that Apos- 
 tolical Succession is a " monstrous" doctrine opposed 
 to evangelical truth, and to the facts of God's provi- 
 dence — it asserts that Episcopacy is only an inven- 
 
 * Fortasse non redeunt quia suum progressum non intelligunt." 
 
EXPLANATORY. 87 
 
 tion of man — that Bishops and Presbyters are really 
 the same, and therefore that he is at liberty (especially 
 in the case of a " moral emergency") to ignore the 
 common distinctions between various churches — yea, 
 even to look upon his Bishop as simply, by God's 
 appointment, a presbyter like himself, and conse- 
 quently one to whom he need not "give place by 
 way of subjection. No ! n<3t for an hour ! " 
 
 It requires no great sagacity to foresee the results 
 of such teaching. It necessarily leads to practical 
 evils, to infringements of established law and usage, 
 to contempt for order and authority, to the rejection 
 of pastoral admonition, probably to obstinacy and 
 defiance, and then certainly to stern discipline or 
 
 DESERTION. 
 
CHAPTBE IV. 
 
 MR. GOODE'S INTRODUCTION. 
 
 WE do not think that it would be possible without 
 giving up all pretence of honesty to put into 
 six or seven pages a larger number of misstatements, 
 or a greater quantity of objectionable matter than the 
 " Introduction" contains. ■ There is hardly a sentence 
 in it that is not open to censure. But as we have 
 already referred to it, we shall not now go over it 
 piece by piece. Much of what it sets forth as facts 
 or truths will be disposed of in the answer to the 
 more formal part of the book, and this (in connection 
 with what has already been said of its purpose and 
 character) prevents our having to treat it in detail. 
 
 But there are two or three paragraphs which can- 
 not be passed by. To these then we will devote a 
 few pages. 
 
 On page vii, the writer says of the theory or doc- 
 rine of " Apostolical Succession," "~No trace of it is 
 to be found in the Church of England until the time 
 of Archbishop Laud, who was the first to intro- 
 duce it." 
 
 The boldness of such an assertion is amazing. The 
 writer must have counted strongly upon the ignor- 
 ance of his readers when he ventured to print a state- 
 
 (88) 
 
MR. goode's introduction. 89 
 
 ment winch any elementary text-book, or any history 
 of the time would disprove. He is not willing even 
 to confess as much as the opponents of " Succession" 
 who have preceded him. They all indeed make it 
 appear of much later origin than it was — nearly 
 sixteen hundred years later ! but still they do not 
 attempt to show that it originated with Archbishop 
 Laud. Most of them suppose they see the beginning 
 of it in the reign of Elizabeth, at least from the time 
 their ancestors, the Puritans, left the Church. Most 
 of them accuse Bancroft,* some Montague, some 
 Bridges, and some Whitgift ; but they do not ven- 
 ture to assign to the doctrine a date so recent as our 
 author has done. Even Hallam, the historian, who 
 is specially unwilling to favor anything like High- 
 churchism, speaks of "Bancroft and his imitators, 
 Bishop Neile and Laud," as "pursuing" a system 
 which had originated long before. Writing of them 
 [Sub. temp. A.D. 1625-29] ; he says: 
 
 " They began by preaching the divine right, as it is called, 
 or absolute indispensibility of Episcopacy ; a doctrine of which 
 the first traces, as I apprehend, are found about the end of 
 Elizabeth's reign. They insisted on the necessity of Episcopal 
 succession regularly derived from the Apostles. They drew an 
 inference from this tenet that ordinations by presbyters were in 
 all cases null." — [Constitutional History, Vol. i., pp. 387, 388.) 
 
 Such doctrines were publicly maintained, while 
 Whitgift was Archbishop of Canterbury, if not 
 before. He was succeeded by Bancroft, and he in 
 
 *" Archbishop Bancroft in 1588 was the first Protestant in England 
 that dared to publish the unscriptural dogma of Apostolical Succession 
 as limited to those Episcopally ordained, thus denying the validity of 
 the ordination in other Protestant churches." — ( The [Dissenters'] Library 
 of Ecclesiastical Knowledge, Vol. iv., p. 34, London, 1S34.) See also 
 Appendix, A. 
 8* 
 
90 MR. goode's INTRODUCTION. 
 
 turn by Abbott, on whose demise (thirty years after 
 WhiigifVs death) Laud was advanced to primatial 
 dignity. Yet it has become so much the fashion to 
 make him a scapegoat; that doctrines thus shown to 
 have been taught at least a generation before, are 
 declared to have originated with him ; and that, not- 
 withstanding the notorious fact that he never printed 
 a line, until Elizabeth had been twenty years in the 
 tomb.* 
 
 But the writer of the "Introduction" cares 
 little about a trifling misstatement like this. Dis- 
 proof of it, however, is not far to seek. His own 
 book furnishes it. He and his followers quote as 
 authorities against Apostolical Succession, and the 
 allied doctrine of Episcopacy jure divino, such writers 
 as Jewel, Hooker, Whittaker, etc. If then, as Mr. 
 Goode asserts, these divines testified against the 
 theory of "Succession," how can we believe his other 
 statement that a man who lived a generation later 
 was the " first to introduce it." 
 
 Doubtless Laud did hold the doctrine referred to. 
 But he was neither its originator, nor its chief advo- 
 cate, although .from the many statements like that 
 above, which are put forth from time to time, it 
 might be supposed that he gave himself up almost 
 entirely to its propagation. We see no evidence 
 of such a thing. Does our Author offer any ? Is 
 any furnished by the gentlemen who repeat his state- 
 ments ? Not a particle ! This fact is suspicious. 
 It makes us doubt whether they have ever taken the 
 trouble to make even a cursory examination of the 
 
 * Diary of Abp. Laud (Feb. 4, 1624), prefixed to Wharton's Edition 
 of The Troubles and Trials. 
 
MR. goode's introduction. 91 
 
 writings of him whom they so readily condemn. 
 Or possibly they have looked closely and found 
 little that would justify their representations of his 
 character and creed, and so, on prudential consider- 
 ations, refrain from attempting to prove what they 
 know will be readily believed. This may be the 
 easiest way to gain their end, but it is not one which 
 honorable men should adopt. 
 
 If, as they assert, the prelate in question introduced 
 a new and anti-christian theory, which has led to 
 great evils, the fact must be susceptible of proof, and 
 proof should be given, if not for his sake, at least 
 for that of those who make the assertion. And the 
 simplest and best mode of justifying themselves 
 would be to give us testimony from his own hand. 
 The " father"* of all High Church bigots, the first 
 who denied salvation to all who are not of our com- 
 munion, the first to disregard gospel truth, in com- 
 parison with a mere " tactual succession," must 
 surely have left in his writings enough to substan- 
 tiate all that is said about him. 
 
 From his own writings then we ought to have had 
 furnished to us some means of judging whether the 
 portrait drawn in such dark colors is a faithful like- 
 ness. Some of his extreme opinions should have 
 been printed, so that we might, at once, see the con- 
 trast they would present to sober and unexception- 
 able views — like these, for instance : 
 
 " Most evident it is that the Succession which the Fathers 
 meant is not tied to place or person, but is tied to the ' verity 
 of doctrine/ For as Tertullian i saith], expressly, l Beside the 
 order of Bishops running down in succession from the begin- 
 
 * Powell's Essay on Apostolical Succession, New York' edition, 1855, 
 p. 10. 
 
92 MR. goode's introduction. 
 
 ning, there is required consanguinitas doctrines — that the doc- 
 trine be allied in blood to that of Christ/ So that if the doc- 
 trine be no kin to Christ and his Apostles, all the * succession 7 
 become strangers, what nearness so ever they pretend. And 
 Irenams speaks plainer than he: 'We are ready to obey those 
 Presbyters, which, together with the succession of their Bishop- 
 ries, have received charisma veritatis — the gift of truth/ Now, 
 Stapleton being pressed hard with these two authorities, first 
 confesses expressly that ' Succession/ as it is a note of the true 
 Church, is neither a succession in place only, nor of persons 
 only, but it must be of true and sound doctrine also." 
 
 In opposition to sentiments so reasonable and 
 orthodox as these, why does not Mr. Goode print 
 something from the hand of the hated Primate. He 
 does not, because he cannot, for those are the very words 
 of Archbishop Laud himself! * 
 
 * We are not admirers of Laud, yet we can never think of him in any 
 other light than that of the most injured man whose name is mentioned 
 in all English History. Hated and vilified in life, defamed by the help 
 of forgery and fraud, cruelly murdered in his old age, and ever since 
 represented as a foe to the liberties of man, and to the truth of Ood, he 
 has received less consideration and justice than any public personage we 
 know. It is so common and natural to abuse him, or hear him abused, 
 that the uttering of even a word in his defence begets suspicion of 
 heresy! It may not be amiss, however, without regard to consequences, 
 to show how, in part at least, the common idea of his character has been 
 built up. It is well known that Leighton (father of the excellent Arch- 
 bishop) was tried before the Court of Star Chamber, for seditious libel, 
 that he was found guilty, and sentenced to a very cruel punishment. 
 All the popular accounts of this event (taken from Puritan sources) 
 represent Laud as having taken off his cap and offered up thanks to God, 
 when the sentence teas pronounced. Symmons says that he had "dictated 
 the sentence himself," and that afterwards he recorded it in his diary, 
 "with the cool malignity of a fiend." Unhappily, however, for the repu- 
 tation of these Chroniclers, there is no proof whatever, that Laud had 
 anything to do with either trial or sentence. There is no evidence that 
 he was even present at the time. But further: " Neal, the great oracle, in 
 the same Spirit, after relating the falsehood, that Laud pulled off his 
 cap, etc., etc., thus proceeds : ' On Friday, November 6, part of the 
 sentence was executed upon him (says Bishop Laud, in his diary), after 
 this manner (1) he was severely whipt before he was put into the pillory. 
 (2.) Being set in the pillory, he had one of his ears cut off,' etc., etc. But 
 not a single word of all this description is to be found in the Diary. A 
 reference is made by Neal in the margin to Priestworth's collections, and 
 Strange to say, unluckily for Puritan veracity, not a single word of this 
 story is to be found in Priestworth." — Lawtson's Life of Laud, Vol. i., 
 p. 533. 
 
MR. goode's introduction. 93 
 
 But to pass on. We are gravely informed that 
 "Apostolical Succession/' as taught by Laud, had 
 most dreadful consequences, that it "overthrew both 
 Church and State, and finally proved fatal to the 
 house of Stuart." We fancy the writer of this sen- 
 tence would find some difficulty in showing that the 
 theory or doctrine named formed one of the articles 
 of impeachment at the so-called "trial" of Charles, or 
 that it had anything whatever to do with the struggle 
 between him and the Parliament. And as to the 
 "House of Stuart" we had always in our simplicity 
 'supposed that the members of it were especially in- 
 terested in a very different " Succession." 
 
 A much more important misrepresentation, how- 
 ever, is the statement that 
 
 "Nearly every secession from the Church (as many as forty 
 to one) has been from the ranks of those who held the theory 
 of Apostolical Succession in the most exclusive sense." (See 
 page x.) 
 
 This is passing strange. The doctrine of Apos- 
 tolical Succession might indeed have such effects if 
 there were any doubt of our possessing that succes- 
 sion. But how mere belief of the necessity for a 
 thing which we have in all its purity could render us 
 dissatisfied and lead us to desert the- Church is more 
 than we can imagine ! 
 
 If such were the tendency of the doctrine it would 
 be manifested in the conduct of those who hold it : 
 such of our clergy as do not agree with Mr. Goode 
 would be found lamenting the defects of our Church 
 and frequenting the services of others. Is this the 
 case then? Are even those called "High-Church- 
 men" given to wandering about or fraternizing with 
 
94 MR. goode's introduction. 
 
 outsiders ? Not such is the character generally given 
 of them. On the contrary, the common reproach 
 that they preach " The Church" more than " Christ" 
 is sufficient to prove that they are not dissatisfied 
 with the Church. They love it, they extol it, they 
 labor for it, they cling to it just because they hold 
 that very theory which Mr. Goode describes as calcu- 
 lated to promote secession. 
 
 It is a very easy matter to say, " Look at Oxford ! 
 Where are the Mannings, the Newmans, Wards, 
 Fabers, and so forth, who from that seat of High 
 Church orthodoxy preached Apostolical Succession ?" 
 The answer is ready — They have gone to their own 
 place. It was not the doctrine of divine-right Epis- 
 copacy, assuredly that led them to desert a church 
 in which that is a fundamental principle for one in 
 which it is denied, or at best left open to discussion.* 
 It was not the doctrine of Apostolical Succession 
 which led them to acknowledge the authority of one 
 who, as Pope, belongs to no such succession, having 
 no scriptural warrant, and no transmitted commis- 
 sion I On the contrary, these very doctrines if they 
 had held them, "as this Church hath received the 
 same," would have had a powerful tendency to coun- 
 
 * The confused notions of Romish theologians on the subject of Order 
 have been referred to. As to the doctrine of Succession the same differ- 
 ence of opinion exists among them. Cardinal Bellarmine, in one place, 
 expressly denies it, thus: " Magnum est discrimen inter successionem 
 Petri, et aliorum Apostolorum. Nam Romanus Pontifex proprie succedit 
 Petro, non ut Apostolo, sed ut Pastori totius ecclcsite, et ideo ab illo habet 
 Romanus Pontifex jurisdictionem a quo habuit Petrus; at Episcopi non 
 guecedunt proprie Apostolus quoniam Apostoli non fuerunt ordinarii sed 
 extraordinarii et quasi delegati pastores, qualibus non succeditur." — 
 (Opera, Vox, i., lib. iv., cap. xxv. — Elliot's Delineation of Roman 
 Catholicism.) 
 
MR. goode's introduction. 95 
 
 teract other influences and keep them faithful to their 
 Church and to the truth of God. 
 
 But if we suppose for a moment that they were 
 seduced by this "theory," would even that justify 
 the statement of our -Author ? Let us consider the 
 facts. 
 
 The Oxford perverts have not been by any means 
 the only seceders from the Church in this generation. 
 Among the friends of Mr. Goode himself there have 
 been a few. Was it the doctrine of " Succession" that 
 led them away? Was it belief of it that made Mr. 
 Noel turn Baptist, or induced two other brethren in 
 England to secede and found sects called after their 
 own names. On this continent we have had some 
 defections also. Two or three clergymen have be- 
 come Methodists, two or three Presbyterians, one a 
 Baptist, and one a Minister at large, disowning our 
 communion and submitting to no authority. In 
 Canada two at least became Irvingites. Were these 
 and others of the same class misled by their regard 
 for " Apostolical Succession ?" How can their union 
 with bodies who are supposed to repudiate succession 
 be attributed to their believing it indispensably neces- 
 sary I 
 
 It will be said such cases are of rare occurrence, 
 while the Oxford perversions and those of the same 
 kind are frequent. We deny this: at least we feel 
 assured that full statistics would prove the common 
 impression erroneous. We believe that the secession 
 which " Puseyism" has caused have in the same time 
 been equalled in number by those that took place 
 under the system of Mr. Goode. Those that occurred 
 at Oxford were more simultaneous, and the parties 
 
96 MR. goode's introduction. 
 
 more prominent, consequently they engrossed more 
 of the public attention, and were supposed to be far 
 greater in number than defections on the opposite 
 
 side. 
 
 But when we look back at the history of our 
 Church, the magnitude of Mr. Goode's misstatement 
 is apparent. From the accession of Edward VI. to 
 that of William IV., a period of almost 300 years, 
 there were not from among the thousands of Bishops 
 and other clergy even a score of perversions that could 
 be legitimately traced to the doctrine in question, and 
 it may be questioned if there were one ; while the 
 same period saw the perversion of thousands who left 
 the Church chiefly because they did not believe the 
 divine right of Episcopacy and the theory of Suc- 
 cession. 
 
 Is this fact questioned ? If it be, we ask who and 
 what were the Puritans — the Nonconformists ? Did 
 they not fly off' from the Church and erect tabernacles 
 of their own? Were they not at first dissatisfied 
 and disorderly members, and finally bitter enemies 
 of the Church ? Did they not trample it to the 
 ground when they had the power, and then fill the 
 whole land with fanaticism and infidelity ? And are 
 not their descendants of the present day in reality as 
 bitterly hostile to the Church as ever was Penry or 
 Bastwick ? To what then is their course attributable ? 
 Will Mr. Goode, in the face of all history and expe- 
 rience, and in the face of their own professions, claim 
 these as believers in Apostolical Succession? If 
 not how will he excuse the gross misstatement in 
 his book ? 
 
 The case stands thus: One or two hundred men 
 
MR. goode's introduction. 97 
 
 in this generation who held views on Succession and 
 Episcopacy different from Mr. Goode, have left the 
 Church of England ; while hundreds of thousands 
 have left her, and millions of their descendants keep 
 aloof from her mainly because, on these same points, 
 they agree with Mr. Goode. And yet that gentleman 
 has the boldness to set forth an allegation like this — 
 that of the seceders from the Church a proportion so 
 large as forty to one has been from the ranks of those 
 who hold the doctrine of succession in "the most 
 exclusive sense." 
 
 But as the comparative influence of Mr. Goode's 
 opinion and its opposite upon the numerical strength 
 of the Church has been referred to by himself, we 
 would take the liberty of reminding his readers that 
 there is a very important point of view from which 
 the Keverend gentleman has not ventured to look at 
 the subject. There are and have been accessions to. 
 the Church, at all times far outnumbering the seces- 
 sions from it. Now let us ask whether we gain most 
 by the doctrine of Succession or by the latitudinarian 
 doctrine set forth by Mr, Goode ? If a man in the 
 "ministry" of the Methodists or Congregationalists 
 becomes doubtful of his right to hold the sacred office, 
 to preach the life-giving Word, and administer the 
 holy sacraments, and is investigating the whole sub- 
 ject of "ordination" and the "ministry" with a view 
 to joining our Church, he finds two opposite theories 
 presented to him. The one is to the effect that Suc- 
 cession is a figment, and the doctrine connected with 
 it mere Popish superstition ; that Episcopal ordination 
 is not so necessary, but that without it he may be 
 truly and properly a Minister of Christ; and that 
 9 
 
98 MR. goode's introduction. 
 
 therefore he may with a clear conscience and entire 
 satisfaction continue to act under the commission he 
 holds already. The other is, that without the laying 
 on of the hands of a Bishop (who alone has authority 
 to ordain), he cannot be truly and properly a minis- 
 ter of Christ. One party says to him, " Stay where 
 you are, sir!" The other says, " Come and receive 
 a valid commission ! " ISTeed we ask which is most 
 likely to bring increase to the Church ? 
 
 Look over the list of our Clergy, and inquire as to 
 their histories. Observe how many of them have 
 come to us from without. What induced them ? 
 Some may have come because they thought one de- 
 nomination as good as another, and they supposed 
 they could gain a little in comfort or respectability 
 by the change. Some few have come in the charita- 
 ble hope of doing us good, by infusing into our dead 
 organism a portion of that spiritual life which other 
 "Evangelical" bodies possess; but the rest of that 
 honorable host have come because they discovered 
 that the doctrine of Apostolical succession is true, and 
 thenceafter they could not conscientiously minister 
 with an insufficient authority. In our pulpits and by 
 our Communion tables they stand to day, a living 
 contradiction to Mr. Goode. 
 
 Another of the bold misstatements in this Intro- 
 duction is that contained in the same paragraph, to 
 the effect that repudiation of Apostolical Succession 
 and divine-right Episcopacy have done most for the 
 Church in the way of extending it at home, promoting 
 its spiritual life, and propagating it in heathen lands. 
 
 As to the two former of these points w r e shall say 
 but little. It would be very uncivil to doubt the 
 
MR. goode's introduction. 99 
 
 Keverend gentleman's own assertion, that lie and 
 those who agree with him have done more to extend 
 the Church than all others ; and as to " spiritual life/' 
 we believers in Episcopacy and Succession must con- 
 fess; like good Bishop Griswold, that we have none — 
 to speak off 
 
 The paragraph we are considering (independent of 
 its correctness or incorrectness in other respects) is 
 one of the most wretchedly constructed sentences we 
 have ever read. We presume the meaning of the 
 last clause is, that those who repudiate Apostolical 
 Succession have been " exclusively those who have 
 propagated the Church, in connection with the Gospel, 
 in heathen lands." 
 
 This astounding misstatement is put forward with 
 such an assured air, that those who know nothing of 
 the facts would naturally accept it. But let us see 
 what the facts are. 
 
 The immense majority of Church missionaries have 
 been the agents of the venerable Society for the Prop- 
 agation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. This and 
 its companion, the Society for Promoting Christian 
 Knowledge, were in the field nearly a century before 
 any other Protestant organization for the support of 
 Christian missions, or for the distribution of Bibles 
 and religious works. The Society for the Propaga- 
 tion of the Gospel was founded in 1701, and from 
 that time to the present it has kept steadily at its 
 great work. Its expenditure has been vastly greater, 
 its agents more numerous, its operations more exten- 
 sive and important, than those of any other single 
 Missionary Society. It has in connection with it 
 over forty Missionary and Colonial Bishops, at least 
 
100 MR. goode's introduction. 
 
 five hundred regularly ordained clergymen, and, in 
 addition to these, the number of divinity students, 
 eatechists, schoolmasters, and others employed or 
 maintained by it, in whole or in part, is about eight 
 hundred.* These are found in every British colony 
 and in almost every heathen land, wherever a door 
 has been opened to them for the preaching of the 
 Gospel of Christ. From north to south, from east to 
 farthest west ; under the burning sun of Africa and 
 amid the terrible snows and ice-blasts of Prince Ru- 
 pert's Land ; in the West Indies and the vast plains 
 of Hindostan ; in Borneo, Australia, New Zealand, 
 Vancouver's Island — everywhere, they raise the 
 Christian standard, preaching pardon and peace 
 through the blood of the cross. Thus is that noble 
 Society doing the work of the Church, in accord- 
 ance with the commission given by the Lord ; thus 
 it has been engaged for over one hundred and sixty 
 years. To it our American Church owes its "first 
 foundation and a long continuance of nursing care 
 and protection." And as it was here, so has it been in 
 the British Provinces near us. There, there are many 
 stations which for a hundred years have received, and 
 are yet receiving, the generous support of this So- 
 ciety. Assuredly then it can point to a history and 
 a present work of unequalled extent and usefulness. 
 Surely, without any, the least, disparagement of the 
 noble Church Missionary Society and the Colonial 
 Church and School Society (which are comparatively 
 of very recent origin), it may be safely stated that the 
 
 * The operations of the Society may be yet more extensive; we have 
 not seen a report for four years past. 
 
MR. goode's introduction. 101 
 
 great work of extending the Church in heathen lands 
 has been performed chiefly by its agents. 
 
 The question then arises, What is the general char- 
 acter, what the tone of this venerable Society ? How 
 does it stand as regards the matter before us. Is it 
 "Latitudinarian?" is it even distinctively "Low 
 Church ?" Far from it. It has never taken any 
 party position (it is too grand an association for that), 
 yet on this, which is not a question of party, its posi- 
 tion is well known. It is eminently conservative. 
 It has ever been decidedly Episcopalian in spirit, and 
 it is so to-day.* 
 
 The very existence of the other societies above 
 mentioned is plain proof that the Society for the 
 Propagation of the Gospel was not all that even mod- 
 erate Low Churchmen would desire. They founded 
 others to share its work and its honors ; but would 
 this have been done if that Society were conducted 
 on such principles as our Author ventures to assert ? 
 It is just as far opposed to those principles (or rather 
 
 * The decidedly Episcopal character of the Society for the Propagation 
 of the Gospel is shown b}^ the code of "instructions for the Clergy em- 
 ployed" by it, drawn up in 1706, and still in use. We wish that space 
 could be afforded for the whole code, so that its excellence might appear 
 to all, but we cannot admit more than what bears directly upon our sub- 
 ject. 
 
 Article III. charges them to be fervent in prayer to God, to "reflect 
 seriously on their ordination vows," and consider the account they are to 
 render to the great Shepherd and Bishop of our souls at the last day." 
 Article IV. charges them to acquaint themselves thoroughly with the 
 doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, that they may approve 
 themselves as genuine missionaries of this Church. Article V. requires them 
 to study subjects of controversy, that they may be able to withstand those 
 who are gainsayers; and Article XL calls upon them to avoid all party 
 names, and to preserve a Christian agreement and union one with another, 
 as a bony of brethren of one and the same Church, united under tht 
 rior Episcopal Order." 
 
 Yet Mr. Goode and his followers are not ashamed to say that this Society 
 rejects the doctrine of Episcopacy, and endorses Presbyterian ordination. 
 9* 
 
102 MR. goope's introduction. 
 
 no-principles) as any such, body could well be ; and 
 yet Mr. Goode tells us that "exclusively" those who 
 have propagated the Church in heathen lands have 
 held his opinions I 
 
 But then he has left himself an admirable loop- 
 hole. Mark his words : " propagated the Church 
 in connection with the Gospel." There is margin 
 enough surely in that p,hrase. Show the Keve- 
 rend gentleman that by the self-denying labors of 
 men who were zealous Episcopalians, some countries 
 have within one generation been reclaimed from 
 utter barbarism and conquered for Christ ; that lands 
 where forty years ago almost none but tattooed sav- 
 ages were seen have been Christianized and civilized, 
 so that cities have sprung up as if by magic, and all 
 the arts of peace are assiduously cultivated ; show 
 that agriculture and commerce flourish, that a litera- 
 ture has been established, and that several Bishops, 
 under a Metropolitan, are to-day ruling dioceses in 
 which the word of life is proclaimed to a people 
 whose fathers were bloodthirsty cannibals ; show 
 him that thus, by the agency of men who would 
 scout his theory as an insult to their beloved Church, 
 the wilderness has been made to bud and blossom as 
 the rose, and that Church made dear to the heart of 
 thousands, but he is not discomfited. He has his 
 charitable little reservation; these men may have 
 propagated the Church, but they lacked one thing — 
 they did not preach THE GOSPEL ! 
 
 The sister society to the S. P. G. is as already 
 stated, that for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 
 which has gone steadily hand in hand with the 
 former in all its work and labor of love ; their spirit 
 
MR. goode's introduction. 103 
 
 is one, and their usefulness not very unequal. Do 
 we find then that the S. P. C. K. has, as a society, 
 repudiated Succession ? It ought to have done so, 
 if Mr. Goode's statement has the least share of truth 
 in it ; but a glance at its catalogue tells a very dif- 
 ferent story. In place of repudiation we find positive 
 statement of Succession and arguments supporting 
 it. We find defences of Episcopacy, as established 
 in England, which Mr. Goode, on his own principles, 
 must stigmatize as semi-Eomish, but as they are from 
 the pens of men like Daniel Wilson, late Bishop of 
 Calcutta, and Eev. S. C. Wilks, Editor of the Chris- 
 tian Observer, we learn that what Mr. Groode advances 
 as the Low Church views is utterly rejected by the 
 very leaders of the body he affects to represent. 
 We learn the same thing if we examine the facts 
 relating to the great " Evangelical" Society already 
 mentioned. If there could be found a particle of 
 justification for the assertion in Mr. Goode's book, it 
 surely would be found there, but there is none. 
 The Church Missionary Society has never repudiated 
 Episcopacy or Succession. It would be a libel to 
 say it had. It is perfectly loyal to the Church. All 
 its agents, without exception, are made directly sub- 
 ject to the Bishops, in whose dioceses they labor. 
 There is no reason to believe that in its general 
 spirit or its mode of working, it is at all different 
 from the others of which we have spoken.* 
 
 A misstatement of the same sweeping character 
 is made in the " advertisement" concerning the home 
 Church. It is there set down that seven-tenths 
 
 * It is much to be desired that other societies imitating its name would 
 imitate it also in its commendable regard to order and authority. 
 
104 MR. GOODE'S INTRODUCTION". 
 
 of the Clergy of the English Church, and nineteen- 
 twentieths of its laity repudiate the doctrines of 
 Episcopacy and Succession ! How this knowledge 
 was arrived at we are not informed. That it could, 
 by any possibility, be true, is hard to understand, if 
 wo consider what we have heard, for the past twenty 
 or thirty years, — that the English Church was "rotten 
 to the core," so filled with High Church leaven that 
 it was the duty of "Evangelical" Churchmen to look 
 for sympathy and co-operation among dissenters, 
 rather than from its members ! And besides, we 
 have long been accustomed to the apologetic tone of 
 all English "Low Church" journals and works, and 
 every one knows that the members and admirers 
 of the " Evangelical party" were rejoiced beyond 
 measure, on account of the appointment, by the late 
 Lord Palmerston, of some eight or nine Bishops, 
 who, to some extent, sympathize with them. These 
 facts militate rather strongly against Mr. Groode's 
 assertion. 
 
 But there are others that meet it more directly 
 still. We are able to put statistics in opposition to 
 it. A prominent " Evangelical" Journal, some time 
 ago, quoted as authority the Eev. Dr. Conybeare's 
 classification of parties, and estimate of their num- 
 bers.* 
 
 We will refer to it then. The Eev. Doctor di- 
 vides the Church into three parties or classes, each 
 having its normal, its stagnant, and its exaggerated 
 type. There are, in all, over seventeen thousand 
 
 * This was first given in the Edinburgh Review, and afterwards 
 published by the Author, in a Volume of Essays, on subjects connected 
 with the Church. 
 
MR. goode's introduction. 105 
 
 Clergymen in the Church. ; of these, one thousand 
 are put down as extreme or " exaggerated" High 
 Churchmen, and two thousand five hundred " exag- 
 gerated/ 7 or extreme Low Churchmen. This we 
 believe altogether too large an estimate, but let it 
 stand. The whole High Church class outnumbers the 
 other by over five hundred Ministers (nearly a fourth 
 of the number of our Clergy) ; and the very highest 
 proportion that can be claimed for those who are 
 loose in their attachment to Episcopacy, is one in 
 
 SEVEN, NOT SEVEN IN TEN ! 
 
 We have one more sentence to dispose of, and 
 
 then we shall have done with the " Introduction." 
 
 On page six we read that : 
 
 " The Low Church view is, that Episcopacy has Apostolic 
 precedent, but not Apostolic command." 
 
 We beg leave to contradict the author. This is 
 not "the Low Church view," if the great and good 
 men who have been the most prominent leaders of 
 the Evangelical section of the Church are the ex- 
 ponents of it. We expect to satisfy the reader that 
 Mr. Goode and they are far apart in opinion on these 
 subjects. Let us consider it then as his view. 
 What is its precise meaning ? Has Episcopacy in the 
 Eeverend gentleman's estimation only so much au- 
 thority, as could be given by some precedent, opposed 
 to the spirit" of a command? For instance, we read 
 of Apostolic contentions, as to who should be the 
 greatest among them, and per contra we read the 
 commands to be humble, " in honor preferring one 
 another." Among the precedents we read of Paul 
 contending so sharply with Barnabas, that they 
 "parted asunder one from the other/' and of the 
 
MR. GOODE's INTRODUCTION. 
 
 same St. Paul withstanding " Peter to his face;" 
 while among his precepts we read, "live peaceably 
 with all men;" "let all bitterness and wrath and 
 anger and clamor and evil speaking be put away 
 from you. with all malice/' and "follow after charity/' 
 which "beareth all things/' which "suffereth long and 
 is kind/' It is to be hoped then that where, as in 
 these cases, the precedent and the command clash 
 one against the other, Mr. Goode would give to the 
 system of the Church something more than the sup- 
 port of the former. 
 
 We presume the doctrine he advances is this. 
 Where a system or practice has only precedent to 
 support it, when there is no written command, nor 
 anj^ reference to it, either condemning or endorsing 
 it, it is deserving of a measure of respectful attention, 
 but is not to be regarded as generally and perma- 
 nently binding. And this he holds is the case with 
 Episcopacy. But, if it had been expressly com- 
 manded, it would be positively binding upon all men 
 to the end of time. 
 
 If this be the doctrine, then we ask what measure 
 of importance he attaches to Family Worship, to the 
 giving of the Sacramental cup to the laity, or to the 
 sanctifying of the Lord's Day. Small indeed must 
 his regard for these things be, on the theory just 
 stated. Yet we do not doubt that he prizes them all, 
 and would strenuously defend them if assailed; we do 
 not doubt that he regards them as clearly required of 
 us, although the duty be ascertained only by inference. 
 
 But our author holds that if there were a command, 
 there would then be no room to question the divine 
 authority of the institution. Let us consider this. 
 
MR. goode's introduction. 107 
 
 Among the commands in the New Testament is 
 one "to abstain from things strangled and from 
 blood/' and another enjoining silence upon women in 
 the churches ; and these, forsooth, are things to the 
 level of which it is popish to "raise" Episcopacy! 
 They continue, on Mr. Goode's showing, universally 
 and perpetually obligatory, while the threefold min- 
 istry can only plead toleration as a thing not im- 
 proper, because ; as he says, it has only "precedent" 
 to support it. 
 
 The Reverend gentleman undertakes to illustrate 
 his meaning, and refers, for that purpose, to anointing 
 of the sick, which he has no doubt was instituted by 
 the Apostles. The only possible excuse for intro- 
 ducing any such reference lies in the supposition that 
 the cases are equal ; and thus we see the measure of 
 value set upon Episcopacy by this professed Episco- 
 palian. A thing totally neglected by every body of 
 Christians is equally binding and important with the 
 polity by which our Church is distinguished, and for 
 which it claims divine authority ! Conscious that 
 such a presentation of the case will shock many of 
 even his readers, the Reverend gentleman tries to 
 soften it down by saying that he would not put the 
 two things on a level, as of equal moment; but he 
 does not say which he considers of greater weight. 
 Let us supply the defect. Episcopacy is based upon 
 precedent only, but anointing is positively enjoined 
 by St. James ; therefore (on the principles of Mr. 
 Goode) the latter is by far the more important of the 
 two ! 
 
 We do the Reverend gentleman no injustice when 
 we thus present a decision so absurd ; it is the legiti- 
 
108 MR. goode's introduction. 
 
 mate consequence of his own reasoning. That which 
 has "command" has, he declares, the jus divinum; 
 that which is based on precedent only has it not* 
 therefore " anointing the sick," although we know 
 not that it was general even in the Apostles' day, or 
 that it ever has been practised since, is of higher 
 warrant than that system of Church Government 
 which we do know to have been general in the time 
 of St. Paul, and to have been universally and exclu- 
 sively followed for fifteen hundred years afterward! 
 The one which no Christian practically regards is 
 positively " binding upon all;" the other, which the 
 vast majority of professing Christians agree in ac- 
 cepting as the divine rule, is only to be received on 
 the score of expediency ! The one which everybody 
 slights is perpetually to be observed; the other, which 
 millions conscientiously receive, and which Mr. Goode 
 acknowledges to be a divine institution, may yet be 
 rejected by any man or any sect that pleases ! 
 
 Surely the rule that leads to such a decision can- 
 not be right. 
 
 But has Apostolic precedent really no greater value 
 than Mr. Goode is willing to assign to it ? What is 
 Apostolic precedent? Not certainly the casual act 
 of a single Apostle, nor even such an act of several 
 of them as was evidently not meant to be imitated 
 by others. When we use that phrase we refer to 
 those deliberate actions of the Apostles which were 
 general in their character, and by them regarded as 
 important and designed to be perpetuated. Such 
 things we hold to be binding on Christians. They 
 cannot be neglected without sin. 
 
 This is, as nearly as possible, the rule of the late 
 
MR. goode's introduction. 109 
 
 Bishop Wilson, of Calcutta. Where such a prece- 
 dent is clearly established, it has with him quite as 
 much force as any Apostolic command, for it implies 
 that, and more. It shows that it was both ordered 
 by the Apostles, and practised by them, and has 
 therefore all the support which their authority can 
 possibly give. 
 
 Eobert Hall's rule for ascertaining the value of a 
 precedent is, that whatever the Apostles instituted or 
 practised, which was not in itself necessarily brought 
 about by temporary or local usage, or the difficulties 
 of their position, has divine sanction, and is binding 
 upon the Church of Christ. Apply this rule to 
 Episcopacy. Was it a thing which they were by 
 any stress of circumstances constrained to adopt? 
 This question needs no reply. 
 
 But Episcopacy does not rest solely on " prece- 
 dent;" it has "command" also. How do we learn 
 the fact that the Apostles really instituted the prece- 
 dent ? How is their practice ascertained ? Not ex- 
 clusively by bare historical record in the book of 
 Acts. We use also the injunctions, directions, etc., 
 which we find elsewhere. And what are these ? No 
 one could believe that a work so mighty as the found- 
 ing and organizing to completion of the whole Church 
 could be done (as even Mr. Goode confesses that it 
 was) in accordance with the system of Episcopacy, 
 and yet no command in favor of Episcopacy be given, 
 either in speech or writing ?* What, we would ask, 
 
 * Booth, the Baptist controversialist, says, in his "Apology," page 48 : 
 " If our brethren do not look upon the Apostolic precedent as expressive 
 of the mind of Christ, and as a pattern for future imitation, they must 
 consider the Apostles as either ignorant of our Lord's will, or as unfaith- 
 ful in the performance of it." 
 10 
 
 . 
 
110 MR. qoodb's introduction. 
 
 was the appointment of any such officer as Titus was 
 in Crete, but a command to him to enter upon the 
 duties of the Episcopate, and a command to the people 
 to receive the Episcopal form of government ? What 
 are the Epistles addressed to him and to Timothy, 
 but directions or injunctions that are properly com- 
 mands? What then becomes of the assertion that 
 Episcopacy rests on precedent alone ? 
 
 So far from this being true, our warrant does not 
 stand solely on either the words or acts of the Apos- 
 tles. Our author never refers to the existence of any 
 system, or to the establishing of any office previous 
 to the time of the Apostles' authority. We will not 
 spend much time in supplying this omission, but 
 simply state, what otherwise his readers might not 
 know, that Episcopalians find in the arrangement of 
 the ministry under the Mosaic dispensation (1) a clear 
 proof that the system of " parity" is not what God 
 favors, and (2) a very strong presumption in favor 
 of a ministry having three degrees.* But this pre- 
 sumption is made yet stronger by the fact that our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, himself the great High Priest, 
 appointed two separate orders of Evangelists, — the 
 twelve and the seventy. Those of the latter class 
 were sent forth to do a certain work, and they had 
 the powers proper for it ; but perpetuating their order 
 was no part of their duty ; no promise was given to 
 them extending into the remote future. How dif- 
 ferent was it with the twelve ! To them, as the higher 
 order, full powers were granted. Their ordinary com- 
 
 * St. Jerome, letter to Evngrius: "Quod Aaron, et filii ejus atque Le- 
 vitse in templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi, Presbyteri et Diaconi vindiennt 
 in ecclesia." — (Sinclair's Dissertations, page 97 ; and elsewhere.) 
 
MR. goode's introduction. Ill 
 
 mission was necessarily to be handed down, and the 
 promise would of course accompany it. Many find 
 in this action of our Lord the true foundation of 
 Episcopacy. 
 
 But suppose they claim too much (which we are 
 far from granting), is there to be no regard paid to 
 our Lord's course when we are considering this sub- 
 ject. We contend that it must be followed; but let it 
 only be considered, and we will be satisfied with the 
 result. By just so much as this authority, from 
 which there is no appeal, discountenances Presby- 
 terian equality, it favors some other system of a dif- 
 ferent character, some one that is more in accordance 
 with the model He furnished. If ours be such a 
 system, and if it be conceded that it has Apostolical 
 precedent beside, what is wanting to place Episcopacy 
 upon an immovable basis, and prove that it is binding 
 upon all men to the end of time ? 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE PROPER SOURCES OF INFORMATION. 
 
 OUR author thus states the question, and the sources 
 to which he thinks we ought to apply for an 
 authoritative answer to it : 
 
 "The present question is simply this — whether it is a doc- 
 trine of the Church of England that Episcopal ordination is a 
 sine qua non to constitute a valid Christian ministry ? In order 
 to a true answer we must examine 
 
 I. "The Articles and other formularies which, relate to it, 
 taken in their literal sense. 
 
 II. " The opinions of those who drew up these standards, as 
 ascertained hj their other writings, to be taken as guides to the 
 sense in which they intended those standards to be received, as 
 also the opinions of the leading divines of the Church onward for 
 a hundred years. 
 
 III. The Practice of the Church for a similar period, as a 
 further guide to the true interpretation of the standards " 
 
 Now, these are not the sources from which a true 
 and authoritative answer can be elicited. We should 
 like to know on what pretence the opinion of a man 
 who lived a hundred years after Cranmer could be 
 offered in evidence of Cranmer's meaning in the 
 formularies, or why those who lived a little more 
 than a hundred years after the Eeformation should 
 not be equally authentic exponents. Still more, we 
 should like to know on what pretence the pkactice 
 
 (112) 
 
THE PROPER SOURCES OF INFORMATION". 113 
 
 of the Church for its first hundred years should be a 
 rule to us, and its practice to-day and for two hun- 
 dred years past ignored. 
 
 The true sources from which we are to gather the 
 judgment of our Church upon this or any other 
 point are : 
 
 1st. Its Doctrinal and Devotional Standards 
 — the Liturgy Articles and Ordinal. 
 
 /. These are to be taken in the plain sense of 
 their words ; and if there be room for any doubt 
 as to their meaning, reference may be made to 
 the other writings of those who were the actual 
 compilers of them. 
 
 2nd. Its Laws and Principles as set forth in 
 canons, injunctions, declarations, endorsements, 
 censures, etc. 
 
 .*. These are of the most importance when they 
 come from the Church in its corporate capacity, 
 that is in Convocation. 
 
 3rd. Its Practice (or administration of its own laws) 
 ever since the Eeformation. 
 
 .\ Of course this can only be referred to when 
 the Church had full liberty of action. 
 
 4th. Those works which having been specially en- 
 dorsed by the Church or enjoined by lawful 
 authority, may be looked upon in the light of 
 
 SECONDARY STANDARDS. 
 
 5th. And, least valuable of all, the opinions of 
 divines of the Church of England, from its 
 foundation to the present time ; and also of 
 divines of our own Church since its separate 
 organization. 
 
 .-. The reader will mark well that these opin- 
 ions can be of use only as corroborative proofs 
 of what the standards teach. Strong concurrent 
 testimony from many writers is valuable corrobo- 
 
 10* 
 
114 THE PROPER SOURCES OF INFORMATION. 
 
 ration, but even the strongest could establish 
 nothing as the doctrine of the Church unless it 
 be first found in the formularies or laws. Opin- 
 ions of individuals, however correct they may 
 be, are still only mere opinions, for which no 
 one but the writer is responsible ; and in this 
 discussion they are valuable in proportion to the 
 eminence (ecclesiastical and literary) of the 
 authors. 
 
 Of course the writings of partisans of the pre- 
 sent generation are not to be quoted as authority 
 on their own side. 
 
 These are the sources then to which we shall look 
 for the Church's answer to the questions, What is the 
 true and scriptural mode of Church government, and 
 what constitutes a true and proper ordination? 
 
 We prefer this mode of putting the case to that of 
 our author. It is pretty much the same, yet not pre- 
 cisely. No one can reasonably expect to find in our 
 formularies definite statements as to " sine qua non" 
 qualifications, validity, etc., etc. The Church of Eng- 
 land is not given to anathematizing, and still less to 
 refining unnecessarily, especially as regards the affairs 
 of others. She simply states her own faith, and leaves 
 that statement to condemn whomsoever it will con- 
 demn. Thus her second article contains her declara- 
 tion of doctrine as regards the eternal Son of God ; 
 it says not a word of Arian heretics, but it does 
 virtually condemn them. As it is in this instance so 
 it is in many others. The mere declaration suffices. 
 Even the Augsburg Confession has its condemnatory 
 clauses at the end of each article, but the English 
 Church has generally in her formularies contented 
 herself with affirming her own doctrine ; and that is 
 amply sufficient. 
 
THE PROPER SOURCES OF INFORMATION. 115 
 
 In connection with ordination then, we may expect 
 to find one particular kind approved as scriptural, 
 and therefore enjoined ; and if that is so and no ex- 
 ceptions be made in favor of any other, the kind so 
 endorsed is the only one which the Church can be 
 said to acknowledge or of which she knows anything. 
 
 We should suppose there would be no difficulty in 
 assenting to a proposition so plain as this, but we 
 continually meet statements to the effect that the 
 establishment of anything is warrant for it, but has 
 no other force — that our Church's choice of Episco- 
 pal ordination sufficed only to show that to the 
 founders of the body it appeared, on the whole, the 
 best, and therefore they decreed its use ; but this did 
 not involve the condemnation of the " Presbyterian" 
 or even the " Congregational" mode ! Which is, as 
 if a man should say, " The Eeformers did agree that, 
 on the whole, Baptism had better be practised. In 
 the 27th Article they point out its use and the bless- 
 ings accompanying it, and all this with a view to 
 have it observed in this Church; but it surely was 
 not their intention to disparage those good people 
 who do not practise it. There is no such thing as 
 mention of them, nor even a direct reference to them 
 in the Article, and as nothing is there said of the ABSO- 
 LUTE NECESSITY of water baptism we may take it for 
 granted that the Church does not hold it, and a;lso that 
 the Article was carefully drawn up so as not to exclude 
 or unchurch the Quakers ! 
 
 This is certainly cogent reasoning, and much of a 
 piece with what we meet frequently now-a-days ! 
 We may refer to it elsewhere. At present we con- 
 tent ourselves with saying that mere omission, as a 
 
11(3 THE PROPER SOURCES OF INFORMATION. 
 
 general rule, proves nothing; and that when one of 
 two opposite views is accepted the other is necessarily 
 condemned. To say then that our Church has formed 
 no judgment on Presbyterian Orders because they 
 are not once mentioned in our formularies, or that 
 the accepting and establishing of Episcopal ordina- 
 tion was not an exclusion or condemnation of the 
 other, is just as reasonable as to hold that the Church 
 has no unfavorable opinion of Mahomet, and her 
 acceptance of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is 
 not the rejection of Islamism because it is not de- 
 nounced in express terms ! 
 
 In connection with rites and ceremonies which are 
 but ordinances of man, the Church teaches explicitly 
 that upon just cause they may be changed or set 
 aside. But of the essentials of doctrine or polity 
 [for instance, the Ministry of divers Orders], or any 
 other thing which she regards as having divine 
 authority, she holds no such language. Those things 
 are established, not by her power, but by God's, and 
 it is her duty therefore to receive and preserve them, 
 and to transmit them on to the generations to come. 
 And her enunciation of them, accompanied with 
 reference to God's Word is a virtual condemnation 
 of the opposite. 
 
 AVe consider this so evident that we shall dwell no 
 longer upon it, but proceed to examine certain public 
 and private documents that date from before the 
 establishment of the Protestant Church of England. 
 

 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 
 
 1ST the 23rd page of the work before us, we find 
 the following passage : 
 
 " And we may notice, first, that even in the time of Henry 
 VIII., at the very dawn of the Reformation, the bishops and 
 clergy of our Church put forth a document containing the very 
 doctrine on which the validity of Protestant ordinations has 
 been chiefly rested, namely, the parity of bishops and presby- 
 ters, with respect to the ministerial powers, essentially and by 
 right belonging to thein." 
 
 The document to which the Eeverend author re- 
 fers, is the " Institution of a Christian man/' drawn 
 up by the Bishops and some of the clergy at the 
 command of Henry VIII., and issued in the year 
 1537. It is frequently mentioned as the "Bishop's 
 Book." 
 
 The reader will observe that in connection with it 
 Mr. Goode states : (1st) That " at the very dawn of 
 the Reformation" (an expression that he repeats more 
 than once) we may notice a certain doctrine; thus 
 intimating, though guardedly, that it had its origin 
 then, or that it had at least some special connection 
 with that great event. (2nd) That the doctrine thus 
 
 (117) 
 
113 ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 
 
 found at the period, and in the document aforesaid, is 
 the '* very" doctrine on which "the validity of Pres- 
 byterian ordinations has been chiefly rested. (3rd) 
 That the parties who penned the document in ques- 
 tion were the "bishops and clergy of our Church." 
 
 YTe purpose in this chapter, then, to correct these 
 errors — to show that the doctrine found in the docu- 
 ment was at that time, and for several centuries had 
 been, a generally received doctrine of the Eomish 
 Church — that it had no necessary connection with 
 the Reformation more than any other event — that it 
 is not the " very" doctrine of the Presbyterians, but 
 just of the opposite character — that the "Institution" 
 and the two other documents quoted by Mr. Goode 
 in the same connection, are not in any sense standards 
 of OUR Church, nor proper sources from which to 
 infer Protestant doctrine — that the men who drew 
 them up were all then Romanists, and though a few 
 of them subsequently became confessors of a purer 
 faith, the great majority lived and died Papists, and 
 used all their powers to oppose the improvement in 
 doctrine and worship then sought after. 
 
 By establishing these points we shall not only cor- 
 rect the errors of the paragraph above, but overthrow 
 all that Mr. Goode has said in his twenty-third and 
 six following pages of these Ante-Reformation writ- 
 ings; we shall prove that he has misstated the views 
 of Archbishop Cranmer, and that being so, that he 
 has not given one quotation in favor of his own theory 
 from any of those who first protestantized the Eng- 
 lish Church and drew up its formularies. 
 
 1st. It is very singular that though Mr. Goode 
 makes so much ado about the doctrine of " parity " 
 
ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 119 
 
 being found at the " very dawn of the reformation," 
 he yet ventures to confess that 
 
 " Those who are at all acquainted with Ecclesiastical his- 
 tory, know that this view had long been advocated by m-any 
 of the divines of the Church of Rome, especially among the 
 scholastic divines, including their great founder, Peter Lom- 
 bard, the Master of the Sentences/' 
 
 This avowal seems at once to destroy the doctrine 
 in question as an article to be adopted by Mr. Groocle 
 and the Presbyterians. The Eeverend gentleman, 
 however, does not give us this information as a con- 
 fession that the theory he maintains is a Romish 
 doctrine ; but (coupled with remarks elsewhere to 
 the effect that " Apostolical Succession w r as not uni- 
 versally held in the Church of Eome itself before 
 the Eeformation " ) he uses it to show that even 
 Papists are less exclusive or more liberal than those 
 who are decided Protestant Episcopalians. How far 
 this end will be promoted we shall see when the 
 origin and nature of the theory in question have 
 been explained. 
 
 About seven hundred years before the reforma- 
 tion Paschasius Eadbertus and some others began to 
 teach that, in the Sacrament of the altar the ele- 
 ments of bread and wine were totally changed into 
 the veritable flesh and blood of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ as soon as the Priest had pronounced the 
 words of consecration. This novel and startling 
 doctrine was warmly opposed by John Scotus Eri- 
 gena, Eatramnus and others ; but, nevertheless, it 
 gained such favor in the benighted Church that in 
 the year 1215 she added to her other offences against 
 God's truth this also, that she adopted Radbert's her- 
 
120 ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 
 
 esy, under the name of Transubstantiation, as an arti- 
 >f the faith. 
 
 This heresy assigns to the Priest power to perform 
 a stupendous miracle every time he officiates at Mass 
 — to make by his word a body for Christ — to "cre- 
 ate God." From it, then, naturally enough, pro- 
 ceeded the notion that no class of men could be of a 
 higher " Order n than these. 
 
 The Pope himself could work no mightier trans- 
 formation than the most illiterate parish Priest who 
 could get through the formula of consecration: * 
 even the Pope then could not be, strictly speaking, 
 of a higher " order " than the Priest. And if not 
 'the Pope, certainly not the Bishops, who were so 
 much his inferiors. 
 
 This, then, was the source of the theory adopted 
 at that time and still retained as a well-known doc- 
 trine of the Church of Eome, viz : that the priest- 
 hood is the highest Order in the Christian ministry, 
 For at least three hundred years before "the dawn 
 of the Eeformation " it was the prevalent or almost 
 universal doctrine, and was defended, when defended 
 at all, by the very same references to sentences in St. 
 Jerome which all Anti- Episcopalians make to-day. 
 
 * It is amusing to see this same argument protestantized and employed 
 by a Wesleyan writer to justify Presbyterian ordination, thus: It is as 
 plain as that two and two make four that the greater always includes 
 the less. Now the two sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper 
 are the greatest ritual observances in the Christian Church. A sacra- 
 ment is by all divines considered above all other ritual ordinances. Ordina- 
 tion is not a sacrament. He that has power and authority to perform the 
 greater has power and authority to perform the less. All Presbyters, by 
 the confession of our opponents, have power and authority to administer 
 the taeraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, the greater: all 
 Presbyter*, therefore, have power and authority to administer ordina- 
 ion, the less. — (Essay on Apostolical Succession, by Rev. Thos. Powell, 
 Amer. Ed. p. 130, note.) 
 
ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 121 
 
 At the Council of Trent (Session 23, caput 2) after 
 much discussion it was formally acknowledged to be 
 part of the creed of Rome. * 
 
 A statement of historic fact so indisputable as the 
 above needs no corroboration to satisfy those who 
 are so fortunate as to know anything of ecclesiastical 
 history. But, as there are many who will not wil- 
 lingly accept facts that militate against their own 
 notions, and as there are many others who have no 
 knowledge of the circumstances and times referred 
 to, and who may reasonably require to see some au- 
 thority for our statement, we print one or two pas- 
 sages, which will be amply sufficient. 
 
 " The Schoolmen, having set up the grand mystery of tran- 
 substantiation, were to exalt the priestly office as much as pos- 
 sible ; for the turning of the host into God was so great an 
 action, that they reckoned there could be no office higher than 
 that which qualified a man for so great a performance, * * * * * 
 so they raised their Order or office so high as to make it equal 
 to the Order of a Bishop ; but as they designed to extol the 
 Order of priesthood, so the Canonists had as great a mind to de- 
 press the Episcopal Order. They generally wrote for prefer- 
 ment, and the way to it was to exalt the Papacy. Nothing 
 could do that so effectually as to bring down the power of 
 Bishops. 
 
 " It was necessary to lay them as low as could be, and to make 
 them think that the power they held was rather as delegates of 
 the Apostolic See, than by a commission from Christ or his Apos- 
 tles." " They looked on the declaring Episcopal authority to be 
 of divine right as a bloiv that would be fatal to the Court of Rome; 
 and therefore they did after this, at Trent, use all possible en- 
 deavors to hinder any such decision. It having been then the 
 common style of that age to reckon Bishops and Priests as the 
 
 * If the reader has any desire to examine the precise view of the Ro- 
 man sect upon this matter of Order, we would refer him to that most 
 admirable and scholarly work, Elliot's Delineations of Roman Catholi- 
 cism, English Edition, Imp. 8vo., 1851, page 396, etc. There it will be 
 seen that the doctrine of that body is not clearly defined nor consistent, 
 but with its internal controversies or inconsistencies we have nothing to 
 do. It is enough for ns to justify the assertion in the text. 
 11 
 
122 ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 
 
 .<■ me office [order], it is no wonder if the clergy of tin's Church, 
 itest part of them being still leavened with the old supersti- 
 tion * * * * retained still the former phrases, in this partic- 
 ular/' — (Burnet's History, Bonn's ed., vol. i., p. 267.) 
 
 " The Council of Trent and the later writers in the Church 
 of Rome have not greatly insisted upon the three Orders, but 
 have generally classed together the first and second, Bishops 
 and Presbyters, under the common name of sacerdotes, priests ; 
 influenced herein by the high importance which they attached 
 to the priesthood, and by the disposition to reserve supreme 
 Episcopal authority to the Pope." — (Harold Browne on Articles, 
 London ed., p. 556.) 
 
 "I conclude the Romanists to have proceeded on their icell- 
 Jcnown principle, that Bishops and Presbyters are not two distinct 
 Orders, but only two branches of one Order, the Sacerdotium or 
 sacrificing priesthood/' And again : " The Roman tenet of the 
 ordinal identity of the Bishop and Presbyter" — (Faber on Iran- 
 substantiation, London ed., Introduction, pp. 124, 5.) 
 
 Here then we have the theory of parity traced to 
 its origin and its proper home. But Mr. Goode uses 
 it himself, and claims it for Presbyterians. They are 
 heartily welcome to it, such as it is, and to the com- 
 panionship which it involves. 
 
 As this theory of parity, then, taught by the 
 Schoolmen, by the document under notice, and by 
 the Council of Trent, is shown to be originally and 
 truly Roman Catholic, as it existed ages before the 
 daj^s of Luther, Cranmer, and Calvin, and has re- 
 mained unaltered since, it could not have had any 
 necessary connection with the Reformation. It was 
 held by the men who drew up the " Institution," just 
 as the real presence and the worship of Mary were 
 held by them. This part of our task, then, is ful- 
 filled. 
 
 2. TV e proceed now to show that it is not the 
 "very" doctrine on which Presbyterians base their 
 claim to ordain. Mr. Goode has not given their doc- 
 trine as they hold it. That of the "Institution" is a 
 
ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 123 
 
 parity of Bishops and Presbyters (with respect to 
 ministerial powers) ; but the Presbyterian claims 
 identity rather than parity. He knows no "Bishops 
 and Presbyters/' any more than he recognizes " Pres- 
 byters and Presbyters;" in his esteem every Bishop 
 is simply an Elder, Presbyter, or Priest, and every 
 such Presbyter is truly and fully a Bishop ; and 
 therefore, in his opinion, Presbyters are empowered 
 to perform every rite and exercise every power neces- 
 sary for the outward governance as well as the spir- 
 itual edification of the Church. Equality quoad 
 ministerium, as St. Jerome said, goes only to the 
 ministering of the word and sacraments, and (even 
 by Jerome himself) was understood as always reserv- 
 ing the power of ordaining and governing to the 
 Episcopal Order. Consequently such equality is not 
 the doctrine on which the " validity of Presbyterian 
 ordination has chiefly been rested," or ever could be 
 rested. But is this the " parity " taught in the doc- 
 uments? Undoubtedly it is. Eome has always, 
 though theorizing about sameness of " Order," put a 
 broad distinction between the Bishop and the Priest, 
 and preserved her principles and organization as a 
 decidedly Episcopal Church.* It is no part of our 
 duty to justify her course and attempt to reconcile 
 her inconsistencies ; we simply state the fact. Her 
 transubstantiation heresy makes her unduly magnify 
 her priesthood ; her pontifical usurpation makes her 
 
 * Canon VI. Si quis dixerit, in Ecclcsia Catholica non esse hierar- 
 chiuni, divina ordinatione institutam, quae constat ex Episcopis, Presby- 
 teris et Ministris : anathema sit. 
 
 VII. Si quis dixerit Episcopos non esse Presbyteris superiores, vel non 
 habere potestatem confirmandi et ordinandi; vel earn, quam habent illis 
 esse cum Presbyteris communem * * * * anathema sit." — {Be Sacra- 
 mento Ordinis Cauones Concilii Tridenti.) 
 
12-1 ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 
 
 deny superiority over Presbyters as inherent in the 
 Episcopate by divine rigid; yet, lest she should be- 
 come anarchical, she gives to her Bishops, from her 
 Pope, authority to rule and ordain, which, coming 
 from him who is Christ's vicar on earth, the infal- 
 lible head of the Church, confers full and divine 
 authority upon every one so commissioned ! And 
 thus we have parity and disparity working together 
 in the same body. Now such is precisely the theory 
 revealed in the documents. 
 
 Let us examine them. If they mention or inti- 
 mate an equality in "Order" between Bishops and 
 Priests, that fact does not help Mr. Goode at all ; for 
 Eome holds that notion. If they mention or intimate 
 any distinction between Bishop and Presbyter, they 
 certainly do not favor Presbyterianism. If such dis- 
 tinction be in connection with the power of ordina- 
 tion, then they are hostile to that system, and Mr. 
 Goode is completely at fault. 
 
 In the "Institution" (Oxford edition, 1825, p. 101) 
 we find the following statement of the powers and 
 duties of the ministry in general : 
 
 " As touching the sacrament of holy Orders, we think it con- 
 venient that all Bishops and preachers shall instruct and teach 
 the people committed unto their spiritual charge, first, how that 
 Christ and his Apostles did institute and ordain, in the New 
 Testament, that besides the civil powers and governance of 
 kings and princes (which is called potestas gladii, the power of 
 the sword), there should also be continually in the Church mili- 
 tant certain other ministers or officers, which should have 
 special power, authority, and commission, under Christ, to 
 preach and teach the Word of God unto His people ; to dispense 
 and administer the sacraments of God unto them, and by the 
 same to confer and give the grace of the Holy Ghost ; to conse- 
 crate the blessed body of Christ in the sacrament of the altar ; 
 to loose and absolve from sin all persons which be duly peni- 
 tent and sorry for the same ; to bind and excommunicate such 
 
.. ANTE-REFOEMATION DOCUMENTS. 125 
 
 as be guilty of manifest crimes arid sins, and will not amend 
 their defaults ; to order and consecrate others in the same room, 
 order, and office whereunto they be called and admitted them- 
 selves ; and finally to feed Christ's people like good pastors and 
 rectors (as the apostle calleth them) with their wholesome doc- 
 trine, and by their continual exhortations and admonitions to 
 reduce them from sin and iniquity, so much as in them lieth, 
 and to bring them unto the perfect knowledge, the perfect love 
 and dread of God, and the perfect charity of their neighbors." 
 
 Mr. Goode quotes part of this paragraph, adroitly- 
 stopping short in the middle where the Eoman the- 
 ology is revealed too plainly for his purpose. 
 
 Now, who are they to whom (without specifying 
 the duties of each) the above have been thus gene- 
 rally assigned ? The answer is given throughout the 
 whole work, and not merely in the short paragraph 
 which Mr. Goode appends to the above, as if it fol- 
 lowed it in regular order, though it is separated by 
 four pages in the original work ! Sometimes they 
 are spoken of as one order, and deacons as another. 
 They are called " Bishops and Priests/' and " Priests 
 or Bishops." (See pages 104-5.) 
 
 Now when we find the words united as above by 
 the copulative conjunction, "Bishops and Presbyters/' 
 we have it clearly indicated that however much parity 
 of Order be believed there is also held with it a real 
 distinction between the offices, and this is inconsistent 
 with Presbyterianism. But let us see in what the 
 distinction consists. 
 
 Ordination is thus referred to (page 105): 
 
 " The sacrament of Orders may worthily be called a sacra- 
 ment, because it is a holy rite or ceremony instituted by Christ 
 and his Apostles in the New Testament and doth consist of two 
 parts, like as the other sacraments of the Church do, that is to 
 say, of a spiritual and an invisible grace, and also of an out- 
 ward and a visible sign. The invisible gift or grace conferred 
 in this sacrament is nothing else but the power, the office, and 
 11* 
 
126 ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 
 
 the authority before mentioned. The visible and outward sign 
 is prayer and imposition of the Bishop's hands upon the person 
 which receiveth the said gift or grace. And to the intent the 
 Church of Christ should never be destituted of such ministers 
 as should have and execute the said power of the keys, it was 
 also ordained and commanded by the Apostles that the same 
 sacrament should be applied and administered by the Bishop 
 from time to time unto such other persons as had the qualities 
 necessarily required thereunto." 
 
 Here ; then, in the one point on which all the con- 
 troversy turns, the " Institution' 7 speaks not the lan- 
 guage of Geneva, but the very opposite. Mr. Groode's 
 weapon is found striking against himself! 
 
 Henry VIII. was by no means satisfied with " the 
 Bishop's Book." He had cast off papal authority 
 only that he might himself be pontiff within his own 
 realm ; and as his Bishops and courtiers had freely 
 granted to him the supreme headship of the Church 
 in England, he was determined to hold it, not as a 
 nominal, but a real sovereignty. Of faith and prac- 
 tice he would be high arbiter. So long then as Ee- 
 formation (without touching doctrines he approved, 
 or powers and liberties that he coveted) struck at the 
 Pope, or put monasteries at his mercy, or quietly ex- 
 tended the knowledge of religion among his people, 
 he was favorable to it, but the moment it touched 
 his power or opposed his private belief he put it back 
 with fire and sword. 
 
 The " Institution" did not please him, and so a 
 second edition of it, greatly enlarged and altered to 
 suit his views, was issued in 1543, under the title of 
 "A Necessary Erudition and Doctrine," etc. This is 
 commonly known as "the King's Book;" in it the 
 royal supremacy is intimated as extending to matters 
 which the Beformed Church of England has never 
 
ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 127 
 
 allowed, and the doctrines are in some respects even 
 more truly Romish than in its predecessor ; but as 
 regards the question we are considering there is no 
 difference. 
 
 Thus two of the documents quoted by Mr. Goode 
 are disposed of. 
 
 We now come to examine the third ; which is by 
 far the most important of all. 
 
 Three years after the publication of the "Institu- 
 tion," and three before the "Necessary Doctrine" was 
 issued, the king put certain questions to the Bishops 
 and some of the more learned of the priestly order, 
 "touching the sacraments and the appointment and 
 power of Bishops and Priests." The questions were 
 seventeen in number, and with the answers given to 
 them may be found in Burnet's History (Bohn's Ed., 
 Vol. ii., Collection page 89 to 101, and more at page 
 389) ; in Collier's, and part of them which Burnet had 
 at first omitted, may be found in Strype's Cranmer 
 (Routledge's Edition, Yol. ii. pp. 295, etc.). 
 
 The commissioners were as follows : Bishops — 
 Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury (whose connec- 
 tion with this matter we shall treat of separately) ; Lee, 
 Archbishop of York ; Bonner, Bishop of London ; 
 Tunstal, Bishop of Durham ; Barlow, Bishop of St. 
 Davids ; Aldrich, Bishop of Carlisle ; Skyp, Bishop 
 of Hereford ; Heathe, Bishop of Rochester ; Thirleby, 
 Bishop-elect of Westminster ; and Gardiner, Bishop 
 of Winchester. 
 
 Priests — Doctors Cox, Robinson, Day, Oglethorpe, 
 Redmayne, Symonds, Tresham, Leighton, Corwen, 
 and Crayford. 
 
 The reader who examines this list carefully will 
 
128 ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 
 
 not need to be in formed of the character of the men 
 whose opinions are quoted by Mr, Goode as those of 
 the " Bishops and Clergy of our Church," the men 
 who "drew up our standards" and "put forth the 
 Ordinal!"* 
 
 With the exception of Cranmer and Barlow among 
 the Bishops, and two, or at most three, of the other 
 divines, hardly one of the twenty commissioners ever 
 ceased to be the Romanist he was when replying to 
 the King's questions ; while as regards " bloody Bon- 
 ner." the vilest of persecutors, and, as Hooper called 
 him, "the most bitter enemy of the Gospel;" Gar- 
 diner, the cruel and wily fox, his associate in all evil ; 
 Thirleby, who was partner with them in the judgment 
 and degradation of Cranmer; Heathe, "that most 
 zealous Papist," and Day and Skyp, who as Bishops 
 protested against the Prayer Book when first com- 
 piled, it is surely not necessary to add another word. 
 The writer who cannot support his system without 
 their help, and without representing them as " re- 
 formers " and "leading divines of OUR Church" — ■ 
 friends to that which they persecuted relentlessly — 
 must surely feel the weakness of his cause driving 
 him farther than his conscience can approve. 
 
 In the document composed by these commissioners 
 we will of course find some slight differences of opin- 
 ion, but yet a substantial uniformity. We shall find 
 that the doctrine taught is precisely that in the " In- 
 stitution," and that wherein it varies from it, to the 
 
 me of them were appointed to act on the commission for preparing 
 the first Prayer Book and Ordinal ; but there is no evidence that they 
 ever served, and there is evidence that three at least protested against 
 both works. One ol* the Bishops went to prison rather than approve the 
 Ordinal, and all of the Romish party refused to use it, at least in conse- 
 crating Biskops. 
 
ANTE-REFOKMATION DOCUMENTS. 129 
 
 slightest extent, it is to favor the royal power, and 
 no other. Henry wanted authority to make Bishops 
 and other ministers and to unmake them as he saw 
 fit, and pointed his questions so as plainly to indicate 
 his desires. He had repudiated the Bishop of Rome ; 
 now he wished to seize, as belonging of divine right 
 to himself, spiritual and ecclesiastical authority over 
 the English Bishops, so that their consent to any 
 matter of doctrine and discipline would be less im- 
 portant than his own, and their presence and work 
 not necessary to ordination and consecration, but that 
 his mere appointment should suffice for all such pur- 
 poses. 
 
 The ninth question reads thus : 
 
 44 Whether the Apostles, lacking a higher power, as in not 
 having a Christian King dmong them, made Bishops by that 
 necessity, or by authority given by God V 9 
 
 To this they all replied, that the Apostles had re- 
 ceived divine authority to create Bishops. Lee, Arch- 
 bishop of York (who appears to have replied very 
 honestly and boldly to all the questions), declared no 
 other authority was needed ; while several of the 
 others stated that the Apostles " ought to have asked 
 license of their Christian governors, if there had been 
 any !" The learned Dr. Eedmayne, one of the very 
 few who became Protestants, commented thus upon 
 the word " make " in the query : 
 
 " This word making of a Bishop or a Priest may be taken two 
 ways ; for, understanding the word to ordain or consecrate, so 
 it is a thing which pertaineth to the Apostles and their successors 
 only ; but if by this word (making) be understood the appoint- 
 ing or naming to the office, so it pertaineth specially to the su- 
 preme heads and governors of the Church, which be princes !" 
 
 The reader will do well to mark this distinction, as 
 
130 AXTE-REFORMATIOX DOCUMENTS. 
 
 some of the writers have not paid attention to it and 
 the King repudiates it, asking, "Where is this dis- 
 tinction to be found?'' 
 Question 10 : 
 
 "Whether Bishops or Priests were first? and if the Priest 
 were first, then the Priest made the Bishop V 
 
 Archbishop Lee, of York, replies : 
 
 ''We think that the Apostles were Priests before they were 
 Bishops, and that the divine power which made them Priests 
 made them also Bishops. * * * * * * And we may well 
 think that then they were made Bishops, when they had not 
 only a flock, but also shepherds appointed to them to overlook, 
 and a governance committed to them by the Holy Ghost to oversee 
 both ; for the name of a Bishop is not properly a name of order, 
 but a name of office, signifying an overseer. And, although the 
 inferior shepherds have also cure to oversee their flocks, yet for- 
 somuch as the Bishop's charge is also to oversee the shepherds, 
 the name of overseer is given to the Bishops, and not to the 
 other ; and, as they be in degree higher, so in their consecra- 
 tion we finU difference even from the primitive Church/' 
 
 Mr. Groode has quoted this Archbishop as favoring 
 his theory in the above answer. He does it by omit- 
 ting all the first paragraph, and commencing his extract 
 in the middle of a sentence, to avoid the statement that 
 the Episcopal power is divine, having been committed 
 to the Apostles by the Holy Ghost. If authorities 
 are used in this way, anything may be proved or dis- 
 proved with equal ease. 
 
 Bonner (of London) replied : 
 
 " I think the Bishops were first, and yet I think it is not of 
 importance, whether the Priest then made the Bishop, or else 
 the Bishop the Priest ; considering (after the sentence of St. 
 Jerome) that in the beginning of the Church there was none 
 (or if it were, very small) difference between a Bishop and a 
 Priest, especially touching the signification." 
 
 All the replies to this question are of so nearly the 
 
ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 181 
 
 same character, that it is entirely unnecessary to 
 
 specify more of them. 
 
 Question 11 : 
 
 1 Whether a Bishop hath authority to make a Priest by the 
 Scripture or no ? And whether any other but only a Bishop 
 may make a Priest V 
 
 As this is the chief question of all, we will give 
 
 the substance of the replies of all. 
 
 Lee (of York) : " That a Bishop may make a Priest may be de- 
 duced of Scripture ; for so much as they have all authority neces- 
 sary for the ordering of Christ's Church derived from the Apos- 
 tles ** * * * * and that any other than Bishops or Priests may 
 make a Priest we neither find in Scripture nor out of Scripture/' 
 
 Mr. Gfoode has also quoted this answer, but has 
 prudently omitted the words in italics ! 
 
 Bonner (of London) says: " A Bishop duly appointed hath 
 authority by Scripture to make a Bishop and also a Priest." 
 
 Heathe (of Rochester) : " The Scripture showeth by example 
 that a Bishop hath authority to make a Priest ; albeit no Bishop 
 being subject to a Christian prince may either give orders, or 
 excommunicate, or use any manner of jurisdiction, or any part 
 of his authority without commission from the king, who is 
 supreme head of that Church whereof he is member. But that 
 any other man may do it besides a Bishop I find no example 
 either in Scripture or in doctors." 
 
 Aldrich (of Carlisle) : "A Bishop by Scripture may make 
 Deacons and Priests, and we have none example otherwise !" 
 
 Tunstal (of Durham) or Gardiner (of Winchester), (it is not 
 known which, as the paper is not signed) : " Scripture war- 
 ranteth a Bishop (obeying high powers, as his prince christianed) 
 to order a Priest by imposition of hands and prayer. Of others 
 Scripture speaketh not." 
 
 Thirleby (of Westminster) : "A Bishop having authority of 
 his Christian prince to give Orders, may, by his ministry given 
 to him of God in Scripture, ordain a Priest. And we read not 
 that any other not being a Bishop hath since the beginning of 
 Christ's Church ordered a Priest." 
 
 Dr. Cox: "Bishops have authority <^f the Apostles to make 
 Priests ; except in case of great necessity." 
 
 Dr. Day: "Bishops have authority by Scripture to ordain 
 Bishops and Priests. 
 
 Dr. Oglethorpe : "Authority to ordain is given to Bishops by 
 the Word." 
 
132 ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 
 
 Dr. Redmayne : " As for making, that is to say, ordaining 
 and consecrating of Priests, I think it specially belongetk to the 
 office of a Bishop, as far as can be showed by Scripture, or any 
 example, as 1 suppose, from the beginning. " 
 
 Dr. Edgeworth: "A Bishop hath authority by Scripture to 
 make a Priest, and that any other ever made a Priest since 
 Christ's time I read not. Albeit, Moses who was not nominated 
 Priest made Aaron Priest and Bishop by a special commission 
 or revelation from God, without which he would never so have 
 done.' 7 
 
 Dr. Symmons : " A Bishop placed by the higher powers, and 
 admitted to minister, may make a Priest ; and I have not read 
 of any other that ever made Priests." 
 
 Dr. Tresham: " I say a Bishop hath authority by Scripture 
 to make a Priest, and other than a Bishop hath not power therein, 
 but only in case of necessity." 
 
 Dr. Leighton : " I suppose that a Bishop hath authority from 
 God, as his minister by Scripture, to make a Priest ; but he 
 ought not to admit any man to be Priest and consecrate him, or 
 to appoint him unto any ministry in the Church without the 
 prince's license and consent in a Christian region. And that 
 any other man hath authority to make a Priest by Scripture, 1 
 have not read, nor any example thereof" 
 
 Dr. Corwen: "A Bishop being licensed by his prince and 
 supreme governor hath authority to make a Priest by the law 
 of God. I do not read that any Priest hath been ordered by any 
 other than a Bishop !" 
 
 Dr. Robertson says, that the Bishop has power to ordain, but 
 should exercise it by permission of the chief magistrate. Whe- 
 ther any other has such power he knows not: has never read 
 that it was done by any other. 
 
 The full and fair sense of the entire commission, 
 except Cranmer, is here set forth ; and the reader 
 can now judge whether our assertion as to the doc- 
 trine of these documents is not correct in every par- 
 ticular. We find a parity of " Order" acknowledged 
 and yet associated with it, Episcopacy by divine 
 right, and the power of ordination exclusively belong- 
 ing to the Bishop. 
 
 This is the theory maintained in the three Pre- 
 Eeformation documents, and yet the Eev. Mr. Goode 
 
ANTE-KEFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 133 
 
 has the courage to assert that their doctrine is the 
 " very" one on which Presbyterians ground their 
 claim to ordain ministers ! Either the Eeverend gen- 
 tleman never took the trouble to read the whole of 
 the papers he quotes and writes about so confi- 
 dently, or else by the most singular fatality he failed 
 to perceive more than half their meaning, and even 
 that half he has not succeeded in setting forth fairly 
 and distinctly. 
 
 Before passing on ; we beg the reader to contrast 
 the answers above given with that surprising state- 
 ment made by our author on page 29. 
 
 " Not one ventures to determine definitively that the power 
 of ordination belongs exclusively to Bishops." 
 
 Here as usual we find a loophole — "determine 
 definitively ! " And so those answers are regarded 
 as of no account in which the respondents say " they 
 have never read that any but a Bishop could ordain I" 
 The phrase italicized is simply equivalent to this, 
 "We never heard of such a thing! We never saw 
 the least evidence for it!" But Mr. Goode puts in 
 an "only," and tries to represent it as something like 
 an admission that Priests also might ordain ! 
 
 Let it be borne in mind that the divines were not 
 asked to " determine definitively," but to say whether 
 " by the Scripture" a Bishop hath authority to ordain, 
 and "whether any other but only a Bishop may make 
 a Priest or no?" To this query what negative could 
 be more direct than those of the Bishops of Durham, 
 Carlisle and Eochester, Dr. Corwen, Dr. Leighton, etc. 
 Butdet us ask if "definitive" determination is neces- 
 sary to show the judgment of these divines upon 
 ordination by Presbyters, why Mr. Goode has not 
 12 
 
134 ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 
 
 quoted even one sucli determination in favor of it? 
 If his theory be correct, if those men held as he 
 states to the identity of Order of the Bishop and the 
 Priest, why should they hesitate to say that the one 
 could do of right whatever the other could do ? But 
 no man ventures so to say. The inference is plain. 
 
 Henceforth then we hope to hear less about Pres- 
 byterian "parity" being the prevailing doctrine at 
 "the very dawn of the Reformation." 
 
 Having disposed of the author's statement to that 
 effect, we subjoin for the reader's benefit an extract 
 which, coming from so strong a Low Church leader 
 as Bishop Burnet, is very appropriate, and should 
 have unusual force. 
 
 "On this [the matter of parity between Bishops and Priests] 
 I have insisted the more that it may appear how little they have 
 considered things, who are so far carried with their zeal against 
 the established government of this Church as to make much use 
 of some passages of the schoolmen and canonists that deny 
 them to be distinct offices. For these are the very dregs of 
 Popery." " So partial are some men to their particular conceits 
 that they make use of the most mischievous topics if they can serve 
 their turn, not thinking how much farther the arguments will 
 run if they ever admit them." — [History, Vol. i., p. 263.) 
 
 Cranmer. — The case of the great Archbishop de- 
 serves and requires separate consideration on ac- 
 count as- well of the importance justly attached to his 
 views, as of the peculiar circumstances under which 
 he drew up his answers to the King's questions. 
 
 As the principal person engaged in the commis- 
 sion for compiling the "Institution," Cranmer of 
 course held in 1537 the doctrines it contains as to 
 parity of " Order " and Episcopal Ordination. Dur- 
 ing the next year he asserted the same views, the 
 latter more especially. He was the principal person 
 
ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 135 
 
 employed in the negotiations with the German di- 
 vines sent over A. D. 1538, and the papers presented 
 to them as a basis of union were drawn up by his 
 own hand. In them he writes thus : 
 
 " The Scripture openly teaches that the order and ministry 
 of Priests and Bishops were instituted by divine and not human 
 authority, that their power, function and administration are 
 necessary to the Church so long as here on earth we contend 
 with the flesh, the world and the devil, nor ought they [the 
 Orders mentioned] to be on any account abolished; that Christ 
 gave the power or office of administering the word and sacra- 
 ments of God to his own Apostle-s, and in and through them 
 delivered the same not promiscuously to all but only to certain 
 men, namely Bishops and Presbyters, who are properly ad- 
 mitted to the office." 
 
 And in another paragraph he says that candidates 
 for the ministry should be presented to the Bishop, 
 that they may receive charge in the Church. (Cran- 
 f mer ) s Letters and Remains, Parker Soc?y, pp. 48-1-5.) 
 
 The article (" de ordine et ministerio sacerdotum et 
 episcoporum ") in which these passages occur was one 
 of those rejected by the Lutherans, and that, as we 
 are told, because it taught the divine right of the 
 Episcopate, while they, having only a system of su- 
 perintendency or humanly authorized Episcopacy, 
 felt that they would be condemned thereby. The 
 fact of their rejecting it then establishes the other 
 fact, that Cranmer held higher views of the nature 
 and office of the Bishop in 1538 than the German 
 divines who accepted an Episcopacy non jure divino. 
 
 Now is it not entirely out of the common course 
 of nature that opinions which a man has held all his 
 life, opinions avowedly based upon plain Scriptural 
 foundation and supported by irrefragable testimony 
 from ecclesiastical history, should in so very short a 
 
136 ANTE-REFORMATION" DOCUMENTS. 
 
 period as loss than two years, without any study that 
 we know of, or the offering of any new fact or reason 
 in justification of such a change, be completely aban- 
 doned? It certainly is. And yet in 1540 Cranmer 
 answered the King's questions just as a man who 
 wished to destroy belief in a divinely instituted min- 
 istry would write. So strange a falling off needs 
 explanation, and this we now present. 
 
 We have already mentioned Henry's desire to be 
 the only and the absolute source and holder of power, 
 temporal and spiritual, within his dominions. He 
 was continually making known his desires in this 
 respect, and Cranmer knew them well. Henry w T ould 
 willingly enough defend his Bishops against the 
 Pope, or against any presumptuous Presbyter that 
 might arise to oppose them, but yet he could not 
 brook patiently their claim to divine right inherent 
 in their office. He opposed it not because he loved 
 Episcopacy less, but because he loved his own royal 
 authority more. When the Bishops in the " Institu- 
 tion" said that the power and authority of teaching, 
 ministering and ruling in the Church had been given 
 by Christ himself only to certain men whom they 
 set apart for that holy and important work, Henry's 
 comment was : " Note, that there were no kings Christ- 
 ian under whom they did dwell." And when (sub- 
 sequently) Eedmayne and Thirleby pointed out the 
 difference between "making" a Priest or a Bishop, 
 in the sense of electing or appointing, and in the 
 sense of ordaining and consecrating, the King would 
 not grant such a distinction, but argued that as the 
 Apostles if they had had Christian Kings would have 
 left (as he supposed) the appointment of the Bishops 
 
ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 137 
 
 to them, so they might have left the consecration 
 
 also. 
 
 " Now sins yow confesse that the apostyllys did occupate the 
 won part, which now yow confesse belong eth to princes, how can 
 you prove that ordeyning is wonly committed to yow bysshopes?" 
 
 The spirit of this inquiry is that of the entire 
 paper submitted to the commission. The second 
 clause in the 11th question, viz : "whether any other 
 but only a Bishop may make a Priest/' was not 
 meant of Presbyters, but of Kings. Some of the other 
 inquiries betray the object of them still more plainly. 
 
 Now of all who replied to these queries only one 
 man gave in every instance the answer desired by 
 Henry, and that man was the Archbishop Thomas 
 Oramner. 
 
 His reply to the ninth question (given above) was: 
 
 " All Christian princes have committed unto them, imme- 
 diately of God, the whole cure of all their subjects, as well con- 
 cerning the administration of God's word for the cure of souls, 
 as concerning the ministration of things political and civil gov- 
 ernance." " The ministers of God's word under his Majesty be 
 the Bishops, Parsons, Vicars, and such other Priests as be ap- 
 pointed by his Hiyhness to that ministration ; as, for example, 
 the Bishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Duresme, the Bishop 
 of Winchester, the Parson of Winwick, etc. All the said offi- 
 cers and ministers, as well of the one sort as of the other, be 
 appointed, assigned, and elected in every place by the laws and 
 orders of kings and princes." 
 
 To this he adds that Christian people in the Apos- 
 tolic age, having no King, " were constrained of neces- 
 sity to take such curates and priests as they knew 
 themselves to be meet thereunto, or else as were com- 
 mended unto them" by the Apostles ! 
 
 To the tenth question (given above) he answers : 
 
 " The Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two 
 things, but both one office, in the beginning of Christ's reli- 
 gion." 
 
 12* 
 
13S ANTE-REFORMATION" DOCUMENTS. 
 
 To the eleventh question (given above) he answers: 
 
 "A Bishop may make a Priest by the Scripture, and so may 
 princes and governors also, and the people also by their elec- 
 tion/' 
 
 Twelfth question : 
 
 " Whether in the New Testament be required any consecra- 
 tion of a Bishop and Priest, or only appointing to the office be 
 sufficient f" 
 
 Answer.: 
 
 " In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop 
 or Priest needeth no consecration by the Scripture ; for election 
 or appointing thereto is sufficient!" 
 
 Thirteenth question : 
 
 "Whether (if it befortuned a Prince Christian-learned to 
 conquer certain dominions of infidels, having none but tem- 
 poral-learned men with him) it be defended by God's law, that 
 he and they should preach and teach the word of God there, or 
 no ? and also make and constitute Priests or no f" 
 
 Answer : 
 
 " It is not against God's law, but contrary, they ought indeed 
 so to do" etc., etc. 
 
 Fourteenth question : 
 
 " Whether it be forfended by God's law that (if it so fortuned 
 that all the Bishops and Priests of a region were dead, and that 
 the word of God should remain there unpreached, the sacra- 
 ment of Baptism and others unministered, that the King of that 
 region should make Bishops and Priests to supply the same, 
 or no?" 
 
 Answer : 
 
 " It is not forbidden by God's law." 
 
 There will be no difficulty in perceiving how en- 
 tirely at variance these views are with those pre- 
 viously avowed by .the Archbishop, and also how far 
 apart from the teachings of our Church. They are 
 toned to suit the King; and the secret is this — they 
 were written in the shadow of the scaffold ! 
 
ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 139 
 
 The cause of Keformation had that very year met 
 its greatest check. Lord Cromwell, the great friend 
 of Cranmer and favorer of the Gospel, was, on a 
 false pretence, put to death by the public execu- 
 tioner. In his fall the Papists — whose hopes were 
 by it revived — supposed they saw a presage of Cran- 
 mer's fall, and all their energies were then, and for 
 four years afterward, bent to the task of sending the 
 Archbishop after the statesman. The notorious " Act 
 of Six Articles " became law in spite of the Primate's 
 influence, and as this "terrible, bloody" enactment 
 made it treason and heresy, punishable with burning 
 to death, and forfeiture of all the individual's goods 
 to the crown, to say a word against transubotantiation, 
 or treason and felony for a priest to have a wife, the 
 poor Archbishop was obliged to "betake himself to 
 retirement and greater privacy," and to dismiss his 
 wife, who was the niece of Osiander, the German Ee- 
 former. Latimer and Shaxton could not conscien- 
 tiously retain their bishopricks, so they resigned, and 
 were cast into prison ; and while they and over five 
 hundred others were in the common jails as violators 
 of the new law, the Archbishop, the head and front 
 of the reforming party, standing almost alone, de- 
 serted by friends, and appearing to live merely by 
 the sufferance of a cruel and capricious tyrant, had 
 the questions put to him as already stated. He took 
 counsel of his fears, and replied as Henry wished, 
 which he could do the more easily, as he always had 
 been the strongest supporter of the divine right of 
 "kings. 
 
 The ready and flippant reply to this will be, that 
 we accuse the good Bishop of gross unfaithfulness. 
 
140 AXTE-KEFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 
 
 But not so ; far be it from us to accuse him. We know, 
 unhappily too well, that he was not insensible to fear 
 when danger of death, in its most dreadful form, 
 threatened him; and while we glorify God for the 
 strength given, by which he was made at last willing 
 to accept and able to endure the torturing flame, we, 
 with himself, mourn over "the unworthy hand" 
 which signed the recantation. The previous yield- 
 ing was surely much less criminal than recanting 
 altogether ; and if timidity could induce the perform- 
 ance of the greater defection, it could also of the less. 
 "We have evidence that in the year (1540) now 
 under consideration the Archbishop did, in another 
 very important matter, yield completely to the King. 
 Henry was tired of Anne of Cleves, and wanted her 
 removed. The Eomish party heartily wished her 
 out of the way. The question of divorce was sent 
 to Parliament and Convocation ; it was vigorously 
 pressed by all enemies to Church reform, and Cran- 
 mer gave his full consent to it among the rest. 
 Bishop Burnet thus records the fact : 
 
 u Cranmer, whether overcome with these arguments, or 
 rather with fear, for he knew it was contrived to send him quickly 
 after Cromwell, consented with the rest. So that the whole Con- 
 vocation with one disagreeing vote judged the marriage null 
 and of no force, and that both the King and the Lady were free 
 from the bond of it. This was the greatest piece of compliance 
 that ever the king had from the clergy." 
 
 The same causes which forced Cranmer to yield to 
 Henry in the one matter were in operation, and led to 
 his yielding in the other. But, in stating this fact in 
 explanation of the extraordinary opinions avowed in 
 the answers given above, we by no means wish to 
 strip one leaf of laurel from the brow of him whom 
 
ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 141 
 
 in our heart of hearts we honor and love beyond 
 any other uninspired man that ever trod our earth. 
 Were he free from such infirmities as these facts in 
 his history reveal, he would have been not man but 
 angel. But, with these infirmities he is still the best 
 of men, and the greatest of all Reformers; the wisest, 
 the most patient and painstaking, the most conscien- 
 tious, the most learned, the most modest and God- 
 fearing man of them all. And when we think of 
 the characters of those who are often spoken of as 
 his superiors, and who died at ease in their beds, 
 while he at the stake witnessed his good confession 
 for Christ, we feel that the world has not yet opened 
 its eyes to the excellence of the great Bishop who, 
 under God, was the Father of England's Reformed 
 Church. 
 
 But let us see what he himself thought his duty 
 to be when the King's cause or opinion might be 
 different from his. Writing to Cromwell in the 
 year 1535, in reference to Gardiner's attempt to ex- 
 cite Henry against him for styling himself as usual, 
 "Primate of all England," he said Gardiner took 
 such a course as made him appear not to "maintain 
 his own cause but the King's ; against whose highness 
 I will maintain no cause, but give place, and lay both 
 m,y cause and myself at the Prince's feet" This was 
 written when his star was in the ascendant ; how 
 much more likely was such compliance when the 
 headsman's axe and the flaming faggot were ready to 
 cut him off. Such, then, were the circumstances 
 under which the poor Bishop wrote his replies, and 
 appended to them this striking sentence : 
 
 " This is mine opinion arid sentence at this present, which, 
 
142 ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 
 
 nevertheless, I do not temerariously define, but refer the judg- 
 ment thereof wholly unto your majesty. T. Cantuarien." 
 
 Is it not strange that opinions so entirely different 
 
 from the previous and later views of the writer, so 
 
 modestly put forth, and left after all to be set aside 
 
 by the King if he desired it, should, without one 
 
 word of explanation, be quoted, and that, too, by a 
 
 Church clergyman, as the settled doctrine of the 
 
 great Archbishop ? Yet Mr. Goocle so quotes them, 
 
 and leaves his readers under the impression that 
 
 Cranmer never held any other. Burnet, in whose 
 
 History he found the document, tells us plainly that 
 
 Cranmer's answers contained 
 
 " Some singular opinions of his about the nature of ecclesi- 
 astical offices * * but as they were delivered by him with all pos- 
 sible modesty, so they were not established as the doctrine of 
 the Church, but laid aside as particular conceits of his own, as 
 it seems that afterwards he changed his opinion." 
 
 But as such change would not favor the theory of 
 Mr. Goode, his readers are left to suppose it never 
 took place. We shall see. 
 
 In 1543, the King employed the Archbishop in 
 compiling the " Necessary Erudition." His attempt 
 in 1540 had convinced him that the Church would 
 not give up even to the King those powers which it 
 held of Divine right ; therefore he contented himself 
 with strong statements of his supreme authority, and 
 the duty of all subjects (lay and clerical) to their 
 prince, and with putting to death those who denied 
 the one or omitted the other. As regards the polity, 
 then, the doctrine of the " Erudition" was allowed to 
 remain to all intents and purposes the same as that 
 of the "Institution," published seven years before. 
 Here, then, we see the return of the Archbishop to a 
 
ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 143 
 
 better mind already. During the next year he so 
 far prevailed with the King as to have the severity 
 of the "Six Articles/' relaxed, and leave given for 
 the use of a Litany in English, but all further at- 
 tempts at reformation were steadily repressed. 
 
 We have no other writing by Cranmer, during 
 Henry's life, from which his views on the point before 
 us can be collected. But in the very first year of 
 Edward VI., when he was at the head of affairs, and 
 fully free to act, we find him publishing a sermon 
 which we will refer to again, and in which the doc- 
 trine of Apostolical Succession is strongly main- 
 tained. He issued it, in connection with that known 
 as Cranmer's Catechism (which is in reality a transla- 
 tion from a German one, of which Justus Jonas had 
 made a Latin version) ; in this work the " Apostol- 
 ical descent, Episcopal ordination, and the power of 
 the Keys, are strongly enforced and greatly enlarged 
 upon," (see Oxford ed., 1829, page 123, etc.) 
 
 Bishop Burnet gives the same account of this 
 book, and says of Cranmer : 
 
 " It is plain that he had now quite laid aside those singular 
 opinions which he formerly held of the ecclesiastical functions ; 
 for now, in a work which was wholly his own, without the 
 concurrence of any others, he fully sets forth their Divine Insti- 
 tution. 
 
 In a fragment on "unwritten varieties" composed 
 in 1548, the Archbishop says : 
 
 " In the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost descended 
 upon the Apostles and disciples of Christ, they received such 
 grace and ghostly knowledge that they had forthwith the gift 
 of the understanding of Scripture to speak in the tongue of all 
 men, and also that upon whomsoever they laid their hands the 
 Holy Ghost should descend upon them." 
 
1-14 ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 
 
 He then goes on to mention the writing of the 
 Gospel and of the Apostolic Epistles, and their accept- 
 ation by the Church as inspired writings, and adds: 
 
 "It was authorized that when the people that were newly 
 converted to the faith were full of grace and of devotion, re- 
 plenished with virtues, desiring always the life to come, and 
 the health of their own souls and of their neighbors. Then 
 also were blessed bishops, blessed priests and other blessed 
 person's of the clergy, and what could such men ask of God 
 right wisely, that should be denied them V 
 
 In this (and other still more important writings 
 yet to be mentioned) the Archbishop abandons his 
 theory of two Orders, and trie " parity " attached to 
 it. He names three Orders at least, as existing in 
 the golden prime of the Apostolic Church. Had he 
 in the meantime (that is since 1540) been employed 
 in any research which would extend his knowledge 
 or correct his mistaken notions upon those subjects ? 
 Yes! He had set himself to another careful re- 
 reading of Scripture and of all the Fathers (with a 
 view to discovering the true and primitive doctrine 
 of the Sacraments), and from these two source^ he 
 found that the Eomish doctrine of the Lord's Supper 
 was a heresy and novelty, and pari passu he discov- 
 ered that an Episcopate degraded by a presumptuous 
 overvaluing of the priesthood, and by the arrogant 
 assumption of a Pope, had no resemblance to the 
 Episcopate of Primitive and Apostolic Christianity. 
 He saw that man had dishonored what God had in- 
 stituted by his chosen servants, and that it was the 
 duty of those who would reform the Church to re- 
 dress this wrong also. Consequently in 15-48-9, 
 1551-2 when the great and good man was drawing 
 up our formularies in their first shape, he, with his 
 
ANTE-REFORMATION DOCUMENTS. 145 
 
 own hand, wrote the sentence where, again and again, 
 the ministers of Christ are classed in their separate 
 Orders ; and in the preface to the Ordinal, he, Arch- 
 bishop Cranmer, wrote that it is 
 
 " Evident unto all men diligently reading holy scriptures 
 and ancient authors, that from the Apostles 7 time, there have been 
 these orders of ministers in Christ 7 s Church : Bishops, Priests, 
 and Deacons. - " 
 
 The reader of Mr. Groode's pamphlet, if he had no 
 other guide, would know but little of these facts, and 
 taking the Reverend gentleman's account of Cranmer 
 for a true and full representation, would naturally 
 enough suppose that the chief founder of our Church 
 was really and always an Brastian who cared little or 
 nothing how it was constituted. 
 
 The truth is here made known, and thus we learn 
 that he who was the principal framer of our stand- 
 ards, was a believer in the doctrine of Apostolical 
 Succession, and ordination exclusively by Bishops. 
 
 18 
 
CHAPTEK VII. 
 
 THE FORMULARIES. 
 
 WE come now to examine the first class of our 
 Standards with a view to discover the Church's 
 doctrine on Episcopacy, and her judgment of what con- 
 stitutes lawful ordination to the Christian ministry. 
 
 Mr. Groode's theory (so far as it can be collected 
 from his pamphlet) is, that the Church does not hold 
 the divine institution of a threefold ministry, that 
 she looks upon Bishops and Priests as one in Order 
 though differing in office] and he insinuates that 
 whereinsoever the office of a Bishop differs from 
 that of a Priest it is by man's will and arrangement, 
 and not God's ; consequently the Bishop has by di- 
 vine right no separate standing and no peculiar priv- 
 ileges, and the imposition of his hands is not neces- 
 sary to constitute a lawful ordination. 
 
 We differ from the Eeverend gentleman toto cosh. 
 We maintain that the Church holds the divine insti- 
 tution of a ministry consisting of three separate and 
 distinct Orders, that she gives no sanction whatever 
 to the Eomish notion of a parity in " Order " between 
 Bishops and Priests, and that she gives to the Bishop, 
 and to him exclusively, the right of ordaining minis- 
 ters in the Church of Christ. 
 
 (146) 
 
THE FORMULARIES. 147 
 
 At the time of our Protestant Church's first es- 
 tablishment, there were in the Eoman Church, whose 
 doctrine and rule she cast off, great numbers of eccle- 
 siastics of different (so called) " Orders' 7 and degrees, 
 viz: "Ostiarii," "Lectores," " Exorcists," " Acolyths" 
 " Sub-Deacons," " Deacons," " Priests," " Bishops," 
 ' " Archbishops," and "Pope," to say nothing of 
 Friars and Monks, Abbots, Cardinals, etc., etc. 
 
 Now as the English divines in reorganizing their 
 ecclesiastical affairs went on the principle of follow- 
 ing implicitly the Word of (rod, and the practice of 
 primitive Christians, we take it for granted that 
 the ministerial Orders she preserved would be those 
 for which she saw full warrant in Holy Scripture 
 and the Apostolic Church, and those which she did 
 not preserve would be rejected as unscriptural and 
 merely of human origin. The first five of the ftom- 
 ish Orders and some of the others were neither pre- 
 served nor mentioned by her, and thus sufficiently 
 repudiated. 
 
 But in addition to Bishops, Priests and Deacons, 
 she preserved the office of Archbishop and Arch- 
 deacon and those connected with her Cathedral estab- 
 lishments, viz. : Deans, Canons, Prebendaries, etc., 
 and the question now arises whether her doing so 
 does not stamp them as in her estimation all equally 
 and alike divine as to their origin? To this we 
 answer emphatically, No ! She preserves the last 
 named offices as allowable and convenient for her, 
 but the broad distinction which she herself makes 
 between them and the three Apostolic Orders shows 
 that while she claims nothing for them but allowance, 
 she regards the others as divine. 
 
148 THE FORMULARIES. 
 
 Such a "parity" in order with difference in " office" 
 as Mr. Goode argues for in the case of the Bishop 
 and the Priest, the Church recognizes as existing 
 between the Archbishop and the Bishop. But if his 
 theory were correct, the Bishop would occupy in our 
 formularies no more prominent position, and have 
 claimed for his office no higher warrant than is now 
 claimed in them for the Archbishop. Let us see, 
 then, how the facts are. 
 
 In the preface to the (English) Prayer Book we 
 find three classes of ministers mentioned, and these 
 are " Bishops," "Priests," and " Deacons." The 
 "Archbishop" is once mentioned as ultimate referee 
 in doubtful cases, but not as belonging to any supe- 
 rior order of ministers. 
 
 In the daily morning and evening service, prayers 
 are offered up for the " Bishops and Curates," or per- 
 sons having cure of souls.* 
 
 In the Litany there is a special petition for all 
 "Bishops, Priests, and Deacons," no others of any 
 office or degree being mentioned. 
 
 In the first of the two collects for Ember-days, the 
 Almighty is asked to guide the minds of His 
 
 " Servants the Bishops and pastors of his flock, that they 
 may lay hands suddenly on no man, but faithfully and wisely 
 make choice of fit persons to serve in the sacred ministry of 
 the Church." 
 
 In the other collect for same season, God is ad- 
 dressed as the 
 
 " Giver of all good gifts, who of his Divine Providence hath 
 appointed divers orders in his Church." 
 
 * u Our Bishops and other clergy." — [American Book of Common 
 Prayer.) 
 
THE FORMULARIES. 149 
 
 u Divers " Orders must be not only more than one, 
 but more than two. The phrase would apply to five 
 or to fifty, but it clearly means more than two, and 
 the precise number which the Church regards as thus 
 divinely instituted is fixed by her frequent references, 
 as above shown, to three such Orders, and three only. 
 In fact, we meet continually, throughout the whole 
 Liturgy and Offices, with Bishop, Priest, and Deacon 
 * (the* titles Curate or Minister being occasionally ap- 
 plied to the Priest or the Deacon), but we meet with 
 no fourth Order, and not the slightest intimation of 
 parity between any two of the three which the 
 Church thus specifies as those ordained by God. 
 
 We now proceed to the Articles. The Twenty- 
 third reads thus : 
 
 "It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of 
 public preaching or ministering the sacraments in the congre- 
 gation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the 
 same ; and those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent 
 which be chosen and called to this work by men who have 
 public authority given unto them in the congregation to call and 
 send ministers into the Lord's vineyard." 
 
 Upon this Article Mr. Goode comments thus : 
 
 "It must be observed how carefully this is worded, so as not 
 to limit a lawful ministry to those who have Episcopal ordina- 
 tion, and it is hardly possible for one acquainted with the cir- 
 cumstances of the times in which it was written, to read it and 
 not see that this carefulness was for the very purpose of not 
 excluding the ministry of the Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches." 
 
 We have taken some pains to make ourselves well 
 acquainted with the circumstances of the time referred 
 to, and yet fail utterly to perceive any such " careful- 
 ness not to exclude/' or any notice of, or any regard 
 to any body or Church on earth, other than that 
 general Church of Christ mentioned in the Article. 
 
 13 * 
 
150 THE FORMULAEIES. 
 
 If Mr. Goode would himself consider the origin 
 of the Article, he would probably understand it dif- 
 ferently. We find it, or the germ of it, forming one 
 of the series of Articles* referred to in the last 
 chapter as having been drawn up by Cranmer and 
 submitted to the German divines who were sent to 
 England, in 1538, with a view to effecting a union 
 between the English and Lutheran Churches. Some 
 of those Articles were rejected by the Germans, and 
 the whole scheme was abandoned, because [among 
 other reasons] the English Primate, and other 
 Bishops, had set forth as divine, and therefore neces- 
 sary in a Church, the three Orders of the Christian 
 Ministry. This being so, it is perfectly absurd to say 
 that one part of the series shows a " carefulness not 
 to exclude" those who felt themselves excluded by 
 another part ! And so precisely with the Article in 
 its present form and position. We do not quote it 
 as establishing Episcopacy, but Mr. Goode quotes it 
 as not doing so, and as exhibiting some extraordinary 
 
 * The following is the Article "de ministris Ecclesiae," A. D. 1538. 
 The reader will see that its first sentence is almost identical with the 
 Twenty-third Article, as written by the same author, Thomas Cranmer, 
 in 1549. 
 
 " De ministris ecclesiae docemus, quod nemo debeat publice docere, 
 sacra m en ta ministrare, nisi rite vocatus, et quidem ab his, penes quos in 
 Ecclesia juxta verbum Dei, et leges ac consuetudines uniuscujusque re- 
 gionis, jus est vocandi, et admittendi. Et quod nullus ad ecclesiae minis- 
 terium vocatus etiamsi episcopus sit, sive Roinanus sive quicunque alius, 
 hoc sibi jure divino vindicare possit, ut publice docere sacramenta minis- 
 trare, vel ullam aliam ecclesiasticam functionem in aliena diocesi aut 
 parochia exercere valeat : hoc est nee episcopus in alterius episcopi dio- 
 cesi, nee parochus in alterius parochia. Et demum quod malitia ministri 
 effieaciae sacramentorum nihil detrahat, ut jam supra docuimus in articulo 
 de ecclesia." — (Cranmer' 8 Remains, Parker Society, p. 477.) 
 
 We desire no stronger acknowledgment of the divine right of Bishops 
 than is contained in this very Article, the first sentence of which, or its 
 equivalent, is supposed to have been " carefully worded " so as not to 
 exclude those who reject Bishops ! 
 
THE FORMULARIES. 151 
 
 carefulness "not to exclude" Presbyterians. We 
 reply, it takes no notice of them, any more than of 
 Whigs or Tories, Mormons or Shakers.* It exhibits 
 no such carefulness at all. It simply declares the 
 general truth, that no one should presume to act as a 
 Christian Minister until he had first been lawfully 
 called and sent by those possessing, in the Church of 
 Christ, the power to send laborers into the Lord's 
 vineyard. It does not specify who those lawful 
 ordainers are, for that is not the object of the Article. 
 But if we find anywhere else in our standards such 
 doctrine held, or such practice enjoined as does ex- 
 clude Non-Episcopalians, what becomes of the notion 
 that the Article was " carefully worded " for the very 
 opposite purpose ?f 
 
 We now invite the attention of the reader to the 
 word " congregation " italicized in the latter part of the 
 Article as quoted above. The italics are Mr. Goode's : 
 Why has he emphasized the word ? 
 
 Those accustomed to the phraseology of the present 
 
 * The author hopes that no one will represent him as speaking disre- 
 spectfully or unkindly here. He only means to show that Presbyterians 
 are not at all referred to. 
 
 f Authoritative interpretation of the formularies can only be given by 
 the Church as a body, or by the very persons who were concerned in 
 drawing up the formularies. Next to Cranmer, the most important per- 
 son in the framing of our devotional and doctrinal standards was Bishop 
 Ridley, one of the most learned men of his age, and an illustrious mem- 
 ber of the "noble army of Martyrs." His exposition of the first stan- 
 dards would, of course, be " authoritative. " Can we find, then, anything 
 from his pen that will help us to an understanding of this Twenty-third 
 Article? We believe so. In his primary Visitation of the Diocese of 
 London, he asks after "any of the Anabaptists' sect or other" which [not 
 having regular or Episcopal ordination] "use notoriously any unlawful 
 or private conventicles wherein they do use doctrine or administration of 
 Sacraments": and he orders that "no persons use to minister the Sacra- 
 ments, or in open audience of the congregation, p>resume to expound the 
 Holy Scriptures or to preach before they be first lawfully called and au- 
 thorized in that behalf." — ( See Car dwell' s Doc, Annals, Vol. i., p. 91 ; Rid- 
 Uy'a Works, Parker Soc, p. 321.) 
 
152 THE FORMULARIES. 
 
 age, and aware of the usage in what are called "Con- 
 gregational Churches 7 ' would be likely, if not put 
 upon their guard, to suppose that the Article per- 
 mitted ordination by persons (even laymen) chosen 
 in each worshipping assembly or " congregation." Mr. 
 Goode, as if he were afraid that his readers would not 
 fall into this gross error italicizes the word and thus 
 suggests it. As a result of his so doing, we have our- 
 selves heard it asserted on his authority, that the 
 Article really warrants congregational ordination ! 
 
 What does the w r ord mean as it stands in the 
 Article ? Cranmer himself, in the 19th, declares the 
 Church of Christ to be a "Congregation of faithful 
 men." In his other writings he uses the word in the 
 same sense ; as when he says the Pope did not receive 
 "power to destroy but to edify the "Congregation." 
 Thomas Becon, his contemporary and one of his chap- 
 lains, uses it often, as in sending forth his works that 
 they might " glorify God and profit his holy Congre- 
 gation." So also Bishop Bale (who died in 1563) 
 mentions " the holy temple of God, which is his Con- 
 gregation or Church," and again "the Congregation 
 or Kingdom of God in which Congregation He shall 
 reign forever." Eeferences of this character might 
 be multiplied indefinitely, but these are amply suffi- 
 cient to explain the meaning of the word at the time 
 the Article was written. 
 
 But if Mr. Goode were ignorant of this meaning or 
 use of the word he is still without excuse, inasmuch 
 as the Latin Articles are before his eye, and in the 
 one under notice the corresponding word is Ecclesia — ■ 
 the Church, i.e. the universal Church of Christ. 
 
 And apropos of this we would add that the Eever- 
 
THE FORMULARIES. 153 
 
 end gentlemen occasionally gives another significa- 
 tion to Ecclesia in this same Article. Even when cri- 
 ticizing the reading of an opponent and blaming him 
 for not giving the words precisely as they are printed, 
 he has the hardihood to write thus : 
 
 " The Article clearly implies, that there is power in a church 
 to authorize certain of its members to call and appoint others to 
 the office of the ministry which exactly meets the case of the 
 Foreign Protestant Churches." 
 
 Here to "meet the case" of Non-Episcopalians, Mr. 
 Groode turns the Church into a church, and so in the 
 same Article he gives three different significations to 
 Ecclesia* On such a system it would not be difficult 
 to make our standards teach any scheme of doctrine 
 that the most ingenious could devise. 
 
 But again, our author says — 
 
 "It is quite clear that the words of this Article do not main- 
 tain the necessity of Episcopal ordination, and consequently as 
 the object of the article is to show the doctrine of the Church 
 of England on the subject, it cannot be said that the Church of 
 England maintains it." (Page 16.) 
 
 The conclusion would be as he thus states it if only 
 his premises were correct. We deny them both. 
 (1) We hold that by those " who have public author- 
 ity given unto them in the Congregation" or Cath- 
 olic Church of Christ, the writers meant simply 
 Bishops, and therefore just as far as the Article 
 maintains the necessity of any ordination it main- 
 tains the necessity of Episcopal ordination. But (2) 
 where do we find his authority for saying that "the 
 object of this Article is to show the doctrine of the 
 ' Church of England ' on 'the necessity [or non-neces- 
 
 * In this matter he has followed Archbishop Whately. See his " King- 
 dom of Christ/' N. Y. edition, p. 157. 
 
154 TUE FORMULARIES. 
 
 sity] of Episcopal ordination?'" What is the title or 
 heading of it ? Is it "Of Ordination? " No ! But 
 u Of Ministering in the Congregation." What ground 
 then does this or the general purport of the Article 
 give for the assertion that its object was to define the 
 doctrine of the Church upon the subject now dis- 
 cussed? The Eeverend author goes farther still. 
 He not only implies that in this Article alone are we 
 to find the Church's doctrine of Ordination, but in 
 the succeeding paragraph he affirms it, thus : " This 
 is the only place in which our Church touches 
 upon the question of ordination, in the abstract" 
 These last three words are thrown in as a saving 
 clause. Nevertheless, the sentence, as it stands, 
 contains a manifest error ; for if the Eeverend gen- 
 tleman's own interpretation of the Preface to the Or- 
 dinal be taken it certainly contains some allusion to 
 ordination in the abstract. 
 
 But what have we to do with "ordination in the 
 abstract?" We are not now discussing whether it is 
 a sacrament conferring grace or not — nor whether 
 it gives an indelible character — nor even whether 
 there must be in every case the impositio manuum f 
 The question is simply whether our Church gives 
 the right of ordaining exclusively to Bishops, — 
 whether she directly or indirectly acknowledges that 
 ordination can be lawfully performed by any other 
 than a Bishop ? Does the Eeverend gentleman mean 
 then to tell his readers that the 23d is the only Article 
 [or "place"] in which our Church touches upon this 
 subject? The reader has but to turn to the 36th 
 Article and there see what the Church does really say 
 upon Ordination. Its title is "Of Consecration of 
 
THE FORMULARIES. 155 
 
 Bishops and Ministers," and that of itself suffices. 
 The assertion of the Eeverend gentleman is without 
 foundation, and so his conclusion is rejected. 
 
 The reader will observe further, that our author is 
 not willing to adhere to the mode of interpreting the 
 standards which he has himself laid down ; viz. : 
 That they are to be taken in their plain literal sense; 
 and if any doubt exist as to their meaning; reference 
 is to be made to the other writings of the " men who 
 drew them up." If this rule be fair and sufficient, 
 why, we ask, does Mr. Groode, as soon as he has given 
 us his own comment go {not to the writings of Cran- 
 mer, Eidley and their associates, but) to what he is 
 pleased to call an " authentic interpretation " penned 
 about fifty -three years after the Article ? And as if 
 even that were not enough, he proceeds to quote 
 Bishop Burnet and Professor Hey ! Were these 
 among the framers of our formularies ? We do not 
 stop to consider their opinions pro or con, but simply 
 rule them out as not called for, nor at all admissible 
 on Mr. Goode's own showing. Among the mere 
 opinions of other individuals at the end of the pam- 
 phlet they would be rightly placed. 
 
 Let us now prosecute our search for information as 
 to those who in our Church's estimation are truly 
 authorized ordainers in the Church of God. 
 
 The 32d Article mentions the ministry as consist- 
 ing of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. To one or 
 more of those the right must belong. 
 
 The 36th Article endorses and ratifies a book 
 commonly known as the Ordinal, stating that it con- 
 tains all things necessary to the ordination or conse- 
 cration of the several grades of ministers, and that it 
 
156 THE FORMULARIES. 
 
 hath in it nothing superstitious or ungodly. Thus, 
 the Ordinal (in itself a Standard) becomes in an espe- 
 cial sense authoritative, just as the book of Homilies, 
 which is, in the same manner, endorsed in the 85th 
 Article. 
 
 To the Ordinal, then, we go ; and what do we find? 
 That Bishops are in every case the ordainers ! The 
 Deacon is to be set apart to his office by the Bishop 
 alone ; the Priest by the Bishop, assisted in the lay- 
 ing on of hands by the other Priests present ; and 
 the Bishop by Bishops only — the Archbishop being 
 of course one of the same Order, and receiving no 
 different consecration or ordination. 
 
 Such, then, is the Church's deliberate judgment 
 of the matter. We ask, is there a shadow of proba- 
 bility that if she regarded ordination performed by 
 Presbyters or Deacons as lawful and valid, she 
 would, without hinting any such thing, make a posi- 
 tive rule by which she placed the authority to or- 
 dain solely and forever in the hands of the Bishop. 
 
 What is her judgment as to the Bishop and Priest? 
 
 Are they only different in the degree of temporal 
 
 authority and dignity they possess, but still of one 
 
 Order? Let us see. We find the diaconate, the 
 
 priesthood, and the episcopate are all equally called 
 
 " offices," and " Orders ;" so that in this respect the 
 
 Church knows no difference between these terms. 
 
 As Mr. Groode suggests, however, that the word 
 
 " Order" is used in some " large and general sense," 
 
 we will trace the matter. We find in the form for 
 
 ordaining Deacons, the Collect commencing 
 
 " Almighty God, who by thy divine providence hast ap- 
 pointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church, and didst 
 
THE FORMULARIES. 157 
 
 inspire thine Apostles to choose into the Order of Deacons the 
 first martyr, St. Stephen, with others, mercifully behold these 
 thy servants now called to the like Office and administration." 
 
 And when the Bishop lays on his hands, he says, 
 
 " Take thou authority to execute the Office of a Deacon, " 
 etc., etc. 
 
 In the form for ordaining Priests we find a pre- 
 cisely similar course pursued, except that the word 
 Order is even less used than in the former case. 
 
 We have the Collect : 
 
 " Almighty God, giver of all good things, who by thy Holy 
 Spirit hath appointed divers Orders of Ministers in the Church, 
 mercifully behold these thy servants now called to the Office 
 of Priesthood," etc., etc. 
 
 And at the laying on of hands the Bishop says, 
 
 " Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and work of a Priest," 
 etc., etc. 
 
 Passing on now to the form for Bishops, we find 
 the same Collect, thus, 
 
 " Almighty God, giver of all good things, who by thy Holy 
 Spirit hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church, 
 mercifully behold this thy servant now called to the work and 
 Ministry of a Bishop," etc., etc. 
 
 And at the laying on of hands the sentence is, 
 
 " Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and work of a 
 Bishop in the Church of God," etc., etc. 
 
 Thus, the same course is pursued with all ; each 
 of the three is referred to as an " Order," instituted 
 in the Church by the Holy Grhost, each is also styled 
 an " office " and ministration ; therefore, all are dis- 
 tinct. ^There is for each a distinct service, in which 
 the person ordained is instructed and pledged with 
 reference to the special duties of the Order or Office 
 to which he is about to be admitted, and he who reads 
 14 
 
158 THE FORMULARIES. 
 
 over the charges given in each particular case will see 
 clearly that, however sophistical pleaders may attempt 
 to identify one with the other, the Church makes 
 them fully that which she declares God himself made 
 them — three separate Orders of ministers. 
 
 The Deacon is pledged to assist the Priest in di- 
 vine service, and especially when he ministereth the 
 Holy Communion, etc., etc. ; he is also reverently to 
 obey his ordinary and other chief ministers, and 
 them to whom the charge and governance over him 
 is committed. 
 
 The Priest is pledged to preach the true doctrine 
 of the Word of God, to minister the Holy Sacra- 
 ments, to drive away errors, to maintain discipline 
 in his own Church, and to be obedient to his Bishop, 
 as in the case of the Deacon. 
 
 The Bishop is pledged, like the Priest, to teach 
 true doctrine, and drive away false, and to be as far 
 as possible a setter-forth and ensample of righteous- 
 ness and godliness, and especially a maintainer of 
 gentleness and peace. In addition to this, he is to 
 punish, according to such authority as he has by 
 God's Word, and the laws of the realm, such as are 
 disorderly or " criminous " within his diocese; and, 
 lastly, he is to be faithful in ORDAINING, sending, and 
 laying hands upon others I 
 
 This, we think, effectually disposes of the " parity " 
 theory. It is a tenet which the Church of England 
 rejects, and which is held only by her enemies. 
 
 Our Author, as one reason for supposing that the 
 Church does not truly consider the Episcopate a dis- 
 tinct " Order/' says, on page 29 : 
 
 " We find that the Services never apply the word order or or- 
 
THE FORMULARIES. 159 
 
 dering to the making of Bishops, but only in the case of Dea- 
 cons and Priests, and speak of the consecration of Bishops." 
 
 The Reverend gentleman must have a very de- 
 fective copy of the Prayer Book in his possession. 
 We have some three or four various editions before 
 us as we write, and in all of them the form by which 
 Bishops are set apart to their sacred office is called 
 the form of "ordaining or consecrating!" So it 
 stands in the English Ordinal, so it stands in the 
 American ; and yet Mr. Goode says the Services 
 never apply the word to the making of a Bishop !* 
 
 The Preface to the Ordinal is too important to be 
 passed over. In the English Prayer Book of the 
 present day the first paragraph of it reads thus : 
 
 " It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture 
 and ancient authors, that, from the Apostles 1 time, there have 
 been these Orders of Ministers in Chrisfs Church — Bishops, 
 Priests, and Deacons. Which Offices were evermore had in such 
 reverend estimation, that no man might presume to execute any 
 of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known 
 
 * It did not occur to us until the above was in the printer's hands, that 
 possibly the Author meant the services of 1549, or 1552, and not those 
 of all dates, as we understood him. If so, we grant that there is a 
 measure of truth in his remark. It so happens that in the title of the 
 special service we read, not u the Ordering" but the " Consecrating of a 
 Bishop." But is the word u Order," as he says, not used at all? Let the 
 Collect, quoted above, answer that question, and prove his inaccuracy. 
 
 It strikes us, however, that the Reverend gentleman will not gain any- 
 thing by making so much of titles. His point, if sustained, would prove too 
 much. The title of the Ordinal, as first published, was, "The Form and 
 Manner of Making and Consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons;" 
 consequently no one of the three was to be ordained! But a truce to 
 such trifling. It is surely apparent that the words are used in common 
 for the solemn act by which men are set apart to the service of God in 
 the ministry; and, so far as the word "consecration" is applied to the 
 setting apart of a Bishop, it is simply to give it higher honor. No other 
 author, we fancy, would hope to prove that a Bishop is simply a Pres- 
 byter by showing that his ordination is called consecration ! 
 
 Dr. Redmayne, in his replies to the queries of 1540, shows plainly that 
 the words were all used interchangeably. He says : " As for making, that 
 is to say, ordaining and consecrating of Priests, I think it specially belong- 
 eth to the office of a Bishop." 
 
160 THE FORMULARIES. 
 
 to have such qualities as are requisite for the same ; and also 
 by public Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, were approved and 
 admitted thereunto by lawful Authority. And therefore, to the 
 intent that these Orders may be continued, and reverently 
 used and esteemed in this Church, no man shall be accounted 
 or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in this Church, 
 or suffered to execute any of the said Functions, except he be 
 called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to 
 the form hereafter following, or hath had formerly Episcopal 
 Consecration or Ordination." 
 
 Here then we have, (1st) an assertion that it is evi- 
 dent from Holy Scripture and ancient authors that 
 the three Orders of ministers have been in the Church 
 of Christ since the Apostles' time. (2nd) That no one 
 might ever presume to execute any of these offices, 
 except he "vvere first admitted thereto by prayer and 
 the imposition of hands by lawful authority, 
 which, coupled with the restriction of the ordaining 
 power to the Bishop in the forms that follow, gives 
 us the Church's decision as to those who have au- 
 thority to call and send laborers into the Lord's vine- 
 yard. (3rd) We have a declaration of dutiful desire 
 to perpetuate the Apostolical Orders, and to that end 
 a law that no man shall be accounted a lawful Bishop, 
 Priest, or Deacon, unless he has been ordained ac- 
 cording to the form given, or hath previously received 
 Episcopal ordination. 
 
 Mr. Goode does not like this " Preface." It is very 
 sure that he would not have written it, for he would 
 not venture to pronounce upon the " diligence" of 
 those who cannot see in Holy Scripture and ancient 
 authors that which the Church declares to be evident/ 
 And yet, though he likes it so little, the Eeverend 
 gentleman will not confess that it destroys his case. 
 He argues that because the Twenty-Third Article 
 
THE FORMULARIES. 161 
 
 does not positively and totidem verbis declare for 
 Episcopacy, it is not against him. Now, when he 
 meets another portion of the Standard, of equal au- 
 thenticity, which does positively assert Episcopacy, 
 he has yet another turn — it cannot be against him, 
 because it does not deal in negatives, or does not ex- 
 plicitly deny the validity of Presbyterian ordination ! 
 Such a mode of meeting arguments, or striving to 
 evade the force of authorities, may suit the purposes 
 of a party, but will never aid in ascertaining the doc- 
 trine of the Church. As regards doctrines and prac- 
 tices that are opposed to each other, we have yet to 
 learn that the positive announcement or adoption of 
 the one is not of necessity the rejection or condem- 
 nation of the other. When our Church admits in- 
 fants to holy baptism, she thereby repudiates the 
 notions and practices of those called " Baptists," who 
 refuse to admit them. When she teaches the Eternal 
 Sonship and proper Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 she certainly leaves no room for Arian heresy. And 
 so when, following Scripture and the primitive 
 Church, she places in the hands of her Bishops ex- 
 clusively the right to ordain, and declares that God 
 hath appointed divers Orders in his Church, she gives 
 no margin and makes no allowance for those who 
 teach that God hath done nothing of the sort, and 
 who have substituted for the Apostolic mode of ordi- 
 nation one by Presbyters, devised by Calvin and 
 others, sixteen hundred years after Christ. The as- 
 sertion of her own principles is her condemnation of 
 theirs. 
 
 We consider this principle, that the adoption of a 
 thing is the repudiation of its opposite, so obvious, 
 
 14* 
 
162 THE FORMULARIES. 
 
 that we are ashamed even to spend a sentence in sup- 
 porting it ; but some make a merit of denying it, and 
 Mr. Goode hopes to secure allowance for his theory, 
 in spite of it. Let us see, then, what is said upon the 
 matter by the learned Dr. Whittaker, the great oppo- 
 nent of the Jesuits Bellarmine and Stapleton. The 
 latter argued that, although the Church did not, or 
 might not, receive all the parts of what he called 
 Scripture, yet she did not reject them. Whittaker 
 replies : 
 
 '•But, I pray you, what is the difference between not receiv- 
 ing and rejecting f Absolutely none ! He who does not receive 
 God rejects him ; and so the Church plainly rejected those Scrip- 
 tures which formerly it did not receive." — {Disputations, A. D. 
 1588, Parker Society ed., page 230.) 
 
 On this same principle, then, we hold that our 
 Church, having deliberately adopted Episcopacy as 
 consonant with the word of Grod and the constitution 
 of the Primitive Church, by so doing sufficiently re- 
 pudiated Presbyterianism, as not warranted by either. 
 So also, in not admitting the right of Presbyters to 
 ordain, she denied that they had such right ; in con- 
 fining it solely to the Bishop, she taught plainly that 
 no other did or could possess it. 
 
 But to return to the Ordinal. Our author says, 
 concerning the Preface : 
 
 " The first part is the simple statement of a fact, without in- 
 tent on the part of the authors to pass upon other forms of gov- 
 ernment , but as giving a sufficient warrant for their own." 
 
 We cannot for a moment accept so bare and weak 
 an interpretation. The Preface is not the " simple 
 statement of a fact," but a confident appeal to Holy 
 Scriptures and to primitive Christian antiquity. It 
 has nothing to do, pro or con, with any other forms of 
 
THE FOKMULARIES. 163 
 
 government, for it knows no others. It announces as 
 always existing in Christ's Church one form, and 
 that one Episcopal. And it does not state this 
 merely as a "sufficient warrant 11 for adopting Episco- 
 pacy, but as indicating a rule which the Church feels 
 bound to follow. 
 
 As regards the concluding sentence in the portion 
 of the Preface quoted above, the Eeverend gentleman 
 says: 
 
 " The second part, * or hath had Episcopal consecration/ etc., 
 was not added until a hundred years after, that is to say in 
 1661, by the Laudean party under Charles II." 
 
 Here the author wanders from the subject. The 
 inquiry is not " What did the Church teach ? " but 
 "What does she teach, what are her doctrine and 
 practice upon the point debated ? " This being so, it 
 matters little how or by whom any portion of any 
 formulary was written, so long as it is now really and 
 truly a part of it. But the sentence referred to has 
 been for two hundred years truly and properly a 
 part of the standard, and is to-day in full force, and 
 cannot be evaded, either in the actual administration 
 of the Church, or in discussing her principles. 
 
 It is a very weak and unworthy way of meeting 
 authoritative declaration to give its authors a " nick- 
 name," and so pass the matter by ; and it is, to say 
 the least, rather disrespectful for a clergyman so to 
 treat those Bishops and Presbyters who were the 
 last reviewers of his own Liturgy. But the chief 
 objection to this remark of Mr. Groode is that it is 
 entirely without foundation in fact. 
 
 The words he specifies were put where they now 
 stand at the last revision of the Prayer Book in 
 
164 THE FORMULARIES. 
 
 1661-2, but the men who placed them there were not 
 a "party," and were not "Laudean." They were the 
 Bishops and Doctors of the Church in Convocation 
 assembled. Their work received the sanction of 
 Parliament and King, and thus became the law of 
 the land as well as the law of the Church. In any 
 little sketch or text-book of English Church history 
 the names of those illustrious divines may be met 
 with, and to any such list we point as a sufficient 
 reply to the charge implied in the name " Laudean." 
 But if a more specific and pointed disproof of that 
 charge be required, we give it in the following 
 words : 
 
 " Glad enough, no doubt, would the Laudean party have been 
 if they could have introduced various alterations into our formu- 
 laries at this time. But, providentially, the power of doing so 
 
 TTAS NOT IN THEIR HANDS " ! 
 
 This we print verbatim from page 480 (Amer. ed.) 
 of a work on baptism by the Eev. Wm. Goode him- 
 self!! 
 
 But Laudean or not Laudean, did the Church, in 
 1661, by putting the sentence "or hath had formerly 
 Episcopal ordination" where it now stands, introduce 
 a new principle? Did it alter its doctrine or its 
 practice ? Not a whit ! Let the reader but once 
 more throw his eye over the Preface as given above, 
 and consider that the men who. drew it up, and all 
 their associates, had been Bpiscopally ordained in 
 connection with the Church of Eome, and that they 
 and their successors had always received persons so 
 ordained as soon as they were satisfied of their or- 
 thodoxy, and he will perceive at once that the spirit 
 of the paragraph is not changed by the addition. 
 
THE FOBMULAKIES. 165 
 
 But that no change, either in spirit, doctrine or prac- 
 tice was effected by it, will be still more evident when 
 we inform the reader that words of the same meaning 
 as those added in 1661 were always to he found in the 
 said Preface previous to that date. The reviewers 
 simply changed one form of expression for another 
 more correct and appropriate. 
 
 The Preface, as written by Cranmer and published 
 in 1549, and republished in the Eevised Liturgy of 
 1552, contained the following sentence : 
 
 "And therefore, to the intent these Orders should be con- 
 tinued, and reverently used and esteemed in this Church of 
 England, it is requisite that no man (not being at this present 
 bishop, priest, nor deacon) shall execute any of them except 
 he be called, tried, examined, and admitted according to the 
 form hereafter following." — (Cranmer's Remains, Parker So- 
 ciety, p. 519 ; Keeling' s Liturgioe Britannicce, London, 1851, p. 
 367 ; Cardivell's two Books of Common Prayer Compared, Ox- 
 ford, 1852. p. 398.) 
 
 The continuation of the phrase "at this present" 
 etc., for a space of one hundred and ten years is itself 
 a wonder. The Convocation of 1661 removed it and 
 substituted the less awkward equivalent, "hath for- 
 merly had Episcopal ordination or consecration." 
 This simple fact, which Mr. Goode is careful not to 
 divulge, effectually settles his implied charge of un- 
 fair dealing and innovation. 
 
 The principles and practice of the Church, as^re- 
 gards the subject before us, have undergone no 
 change whatever. The formularies have, from the 
 very beginning, taught the same doctrine that they 
 teach now, and we shall see presently that the laws 
 and usages have preserved a similar consistency or 
 unity during the whole period of the Church's 
 history. 
 
166 THE FORMULARIES. 
 
 But something more may be learned as to the real 
 doctrine of the Church from the American Liturgy. 
 Mr. Goode has very properly said that the doctrine 
 of the two Churches is identical, and whatever fixes it 
 for the one fixes it for the other. Remembering this 
 principle, then, let us examine the Book of Common 
 Prayer of the Protestant Episcopal Church. 
 
 We find retained in it every passage of the English 
 book which teaches the divine institution of a three- 
 fold ministry. Not one is omitted ; not one is 
 modified in tone so as to be less confident or authori- 
 tative. 
 
 But beyond this we find in a service that is not in 
 the English book the assertion of her belief in a di- 
 vinely established ministry of divers Orders, and in 
 Apostolical Succession. In her solemn addresses to 
 the throne of grace at the institution of ministers, 
 she says as in the Ordinal : 
 
 " Most gracious God, the giver of all good and perfect gifts, 
 who of thy divine providence hast appointed divers orders in 
 thy Church, give thy grace, we beseech thee, to thy servant/' 
 etc., etc. 
 
 And then : 
 
 "Oh Holy Jesus, who hast purchased to thyself an universal 
 Church, and hast promised to be with the ministers of Apostol- 
 ical Succession to the end of the world, be graciously pleased 
 topless the ministry and service of him," etc., etc.* 
 
 These two collects, placed side by side, are of them- 
 selves a sufficient refutation of all that Mr. Goode has 
 put forth as the doctrine of the Church. While they 
 remain it will be but waste of time and labor to 
 argue that the Church countenances those who reject 
 
 * See Appendix D. 
 
THE FORMULARIES. 167 
 
 the divinely appointed ministry of divers Orders, to 
 which, as the ministry of "Apostolical Succession," 
 she holds that the special presence of the Lord Jesus 
 is promised ! 
 
 This closes our examination of the formularies. 
 We believe our appeal to them has not been in vain. 
 They speak in no uncertain tone. 
 
CHAPTEE VIII. 
 
 LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 THE Standards already treated of do not contain 
 a formal code of laws for the government or 
 discipline of the Church, nor can we with certainty 
 deduce from them even the general principles on 
 which, in many instances, that government should 
 be conducted. Such a code, then, was necessary, and 
 it was produced (as the common law was) by suc- 
 cessive enactments from time to time. It consists of, 
 or is to be found in, Canons passed in Convocation, 
 official injunctions, articles of inquiry, etc., etc. 
 
 In connection with the founding of this system 
 of ecclesiastical government, we observe that the 
 English Eeformers exhibited in it the same modera- 
 tion and judgment as in other matters. Whatever 
 in the existing system was evil in itself or in its ten- 
 dencies, they cast out, but whatever was Scriptural 
 or tended to profit, they retained without caring 
 whether it was used by Eome or not. 
 
 Upon these principles the claim of the Pope to 
 have supremacy in the visible Church, or to be in 
 any way superior to the other Bishops, jure divino, 
 was rejected as mere groundless and arrogant as- 
 sumption; but a ministry of " divers Orders," and 
 
 (168) 
 
LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 169 
 
 the government of the Church, by Bishops having 
 full Scriptural warrant, were retained as not only 
 lawful, but unquestionable ; and even the regulations 
 of the old Canon law, so far as they did not maintain 
 things expressly rejected, were held to be in force 
 until the Church reformed had enacted another code 
 to take its place.* That Canon law. placed the ordi- 
 nary government of the Church in the hands of the 
 Bishops as theirs of right, f and positively prohibited 
 any one from acting as a Priest or minister until he 
 had received Episcopal ordination. 
 
 This was the system under the old regime, and 
 because it had not originated under it, but had divine 
 ^ warrant and the sanction of the Church, of Christ, in 
 every age it was preserved, avouched in the Stand- 
 ards already considered, acted upon in the adminis- 
 tration of ecclesiastical affairs, and either actually 
 enjoined or else assumed in every law and ordinance 
 set forth in the English Church. 
 
 Notwithstanding the speculations about parity of 
 u Order " between the Bishop and the Priest, no divine 
 of that day had ever heard or " read that any but a 
 Bishop might ordain a Priest." And so when the 
 papal power was abjured and true doctrine brought 
 in, those, and only those, who had previously received 
 ordination at the hands of a Bishop, were acknowledged 
 
 * Percival Wyburn describing the state of the Church in England 
 even in the time of Elizabeth, says : " The greater part of the Canon law 
 is still in force, and all ecclesiastical censures are principally taken from 
 it." — {Zurich Letters 2nd series, p. 359. Parker Soc'y.) 
 
 f Theirs by right divine.- It is true that the Canonists in order to 
 flatter and uphold the Pope, taught that the jus divinum was derived 
 through him rather than inherent in the Episcopal office ; but this inno- 
 vation of doctrine as to the medium does not affect the primary belief, nor 
 indeed their own belief of the fact, 
 15 
 
170 LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 and permitted to act as ministers of the Church. There 
 was no new rule adopted by which those who might 
 claim to have received authority or " ordination " 
 from Presbyters only, might be recognized. On the 
 contrary, as already stated, every Canon, injunction 
 or article of inquiry issued during or since the Re- 
 formation either distinctly reaffirms the principle 
 referred to, or takes that principle for granted. 
 
 Mr. Goode, knowing very well that these " Stand- 
 ards of our Church " not only give no shadow of 
 support to his theory, but oppose it in every partic- 
 ular, has taken especial pains to avoid them ; and so 
 hostile are they to the views which he and his disci- 
 ples wish to introduce, that in all probability their 
 right to be regarded as standards will be strenuously 
 denied. 
 
 The most plausible objection to them is that they 
 are not all now in force ; but this is mere trifling. 
 They were, when enacted and until suspended by 
 some new regulation or rendered unnecessary by 
 lapse of time, as obligatory as any law could possibly 
 be, and in their spirit (being based upon principles 
 which are the same perpetually) they are binding 
 still. Clergymen of the English Church do not feel 
 bound now-a-days to use in private or ordinarily the 
 gowns, hoods, quoifs or night-caps enjoined nearly 
 three hundred years ago, for conformity to the letter 
 of the Canon in this particular would be a violation 
 of its spirit ; but they are bound to observe such 
 decency of apparel as shall indicate their calling and 
 secure for them the respectful regard of the people. 
 And so with many other matters. We do not refer 
 then to the Canons and other regulations of the 
 
LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 171 
 
 English Church as all of them binding now, in the 
 letter of them (least of all upon members of the 
 American branch), but as binding in the spirit of 
 them — as laws positively enacted and obeyed in the 
 past, and therefore as true and proper exponents of 
 the Church's doctrines or principles. 
 
 Let us look into them then and see what light they 
 throw upon the question — Which is the correct form 
 of Church Government, and what constitutes a true 
 and lawful ordination to the Christian Ministry ? 
 
 We date the establishment of the Church of Eng- 
 land as a free Eeformed Church from the year 1547, 
 when on the death of Henry VIII. his admirable son 
 Edward VI. ascended the throne. During that, year 
 and before proper steps could be taken by ecclesiasti- 
 cal authority for regulating the affairs of the Church, 
 the King (or Archbishop Cranmer and the Council 
 in his name and with his concurrence) issued injunc- 
 tions for the prevention of evil and the advancement 
 of true religion. In these all parsons, curates, etc., 
 are ordered to procure " one book of the whole Bible, 
 of the largest volume in English," and also "The 
 Paraphrasis of Erasmus, also in English, upon the 
 Gospels (which was all of the work then published) 
 and to have the 
 
 " Same set up in some convenient place within the said church 
 that they have cure of, whereas their parishioners may most 
 commodiously resort unto the same and read the same." 
 
 Of the work thus authorized we shall have more to 
 say hereafter. 
 
 In the same injunctions (Edward VI., A. D., 1547) 
 there is an order concerning the treatment of those 
 
172 LAWS AXD OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 who though not well learned, and but lately mere 
 "mass priests" were yet truly ordained men. 
 
 "Forasmuch as their office and function is appointed of God, 
 the King's Majesty willeth and chargeth all his loving subjects, 
 that from henceforth they shall use them charitably and rever- 
 ently, for their office and ministration sake, and especially all 
 such as labor in setting forth God's holy word." — (Doc. Annals, 
 Vol. L, p. 20.) 
 
 In consequence of the great number of persons in 
 the ministry who being either heretical or ignorant, 
 could not be trusted to preach, all such public teach- 
 ing (save by such as were specially licensed) was 
 prohibited by royal proclamation, and it was ordered 
 that if any one should take upon him to preach 
 openly, except the Bishop, parson, vicar, etc., in their 
 own cure, he shall be forthwith committed to prison. 
 And among the articles of inquiry issued in the same 
 year were, whether those having cure of souls did in 
 their absence allow any unqualified persons to minis- 
 ter in their parish, or at any time admit any man to 
 preach, who had not been lawfully licensed thereto. 
 (Idem, pp. 27, 44.) 
 
 In 1548 another proclamation was issued for re- 
 straining of heretical and seditious preaching by 
 which every person who undertook to preach was 
 required to exhibit his license to "the parson or 
 curate and two honest men of the parish," and the 
 Archbishop and Bishops were charged to punish 
 those who broke this law. A similar proclamation 
 was made in 1550. These facts show conclusively 
 that if even the Priests whose Orders were unques- 
 tioned, were yet restrained in the exercise of their 
 ministry, there could not be the least toleration of 
 
LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 173 
 
 those who without lawful ordination might take upon 
 them to preach or perform other clerical acts. 
 
 In 1549 was published the Ordinal which, in its 
 Preface, asserts the divine institution of a threefold 
 ministry and the continuance or Succession of the 
 same from the time of the Apostles, and which in 
 each of its divisions gives, as of right, the power of 
 ordination to the Bishop, and to him exclusively.* 
 
 In 1552 the second Prayer Book, and the "Articles 
 of Eeligion" were published, and in the latter the 
 Ordinal was specially endorsed, as containing all 
 things necessary to ordination, and as being entirely 
 free from superstition. Thus it was defended against 
 the attacks of Eomanists on the one hand and of 
 extravagant or " Scythian" Eeformers on the other. 
 
 At that time the Church's great difficulty was the 
 Eomish party, and therefore we find absolute prohi- 
 bition of all public and private celebrations of mass, 
 or any other Eomish service " contrary to the form 
 and order of the Book of Communion/' — the Book of 
 Common Prayer. But even in the reign of Edward 
 there were some Protestants who, filled with their 
 own devices, separated themselves from the Church 
 and procured ministers or teachers who of course 
 were not Episcopally ordained. Now, if the theory 
 of Mr. Goode were correct (that Church government 
 is a matter of indifference — that individual or par- 
 ticular churches may choose whatever form they 
 please — that power of ordination belongs of right to 
 others as well as Bishops, and that our Church ac- 
 
 * In the ordination of Presbyters the other Priests (or Presbyters) 
 present join with the Bishop in laying on of hands, but this fact does not 
 affect the statement made above. The Bishop ordains authoritatively; 
 they concur. 
 
 15* 
 
174 LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 knowledges all this), we should find our Keformers 
 recognizing Separatists as constituting independent 
 " churches, " treating them with fraternal courtesy 
 and admitting their ministers to be truly ordained. 
 But what is the fact ? Among the articles of inquiry 
 issued by Bishop Eidley in his primary visitation of 
 the Diocese of London, A.D. 1550, is the following : 
 
 " Whether any of the Anabaptists' sect or other use notoriously 
 any unlawful or private conventicle wherein they do use doctrine 
 or administration of sacraments, separating themselves from 
 the rest of the parish?" 
 
 And further, among the injunctions given at the 
 same visitation, we find it ordered: 
 
 " That no persons use to minister the sacraments, or in open 
 audience of the congregation presume to expound the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, or to preach, before they be lawfully called and authorized 
 in that behalf." — [Doc. Annals, i. 96.) 
 
 Here then, during the very time when the formu- 
 laries were being composed, we find those belonging 
 to Anabaptists' and other "sects," who, though they 
 had not been ordained by a Bishop, presumed "to 
 use doctrine or administration of sacraments," de- 
 scribed as not " lawfully called and authorized." 
 
 During the reign of Bloody Mary, Popery was re- 
 vived and Protestants persecuted to the death, and so 
 at the accession of Elizabeth it was necessary to go 
 over nearly the same ground as at the beginning. 
 Unlicensed preaching was prohibited, the divine in- 
 stitution of the ministry was affirmed, and conformity 
 to the doctrines, laws and usages established in the ' 
 reign of King Edward was enjoined. In the "Inter- 
 pretation and further consideration" of the Queen's 
 Injunctions for the better direction of the clergy, . 
 drawn up by the Archbishop and Bishops (A. D. 
 
LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 175 
 
 1559-60), we have special directions as to the literary 
 
 and other qualifications of Deacons and Priests, and 
 
 leave given to all men to object to the ordination of 
 
 such as they might know to be unworthy in life or 
 
 conversation. These directions were extended and 
 
 repeated frequently, as we shall see, and they are part 
 
 of the law of the Church to this day. 
 
 In the Articles of Inquiry for the Visitation of 
 
 1559 we see the usual question about preaching, etc., 
 
 by unlicensed persons, and also the following with 
 
 reference to Eomanists and Puritans : 
 
 " Whether you know any man in your parish, secretly or in 
 unlawful conventicles, say or hear mass, or any other service 
 prohibited by law?" — [Idem, p. 248.) 
 
 In the year 1560, it having been found that sundry 
 persons infected with pernicious opinions had arrived 
 in England, and were promulgating their views, 
 causing " great danger of corruption and of increase 
 of sects, contrary to the unity of Christ's Church," 
 the Queen and Council commanded the Archbishop 
 and other Bishops to visit the places troubled with 
 these "sectaries," and openly to examine and try them 
 "touching their phanatical and heretical opinions," 
 and if they refused to be reconciled, ordered them to 
 be banished from the kingdom within twenty days, 
 on pain of imprisonment and forfeiture of all their 
 goods. The same proclamation forbids all persons to 
 
 " Make any conventicles or secret congregations, either to 
 read, or to preach, or to minister the sacraments, or to use any 
 manner of divine service." — (Idem, p. 293.) 
 
 In this assuredly we have no acknowledgment of 
 the right to set up "particular churches," and no 
 very cordial recognition of the Orders of " our Non- 
 Episcopal brethren." 
 
176 LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 Proclamations similar to the above were issued 
 three or four times during the reign of Elizabeth, 
 and were rendered necessary by the evil teaching of 
 immigrants from the Continent, who, going to Eng- 
 land " under pretence of flying from persecution," 
 sought to. substitute their own doctrines and practices 
 for those of the Church so happily reformed. 
 
 In the year 1564 there were issued "Advertise- 
 ments for due order in public administration of com- 
 mon prayers and using the holy sacraments." They 
 were directed against the sectaries above referred to, 
 and all within the Church who had imbibed any 
 portion of their spirit. They "occasioned the first 
 open separation of the Nonconformists from the 
 Church of England." These, the Presbyterianizing 
 churchmen, were beginning already to be a grievous 
 cause of trouble. They commenced with objecting 
 to clerical vestments, pleading conscience, and claim- 
 ing the right to leave undone things commanded 
 only by ecclesiastical authority. The Church, after 
 having tried lenity and expostulation in vain, met 
 them with the direct affirmation that though vest- 
 ments, rites and ceremonies were things indifferent, 
 and such as on proper occasion, and by proper au- 
 thority, might be changed or set aside, yet that as no 
 such occasion had arisen, and as the authorities con- 
 tinued to approve the things objected to, those re- 
 fusing conformity would be regarded as obstinate 
 and contentious, and punished accordingly. 
 
 In the same "Advertisement" we find the direc- 
 tions as to the qualifications of Deacons and Priests 
 set forth more at large, and a protestation of intention 
 to observe order and uniformity ordered to be signed 
 
LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 177 
 
 by all persons seeking admission to the ministry. 
 These were drawn up by Archbishop Parker and five 
 other Bishops as Commissioners, and were issued by 
 ■ the Queen. — {Ibid, vol. i., pp. 321, 331.) 
 
 In the year 1557, Archbishop Parker held a visit- 
 ation of his Province, with especial reference to the 
 Diocese of Norwich, where sundry evils had crept 
 in. These were the fruit of the puritanic tendencies 
 of Bishop Parkhurst, concerning whom Secretary 
 Cecil wrote, 
 
 " He is blamed even of the best sort for his remissness in 
 ordering his clergy. He winketh at Schismatics and Anabap- 
 tists, as I am informed." 
 
 Among the articles then enquired of were the fol- 
 lowing: : Whether those holding ecclesiastical offices 
 in connection with Cathedrals, such as " Deans, Arch- 
 deacons, and other dignitaries," " every one of them be 
 ministers or not?" as regards prebendaries, etc., what 
 Orders they be inV whether any minister did 
 
 " Openlie preach or teach any unwholesome, erroneous, sedi- 
 tious doctrine," or "persuade or move any not to conform them- 
 selves to the order of religion reformed, restored, and received by 
 public authority in this Church of England;" "or do say, 
 teach, or maintain" "that it is lawful for any man, without 
 outward calling of the Magistrates appointed* [i.e. Bishops], 
 
 * Magistrate means, literally, one excercising a mastery: more gener- 
 ally the person who makes or administers law. And as there are eccle- 
 siastical laws, so there are, of course, ecclesiastical magistrates. Of these, 
 Bishops are the chief. Persons not accustomed to this use of the word, 
 and doubting its propriety, are referred to the 34th Article. 
 
 " Whosoever through his private judgment willingly and purposely 
 doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church which be 
 not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by 
 common authority, ought to be rebuked openly * * * as he that offend- 
 eth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority 
 of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of weak brethren." 
 
 Contrast with this the 37th Article, the title of which is " Of the Civil 
 Magistrate." Bishop Home uses the word as we have done above 
 
178 LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 to fake upon him any ministry of Christ's Church?" — (Doc. 
 Annals, Vol. i., pp. 337, etc., etc.) 
 
 In the Visitation Articles of the same Archbishop 
 Parker, 1569, there are the following inquiries, 
 
 M Whether there be in your Parishes * * * * anye that com- 
 monlye absente themselves from theyre owne churches ; or 
 otherwise idely or lewdly prophaneth the Sabbath day? Any 
 that keepe any secret conventicles, preachings, lectures, or 
 readings contrary to the lawes?" and " Whether there be any 
 parsons that intrude themselfe, and presume to exercise any 
 kinde of minister y in the Church of God without imposition of 
 hands and ordinary aucthQrity ?" — (Doc. Annals, Vol. i. p. 
 337). 
 
 Up to the year 1571, there had been no regulation 
 for the receiving of Eomish priests who had aban- 
 doned their superstitions. All that was required of 
 them was a general avowal of Protestant principles. 
 But it was found that, for the want of some stricter 
 test, many persons, who were " enemies to the true 
 religion," were admitted to serve in the Church, and, 
 therefore, in the well-known law, 13 Elizabeth, Cap. 
 12, confirming the standards, and requiring all who 
 sought admission to the ministry to subscribe the 
 Articles, it was ordered that those who had been 
 ordained by some form other than that set forth by 
 authority, should be received as ministers, or allowed 
 to have cure of souls if they subscribed to the Arti- 
 cles. This provision, made expressly with reference 
 to Eoman Catholic Priests, was claimed by some 
 holding: Presbvterian Orders as extending to them, 
 seeing they also were " ordained " by a form different 
 from that set forth by authority.* Their claim was 
 
 * Mr. Goode agrees with the individual whom he designates as the 
 "notorious puritan.*' Travers, in supposing that this law allowed Pres- 
 byterian ministers to enter the Church after subscription ; he says (page 
 48j, " The parties more particularly in the eye of the framers of the Act 
 
LAWS AXD OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 179 
 
 rejected, as we shall see in the next chapter, and that 
 rejection shows plainly that the Church did not re- 
 gard them as validly ordained, if ordained at all. 
 
 From this time forth the Puritans were the great 
 difficulty, the chief disturbers of the Church's peace. 
 They began, as we have said, by objecting to the 
 surplice, etc., but soon extended their opposition to 
 several of the ceremonies, Jhen to the entire Prayer 
 Book; and, gathering boldness as they proceeded, 
 they openly attacked the whole administration of the 
 Church ; teaching that it was not yet fully reformed, 
 and that, as there was no scriptural authority for the 
 offices of Archbishop, Archdeacon, etc., etc., these 
 offices should be abolished.* To check them, there 
 were various proclamations issued, and laws passed 
 " against the despisers or breakers of the Orders pre- 
 scribed in the Book of Common Prayer," in which 
 
 •were probably (?) those ordained by the Romish form, but the application 
 of the clause was of course general." We beg the Reverend gentleman's 
 pardon. It was not general. The Government, as well as the Authori- 
 ties of the Church, decided against any such extension of it. 
 
 * The progressive course of Puritanism is well displayed in Lord Ba- 
 con's "Advertisement touching Controversies," and in the following 
 extracts from Bishop Cooper's Admonition [A.D. 1589] : 
 
 "At the beginning some learned and godly preachers, for private 
 respects in themselves, made strange to wear the surplice, cap, or tippet; 
 but yet so that they declared themselves to think the thing indifferent, 
 and not to judge evil of such as did use them. Shortly after rose up 
 other, defending that they were not things indifferent, but distained with 
 Antichristian idolatry, and therefore not to be suffered in the Church. 
 Not long after came other sort affirming, that those matters touching 
 apparel were but trifles, and not worthy of contention in »the Church, 
 but that there were greater things far, of more weight and importance, 
 and indeed touching faith and religion, and therefore meet to be altered 
 in a Church rightly reformed; as the Book of Common Prayer, the Ad- 
 ministration of Sacraments, the Government of the Church, the Election 
 of Ministers, and a number of other like. Fourthly, now break out 
 another sort, earnestly affirming and teaching that ice have no Church, 
 no Bishops, no Ministers, no Sacraments, and, therefore, that all who 
 love Jesus Christ ought, with all speed, to separate themselves from our 
 congregations because our assemblies are profane, wicked, and Anti- 
 ehriitian." 
 
ISO LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 reference is made to "diversity of rites and cere- 
 monies, disputations and contentions, schisms and 
 divisions already arisen' 1 in place of "one godly and 
 uniform order ;" and all Archbishops, Bishops, jus- 
 tices, mayors, etc., are charged and commanded to 
 
 " Put in execution the Act for the Uniformity of Common 
 Prayer, and Administration of Sacraments," " neither favoring 
 nor dissembling with one person nor other who doth neglect, 
 despise, or seek to alter the godly rites set forth in the said 
 book/' but that they shall "apprehend him, and cause him to 
 be imprisoned." And further, 
 
 " If any persons shall, either in private houses or in public 
 places, make assemblies, and therein use other rites of Common 
 Prayer and administration of the Sacraments than is prescribed 
 in the said book, or shall maintain in their houses any persons 
 being notoriously charged, by books or preaching, to attempt 
 the alteration of the said Orders, they shall see such persons 
 punished with all severity according to the laws of this realm, 
 by pains appointed in the said act." — [Idem, p. 386.) 
 
 Among the " Constitutions and Canons Ecclesias- 
 tical," passed A.D. 1571 we find it ordered that the 
 Bishop 
 
 " Shall receive no traveller or unknown person to a share in 
 the income of -the clergy, or to any ecclesiastical ministry except 
 he shall bring with him commendatory letters from that Bishop 
 from whose Diocese he may have come. And again, that he 
 shall suffer no one to be engaged in the ministry of the Church 
 who will not receive imposition of hands." — (CardwelV s Synod- 
 alia, vol. i. pp. 113, 114, 115). 
 
 Among the Articles questioned at the primary 
 visitation of Archbishop Grindal (who succeeded 
 Parker, A.D. 1575), is the following: 
 
 "Whether any person or persons not being ordered at least 
 for a Deacon, or licensed by the ordinary [i. e. as a lay reader], 
 do say Common Prayer openly in your Church or Chapel/' etc., 
 etc. 
 
 " Whether there be any in your parish that openly or pri- 
 vately say mass or hear mass, or any other kind of service or 
 prayer than is set forth by the laws of this realm?" And 
 
LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 181 
 
 " Whether any Priest or minister be come into this diocese out 
 of any other diocese, to serve any cure here, without letters tes- 
 timonial of the ordinary from whence he came, under his au- 
 thentic seal and hand, to testify the cause of his departing from 
 thence, and of his behavior there. )7 — [Doc. Annals, Vol. i., pp. 
 404, 407.) 
 
 We would invite the reader's especial attention to 
 these articles, as we shall have occasion to refer to 
 them again. 
 
 At this time the regulations for receiving candid- 
 ates for Orders were again set forth, but still more 
 plainly and fully than before. We find them in the 
 " Canons," or Articles agreed upon in "the Convoca- 
 tion or Synod holden at Westminster/' A. D. 1575. 
 
 They direct, 
 
 I. "That none shall be admitted Deacon or Minister, but 
 such as shall bring to the Bishop satisfactory testimonials of 
 honest life and sound doctrine, as set forth in the Articles of 
 religion, and shall subscribe to the said Articles, and shall be 
 able to render to the Bishop in Latin an account of his faith, 
 agreeable to the same ; that the Deacon shall be of the age of 
 twenty-three years, and ' shall continue in that office the space 
 of a whole year, at the least, before he be admitted to the Order 
 of priesthood ;' that neither of these Orders be given, except 
 on a Sunday or holy day, and in the face of the Church, and in 
 such manner and form, and with all such other circumstances 
 as are appointed by the book entituled, ' The Form and Manner 
 of Making and Consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons/ " 
 
 II. " That no Bishop shall give either of the said Orders to 
 any that be not of his own diocese (other than graduates resiant 
 in either of the Universities), unless they be dimitted under the 
 hand and seal of that Bishop of whose diocese they are, and not 
 upon letters dimissory of any Chancellor or other officer to any 
 Bishop." 
 
 III. That none be admitted to any cure or spiritual func- 
 tion who, during Mary's reign, had been "made Priests, being 
 children, and otherwise utterly unlearned." We give the 
 words of the injunction to which the Canon refers. It directs 
 also that " straight and diligent examination be used in the ad- 
 mission of all curates to the charge of any cure." 
 
 IV. " That diligent inquisition be made in every diocese 
 for all such as have forged and counterfeit letters of Orders, 
 
 16 
 
1S2 LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 that they may be deposed by the Commissioners Ecclesias- 
 tical/''* * 
 
 V. " That the Bishops by their letters do certify one to an- 
 other the names of such counterfeit Ministers, to the end they 
 be not suffered to serve in any other diocese." 
 
 VI. That none be ordained sine titulo, etc., etc. 
 
 TIL M That none shall be admitted to any dignity or bene- 
 fice with cure of souls, unless he be qualified according to tho 
 tenor of the first Article," etc., etc. 
 
 VIII, That all licenses for preaching hitherto granted be re- 
 voked, and reissued to "such as shall be thought meet for that 
 office." 
 
 Nothing could be more strict than the observance 
 of the settled order of the Church required by these 
 Canons, which, the reader will observe, were adopted 
 at a Synod held under the auspices of Archbishop 
 Grindal. — (CardicelVs SynodaJia, Vol. i., pp. 132, etc.) 
 
 In 1583, the celebrated John Whitgift became 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, and two years after he 
 presided at a Convocation in w ich these Articles 
 were re-enacted ; and it was further decreed that no 
 Bishop (on pain of suspension) should admit any to 
 holy Orders who were not of the quality [or " abil- 
 ity "] required by them, and that persons unqualified 
 were not to be admitted to any benefice. 
 
 In 1584, the same directions were given by the 
 Archbishop, and three Articles, professing full con- 
 formity, were published, without consent and sub- 
 scription to which none might be " permitted to 
 preach, read, catechize, minister the sacraments, or 
 to execute any other ecclesiastical function." It was 
 at the same time enjoined, 
 
 " That none be permitted to preach or interpret the Scrip- 
 tures, unless he be a Priest or Deacon at the least, admitted there- 
 unto according to the laws of this realm." 
 
 * The forging of such letters was frequently practised by those who yet 
 described themselves as "men of tender consciences !" 
 
LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 183 
 
 The Puritan controversy was now at its height; 
 the leaders of the faction had proceeded from attack- 
 ing those dignities or Orders for which divine right 
 was not claimed, and from censures upon the wealth, 
 state, and authority of Bishops, to attacking the Epis- 
 copal Order itself. They took the precise ground of 
 Mr. Groode, that Bishops are not a separate " Order," 
 but one and the same with Priests, and, consequently, 
 that ordination performed by Presbyters was valid. 
 The theory of Parity, despite its Romish origin, was 
 adopted by them, and pushed to a length which set 
 them in opposition to the teaching and usage of the 
 Church in all ages.* The practice of the Continental 
 Reformed Churches suggested the idea to them, and 
 would, in the eyes of the least reflecting part of the 
 public, seem to justify it ; but as soon as it was 
 plainly advanced, it was by the authorities of the 
 Church just as plainly repudiated. Thus we see, in 
 the "Articles to be inquired of in the visitation of 
 the diocese of Chichester, sede vacante" 1585, by 
 Archbishop Whitgift, the following : 
 
 "Whether doth he ['your minister'] or any other take upon 
 them to reade lectures, or preach, being mere lay persons, or not 
 ordered according to the lawes of this realme, or not lawfully 
 licensed" etc., etc. — [Documentary Annals, Vol. ii. p. 23.) 
 
 * From asserting that, as Bishops and Presbyters were (in their esti- 
 mation) one, and consequently that Presbyterian ordinations were allow- 
 able, or valid, they went on to claim that such ordinations alone were 
 valid, and that Presbyterian government had divine right. On both these 
 points, as well as on Separation, several of the chief men of their party 
 dissented from them, and very many of the better informed among them, 
 who were willing to go as far as the first, utterly rejected the second. 
 Mr. Goode wishes to have it believed that the latter, the extreme doo- 
 trine, was the only one advocated by the Puritans (see his Lit^cductioii; 
 also pp. 33, 45, etc.); but every tyro knows that the very theory he sup- 
 ports was that first propounded by them, that to which their best men 
 clung,, and that against which the first defenders of the Church argued. 
 
184 LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 "This/ 1 says Dr. Cardwell. "was one of the earliest 
 declarations from authority against Orders conveyed 
 by presbyters." 
 
 It was bo because occasion for it had not previously 
 existed. It was one of the first opportunities of assert- 
 ing the Church's principles that occurred after it had 
 been claimed by Travers that Presbyterian ordina- 
 tion was valid. 
 
 There were some petitions presented to the Parlia- 
 ment in the session of 1584 by the innovating party, 
 in which they asked, among other things, that sundry 
 restrictions be placed upon the Bishops in the matter 
 of ordination. These were referred to the Bishops 
 and all rejected as " unnecessary," ''altogether need- 
 less/' and calculated to "breed great trouble." — (Doc. 
 Annals, Vol. ii. ; p. 9: also Strype s WMtgift, fol. ed v 
 1718, p. 187.) 
 
 But notwithstanding the negative replies of the 
 ecclesiastical authorities to these propositions, the 
 House of Commons, in which there was by that 
 time a formidable body of Puritans, sent to the Upper 
 House a petition breathing the spirit of opposition 
 even more strongly. 
 
 It was designed, says Strype, to ''clip the wings 
 of the Bishops and to weaken if not destroy their 
 courts." Among its Articles was one requiring that 
 in the act of ordination six presbyters should lay on 
 their hands along with the Bishop. The object of this 
 was to give a Presbj^terian character to the ordina- 
 tion by rendering the presence and act of Presbyters 
 as necessary as those of the Bishop. But this inno- 
 vation also was " utterly disallowed." — (Strype' s Whit- 
 gift, p. 178.) 
 
LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 185 
 
 The Convocation of 1597 passed Canons with re- 
 gard to the reception of candidates, and the ordina- 
 tion, and institution of ministers, of the same character 
 as those already quoted, and those subsequently en- 
 acted which are in force at the present time. — (Sy- 
 nodalia, Vol. i., p. 147.) 
 
 In March, 1603, James I. succeeded Elizabeth. 
 In October of the same year he issued " a proclama- 
 tion concerning such as seditiously seek reformation 
 in Church matters" in which " chastisement" is 
 threatened against all those " reformers" who, under 
 pretence of " zeal, affect novelty," " whose heat tend- 
 eth rather to combustion than reformation;" "some 
 using public invectives against the state ecclesiastical 
 here established, and some contemning their authority 
 and the practice of their courts." In this document 
 it is declared that 
 
 " The estate of the Church established and the degrees and 
 Orders of the ministers governing the same, are agreeable to the 
 Word of God and the form of the primitive Church." 
 
 Another proclamation was issued in the following 
 year against Presbyterianizing Churchmen described 
 as " certain ministers" and others "who under pre- 
 tended zeal for reformation, are the chief authors of 
 divisions and sects among the people," in which they 
 were warned 
 
 " Either to conform themselves to the Church of England and 
 obey the same, or else to dispose of themselves and their families 
 some other ways as to them shall seem meet. ,J — [Doc. Annals, 
 Vol. ii. p. 80, etc.) 
 
 This was followed by several circular letters from 
 Archbishop Bancroft, requiring the strictest execu- 
 tion of the existing laws against those who from "a 
 16* 
 
186 LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 factious desire of innovation refused to yield their 
 obedience and conformity thereunto." And though 
 the Puritans were at that time a numerous and 
 powerful party, they were by the diligent application 
 of the laws cut off from the Church and made to stand 
 out as no longer members but opponents of it. Thus 
 showing that the Church was willing to lose adher- 
 ents and influence rather than yield up any portion 
 of her doctrines and constitution. What she believed 
 to possess divine right she would not yield even for 
 the sake of peace. 
 
 Within a generation those enemies became strong 
 enough to overthrow both the civil and ecclesiastical 
 government, and to establish for a time their own 
 "purer" system ; but never at any period of their his- 
 tory were their peculiar doctrines tolerated by the 
 Church. In good report and evil, in prosperity and 
 in adversity she steadfastly maintained the principles 
 upon which she had been reformed; and denounced as 
 "schismatics" and " turbulent persons" all who sought 
 to change them. To this fact the record of her legis- 
 lative acts bears incontrovertible testimony. 
 
 The Convocation of the same year (1604) passed 
 the memorable enactments which are still the law of 
 the English Church, and which as such are called 
 "The Canons." In these the authorities compelled 
 by the circumstances of the time to act sternly with 
 the disorderly and malicious impugners of her forms 
 and character, denounce all such persons as excom- 
 municate. Ex. gra. 
 
 VIII. "Whosoever shall hereafter affirm or teach that the 
 form and manner of making or consecrating bishops, priests, or 
 deacons containeth any thing in it that is repugnant to the 
 Word of God, or that they who are made Bishops, Priests, or 
 
LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 187 
 
 Deacons in that form, are not lawfully made, nor ought to be 
 accounted," etc., etc. " Let him be excommunicated ipso facto, 
 not to be restored until he repent and publicly revoke such his 
 wicked errors." 
 
 IX. " Whosoever shall hereafter separate themselves from 
 the communion of saints as it is approved by the Apostles 7 rules 
 in the Church of England, and combine themselves together in 
 a new brotherhood [not ' a new Church,' observe] accounting 
 the Christians who are conformable to the doctrine, government, 
 rites, and ceremonies of the Church of England, to be profane 
 and unmeet for them to join with, let them be excommunicated 
 ipso facto" etc., etc. 
 
 X. " W T hosoever shall hereafter affirm that such ministers as 
 refuse to subscribe to the form and manner of God's worship in 
 the Church of England, prescribed in the Communion Book, 
 and their adherents, may truly take unto them the name of an- 
 other Church not established by law, and dare to presume to 
 publish it, or that this their pretended Church hath of long 
 time groaned under the burden of certain grievances imposed 
 upon it," etc., etc. "Let him be excommunicated ipso facto," 
 etc., etc. 
 
 XI. " Whosoever shall affirm or maintain that there are 
 within this realm other meetings, assemblies, or congregations of 
 the king's born subjects than such as by the laws of this land 
 are held and allowed, which may rightly challenge to themselves 
 the name of true and lawful churches, let him be excommuni- 
 cated and not restored but by the Archbishop after his repent- 
 ance and public revocation of such his wicked errors." 
 
 Ten Canons (commencing with XXXL), of too 
 great length to be quoted, reaffirm the principles 
 always acted on, and establish the method now fol- 
 lowed in receiving, ordaining, and instituting minis- 
 ters ; and as at this day they effectually exclude from 
 our ministry all but those who have received Epis- 
 copal ordination, so did they then 260 years ago. 
 
 The same Convocation, at an adjourned sessiou in 
 1606, passed a body of Canons chiefly "in opposition 
 to the principles laid down in the book of Parsons 
 the Jesuit," in which it is maintained that the consti- 
 tution of the Church under the Patriarchs, and under 
 the Mosaic dispensation, indicated the will of the 
 
188 LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 Most High that it should always have grave and 
 reverend persons to rule and minister in it, whose 
 offices and authority should differ in degree. This 
 argument (used so ably by Bishop Bilson in his 
 u Perpetual Government of Christ's Church," A. D. 
 1593) the Bishops and Divines conduct through an en- 
 tire book of thirty-six lengthy Canons. In the second 
 book they expressly defend the divine institution of 
 Episcopacy, and the exclusive right of the Bishops 
 to ordain. As for instance, in Canon vi. of Book ii., 
 where they deny that any of the u second degree and 
 Order" "had any power committed unto them at all to 
 make ministers" while the Apostles kept the said 
 power in their own hands. They then proceed to 
 state that when the Apostles, to preserve order and 
 prevent schisms, appointed some to have the " rule, 
 government, and direction of" presbyters; and when 
 they had " designed and chosen them to be Bishops," 
 they communicated upon them " as well their Apos- 
 tolical authority of or darning of ministers, and the 
 power of the keys, as of preaching and administering 
 the sacraments." 
 
 The Seventh Canon asserts that they " do greatly 
 err" who hold 
 
 "That it was an idle course held by the primitive Churches 
 and ancient fathers to keep the catalogue of their Bishops, or 
 to ground arguments in some cases upon their succession, in 
 that they were able to deduce their beginnings either from the 
 Apostles or from some Apostolical persons ; or that the form 
 of government used in the Apostles' times for the planting and 
 ordering of Churches was not in many respects as necessary to . 
 be continued in the Church afterwards" — " or that any Church 
 since the Apostles' time, till of late years, when it received the 
 Go-pel had not likewise Archbishops and Bishops for the 
 government of it" — ' f or that any since the Apostles' time, till 
 of late days, was ever held to be a lawful minister of the Word 
 
LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS 189 
 
 and Sacraments, who ivas not ordained Priest or minister by the 
 imposition of the hands of some Bishop — or that it is with any 
 probability to be imagined that all the Churches of Christ and 
 ancient fathers from the beginning would ever have held it for an 
 Apostolical rule that none but Bishops had any authority to make 
 Priests, had they not thought and judged that the same authority 
 had been derived unto them., the said Bishops, from the same 
 Apostolical ordination that was committed unto Timothy and 
 Titus, their predecessors" — "or that it doth proceed from any 
 other than the wicked, spirit for any sort of men, what godly 
 show soever they can pretend, to seek to discredit (as much as 
 lieth in them) that form, of Church government which was estab- 
 lished by the Apostles, and left by them to continue in the Church 
 to the end of the world," etc., etc. — ( CardwelVs Synodalia, Vol. i., 
 pp. 330 to 379 ; also Overall's Convocation Book, Oxford ed., 
 1844, p. 141, etc.) 
 
 In 1640, Charles I. being King and Laud Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, Canons were passed by Con- 
 vocation which were merely a new setting forth of 
 those already quoted. Knowing how bitterly Laud 
 is spoken of, and how decidedly even Mr. Goode 
 attributes to him the introduction of "the theory of 
 Apostolical Succession," we are surprised to find that 
 in the laws enacted under his presidency, there is no 
 new element like undue severity and exclusiveness, 
 but simply a reaffirming of the same principles stea- 
 dily maintained in the Church for a century, and that 
 the tone of the Canons adopted under his authority, 
 wherein it is at all different, is even less stern than 
 that of those issued nearly forty years before. 
 
 Beside a chapter against Popish recusants, they 
 contain one against "sectaries," and it directs that 
 Anabaptists, Brownists, Separatists, Familists, or 
 other sects, who "endeavor the subversion both of 
 the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England 
 no less than Papists do, although by another way," 
 shall be liable to the "proceedings and penalties 
 
190 LAWS AXD OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 which are mentioned in the aforesaid Canon, as far 
 as they shall be appliable." 
 
 When Laud and Charles were murdered, and the 
 Puritan Commonwealth established, the Bishops and 
 other ministers of the Church were ruthlessly driven 
 from their dioceses and parishes, and their places 
 were supplied by those whose loud and long-continued 
 objections to the established religion, and whose 
 zealous efforts to erect another more spiritual system, 
 seemed to promise halcyon days when they would 
 be at the helm of affairs. We need not remind the 
 reader how the promise was fulfilled — what multi- 
 plication of sects, what glaring heresies, what blas- 
 phemies and fanaticism marked those dreary years in 
 which the Church of England was under the iron 
 heel of the persecutor. Suffice it to say that the 
 whole nation, disgusted, terrified, and almost hope- 
 less, eagerly sought safety in what it had discarded, 
 brought back its King and reinstated the Church. 
 
 At the Restoration, the Presbyterians, made wiser 
 by experience, lowered their tone. They made a 
 strong effort to gain admission to the Church; to 
 have Episcopacy reduced to (what Mr. Goode says it 
 really is) a mere arrangement of convenience or ex- 
 pediency. Such an Episcopacy they were willing to 
 receive. They asked to have the Liturgy modified 
 to suit them, and their " Orders" acknowledged as 
 valid. But the Convocation would not surrender a 
 single principle ; and so the usurping ministers were 
 thrown out of the churches from which Episcopal 
 clergymen had been driven before, and no one was 
 admitted to act as a Presbyter or Deacon who had 
 not been Episcopally ordained and sworn to con- 
 formity. 
 
LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 191 
 
 After the Savoy Conference the Liturgy was- re- 
 vised (for the last time), and among the alterations 
 made was that in the Preface to the Ordinal, which 
 Mr. Goode has represented as being an innovation, 
 but which we have already shown to be a mere 
 change of one form of expression, for another which 
 more plainly and appropriately conveyed the same 
 sense. As Episcopal ordination had always been re- 
 quired, so now the restored Church stated in terms 
 altogether unmistakable that it always would be. 
 There was no change whatever of the law or of prin- 
 ciple. The Parliament adopted the proceedings of 
 the Convocation, and by the "Act of Uniformity" 
 determined expressly that none but those who had 
 received Episcopal ordination should be allowed to 
 hold preferments in the Church or administer the 
 Sacraments. — (See Short's History Church of England, 
 Amer. ed. ; p. 276 ; also Hume, Macaulay, etc., in loco, 
 Carwitheris History, Statutes at Large, etc., etc.) 
 
 We shall revert now to the code of 1604, for the 
 purpose of noticing the one only reference Mr. Groode 
 has ventured to make to the laws of his Church. 
 
 Hoping to show on the part of the Anglican au- 
 thorities a cordial recognition of a Non-Episcopal 
 denomination, he says : 
 
 "By the 55th Canon of 1604, all our Clergy are required, in 
 the bidding of prayer before, or rather in the commencement 
 of the sermon, to pray for ' the Church of Scotland/ Now 
 the Church of Scotland, at the time this canon was passed, was 
 Presbyterian, as it now is." 
 
 This is a very grave mistake. The Church of 
 Scotland was not Presbyterian as it is now, nor Pres- 
 byterian at all in 1604. The direction in the Canons 
 of 1604 was given simply and solely because then for 
 
192 LAWS AXD OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 the first time the Reformed Church of Scotland, tho- 
 roughly Episcopal in its constitution and under one 
 reign with the English Church, had sought and 
 been admitted to fellowship with it. 
 
 At the time of the Reformation, Episcopacy was 
 not abolished in Scotland. The supremacy of the 
 Pope was rejected, but the Episcopal Order was not 
 denounced even by the "Scythian Reformers" of 
 Caledonia ; it was only declared by act of the Scottish 
 Parliament (prepared at the request or under the 
 influence of John Knox himself) that 
 
 " Xa Bischop nor uther prelat use any jurisdiction in tymes 
 to cum by the Bischop of Rome's authorities 
 
 Iii the confession of faith presented to that Parlia- 
 ment (1560) by the Reformers, there is no declaration 
 of ministerial "parity," no denial of the Scriptural 
 warrant for Episcopacy. So far indeed were the 
 founders of the Scottish Reformed Church from the 
 principles of modern Presbyterians that they insti- 
 tuted a sort of Episcopacy, appointing " Superinten- 
 dents" to whom they gave the administrative power 
 of Bishops. And they would have given them more 
 if it had not been that the Bishops refused to sanc- 
 tion the Reformation, and of course would not ordain 
 them to the Episcopal office. 
 
 As these Superintendents were appointed by the 
 Church only, the government was not satisfied with 
 them. Bishops were an Order in the Legislature 
 which the constitution required, and " Superintend- 
 ents" were not Bishops appointed according to the 
 laws of the country; therefore to maintain the order 
 and completeness of the Parliament, and also to main- 
 tain its own right of nomination, the government 
 
LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 193 
 
 appointed three ministers to be Bishops of Sees then 
 vacant (1571). The Kirk protested against this 
 (through Erskine of Dun), but its protest was not at 
 all against the order of Bishops, but against the gov- 
 ernment's appointing them. That right, it contended, 
 belonged to itself, and not to the civil authority. In 
 that very protest reference is made to "Titus, Bischop 
 of Crete;" the Episcopate is included among the 
 "offices God hath appointed," and it is expressly 
 affirmed that 
 
 " To take away the office of a Bischop so that no Bischop be 
 in the Kirk, were to alter and abolish the Order that God has 
 appointed in his Kirk." 
 
 But, notwithstanding the efforts of its friends, the 
 Superintendent system was overthrown, and Episco- 
 pacy left without a rival. 
 
 In 1575 Melville, who had just arrived from Ge- 
 neva, organized the first opposition ever shown in 
 Scotland to Bishops as such. He and his party, un- 
 willing to submit to their superiors, procured an Act 
 of the Assembly denouncing Episcopacy as unscrip- 
 tural ; but it never became law, as it was vetoed by 
 the Government. After the "Eaid of Euthven," 
 however, when King James was in the hands of the 
 conspirators, and there was no government or lawful 
 authority in the land, the Presbyters under the pro- 
 tection of these same conspirators, took " some bold 
 measures towards exterminating the Episcopal Order 
 out of the Church.' Even Robertson (himself a Scotch 
 Presbyterian minister) testifies that it was solely 
 owing to their want of sufficient power that they 
 " did not deprive and perhaps excommunicate all the 
 Bishops in Scotland." They succeeded so far as to 
 17 
 
194 LAWS AXD OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 set up a system of government by General Assem- 
 blies ; but the restoration of order and authority 
 changed all this. Eobertson says : 
 
 ""When the King regained his liberty, things put on a very 
 different aspect. Such laws were passed as completely over- 
 threw the [new and usurped] constitution of the Church." 
 
 Assemblies were pronounced illegal, and Episco- 
 pacy restored to its proper position. 
 
 Soon after this, various causes conspired to weaken 
 the power of the Sovereign, and personal dislike to 
 at least one or two of the leading Bishops rendered 
 him less anxious to imperil his own cause by uphold- 
 ing theirs. His turbulent Nobles and still more tur- 
 bulent Presbyters forced from him concessions which 
 legalized the sitting of Assemblies and Kirk-sessions, 
 and reduced the Episcopal office to a sort of Moder- 
 atorship. In 1591 they gained more still, and in 
 1592 Presbyterianism triumphed, and had full sway. 
 But when, by very disagreeable experience, it was 
 found that such concessions only served to make the 
 "ministers" more unreasonable, and to threaten se- 
 rious attacks on his own constitutional rights, the 
 King roused himself once more, and " humbled their 
 power." In so doing he did not act at all against 
 the will of his people. So odious had the self-ap- 
 pointed " leading men" of the Presbyterians become 
 to their own brethren and to the public, that their 
 fall gave general pleasure. In two General Assem- 
 blies " a majority declared in favor of the measures 
 which were agreeable to the King" (A. D. 1597), 
 thus showing that the restoration of Church order 
 was pleasing to them. The convoking of General 
 Assemblies without the royal permission was then 
 declared illegal, the right of appointing pastors to 
 
LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 1^0 
 
 principal towns was vested in the crown, and the per- 
 secuted Bishops were restored to the enjoyment of 
 the temporalities of their Sees, reinstated partially 
 in their spiritual office, and admitted again to their 
 seats in Parliament. Thus Presbyterianism was abol- 
 ished by law in Scotland, and for at least forty years 
 afterward had no existence. 
 
 In 1600 acts were passed both in the Assembly and 
 the Legislature, extending and confirming the power 
 of the Bishops ; and in 1603, when James succeeded 
 Elizabeth on the English throne, he gave to them the 
 same power and authority that their compeers had in 
 Britain. He was also anxious that they should pos- 
 sess an unquestionably valid Scriptural authority, 
 and therefore, having nominated three persons to fill 
 vacant Sees, he directed them to receive consecration 
 from the English Bishops — a thing which up to that 
 time he had no power to command and the English 
 Prelates had no power to perform. Seven years, then, 
 after the complete suppression of the short-lived and 
 disorderly Presbyterian Kirk when the Apostolic 
 form of polity was clearly established, and when 
 some Scottish Bishops-elect were waiting consecra- 
 tion at the hands of English prelates the Canons of 
 1604 were passed, requiring all church ministers to 
 pray for the " Church of Scotland." In this assuredly 
 there was no endorsement of Presbyterianism, but 
 rather indeed a cordial recognition of a sister church 
 that had just cast it off. 
 
 In July of the same year (1604) a commission was 
 issued in Scotland for arranging the terms of union 
 between the two countries. Among the Commission- 
 ers were "John, Archbishop of Glasgow: David, 
 
196 LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 Bishop of Boss : George, Bishop of Caithness," etc., 
 etc., and yet Mr. Goode ventures to state that in that 
 year "The Church of Scotland was Presbyterian as 
 it is now ! n 
 
 We beg to refer the Reverend gentleman for the 
 correction of this inexcusable error to Archbishop 
 Spottiswood's History, pages 449-456. Robertson 
 in loco. Lawson's History of the Church in Scotland, 
 pages 240-269. Bishop Skinner's Church History, 
 Vol. ii., pp. 234-6, and two other authorities from 
 which we print the following sentences : 
 
 In the year 1600 "The Presbyterian form of government was, 
 after eight years of intolerable agitation, abolished by the King, 
 with the full consent of an overwhelming majority of the minis- 
 ters and the applause of the people, whose opinions seem to have 
 been changed by experience of its tyranny." — [Stephens's His- 
 tory Church of Scotland, Yol. i., page 417.) 
 
 "From the time that the Assembly of Perth was held (1597) the 
 Presbyterian constitution of the Church as established in 1592, 
 and the legitimate authority of its General Assemblies and other 
 judicatories may be regarded as subverted by the interferences of 
 King James the Sixth. On the 19th of December, 1597, soon 
 after the Assemblies of Perth and Dundee, he brought his pro- 
 jects under the consideration of Parliament: when an act was 
 passed ordaining that such pastors and ministers as his Majesty 
 should at any time please to invest with the office, place and 
 dignity of Bishop, Abbot or other prelate should in all time 
 hereafter have vote in Parliament in the same way as any pre- 
 late was accustomed to have : declaring that all bishoprics pre- 
 sently vacant should be given by his Majesty to actual preach- 
 ers and ministers. Henceforward, therefore, and indeed from 
 the General Assembly of Perth, 1597, the Church of Scotland 
 must be regarded as Episcopalian." — ( Compendium of the Laws 
 of the Church of Scotland, " published by authority." Part II., 
 page 36.) 
 
 Thus we see that Mr. Goode's statement is entirely 
 erroneous, and consequently the argument based upon 
 it goes to the winds. 
 
 "With these decisive extracts from and references 
 
LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 197 
 
 to the Canons and other authoritative declarations of 
 the English Church, we take our leave of them and 
 turn to those of our own. Mr. Goode's argument is 
 conducted on the principle that the doctrine of the 
 two Churches is identical, and therefore that what- 
 ever establishes it for one establishes it for both. 
 Bearing this in mind then, let us consult the laws of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church of America. 
 
 The "Digest of the Canons," issued by authority 
 of the General Convention, is one of "the Standards 
 of our Church." It shows rather more kindness to 
 Non-Episcopal ministers than the English Ecclesias- 
 tical laws, which refuse them any consideration or 
 favor whatever. In Great Britain or its colonies, if 
 the oldest or the most prominent among dissenting 
 ministers were to seek admission to the ministry of 
 the Church, he would have to go before the Bishop 
 on precisely the same terms as if he had never 
 claimed the character or exercised the function of a 
 minister. Our Church probably in consideration of 
 their feelings and their training in divinity allows 
 such persons to enter after a shorter term of candi- 
 dature than is required of others. But yet even with 
 us they come as " Candidates for Holy Orders," and 
 must be received first to the diaconate, and then if 
 approved, to the priesthood. Thus there is no recog- 
 nition whatever of any validity in their previous 
 orders, but their ordination itself is a very unequivo- 
 cal practical assertion of their insufficiency. 
 
 Title I., Canon 2, Section VIII., directs that "when a person 
 who not having had Episcopal Ordination, has been acknowl- 
 edged as an ordained minister or licentiate in any other denomi- 
 nation of Christians shall desire to be ordained in this Church, 
 he shall give notice thereof to the Bishop," and produce satis- 
 17* 
 
198 LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 factory evidence that "his desire to leave the * denomination 
 to which he belonged had not arisen from any circumstances 
 affecting his religious or moral character/' etc. etc. And then, 
 M [2] If the Bishop, or Standing Committee, shall think pro- 
 per to proceed, the party applying to be received as a Candi- 
 date shall produce to the Standing Committee a testimonial" of 
 pious, sober and honest life and sincere attachment " to the 
 doctrines, discipline and worship of the Church," and "the 
 Standing Committee being satisfied on these points, may recom- 
 mend him to the Bishop to be received as a candidate for Orders 
 in this Church," etc. etc. 
 
 The special favor shown to such, parties is merely 
 that whereas other candidates have to remain in that 
 condition for one year at least, these may 
 
 "At the expiration of not less than six months from their ad- 
 mission as Candidates be ordained Deacons, on their passing 
 the same examination as other candidates for Deacon's Orders ; 
 and in the examinations special reference shall be had to those 
 points in which the denomination whence they came differs from 
 this Church, with a view of testing their information and sound- 
 ness in the same," etc. etc. 
 
 Such is the law of our Church, so far as it affects 
 or takes any notice of those who are called "minis- 
 ters" of other denominations ; such is its estimate of 
 the value or validity of Non-Episcopal ordination. 
 There are, we know, a few Churchmen (extremists 
 like Mr. Goode), who, as if determined to retain their 
 own theory in the face of all evidence against it, assert 
 that these laws requiring what is (though inaccu- 
 rately) styled re-ordination and the invariable prac- 
 tice of the church in administering it to all who 
 come to her from the ministry of other denomina- 
 tions precisely as if they had never received any 
 commission whatever, do not convey, or amount to 
 any repudiation or intimation of the invalidity of 
 their previous " Orders." 
 
 It would seem but a waste of time to place argu- 
 
LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 199 
 
 ment or evidence before such persons. With them ; 
 indeed, stat pro ratione voluntas. Their minds are 
 made up, and therefore the most imposing array of 
 facts would not change their opinion. Fortunately 
 they are few in number, and have not tkuth in their 
 custody. 
 
 What they will not see, however, is very plain to 
 every one else in the Church and out of it.' All Non- 
 Episcopalians know it well,* and nearly all of them 
 
 * We will not quote here the strong language of their more fiery jour- 
 nalists or controversialists, but give a few sentences from two distinguished 
 men, who have written against our Church with as much fairness, courtesy, 
 and vigor as have ever been displayed on that side of the question. 
 
 The Rev. Albert Barnes (Presbyterian), repudiating the notion that 
 the principles and practice of the Episcopal Church do not virtually deny 
 the existence of a lawful and valid ministry among Non-Episcopalians, 
 says : 
 
 "Is there any recognition of the Ministers of other denominations as 
 having a right to preach the Gospel? Is there any introduction of them 
 to the pulpits of Episcopal Churches ? Would such an introduction by any 
 of the inferior clergy be tolerated or connived at by the Diocesan Bishop ? 
 To ask these questions is to answer them. But another question may be 
 asked here. It is, how pan many of the Clergy of the Episcopal Church 
 be satisfied with occupying such a position in regard to their ministerial 
 brethren of other denominations as to have the FAIR interpretation of 
 their conduct to be that they regard them as wholly unauthorized to 
 preach the Gospel?" — {Apostolic Church, p. 245.) 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Leonard Woods (Congregationalist), Professor in An- 
 dover Seminary, describing what, from his stand-point, seem great evils, 
 says : 
 
 " I shall explain my meaning by an example, and I can fix upon no 
 one better adapted to my object than the late Edward Payson. I will 
 suppose then that he is still alive, and that, after he has been a Congre- 
 gationalist minister for a quarter of a century, it becomes a serious in- 
 quiry with him whether he shall change his denomination and become an 
 Episcopal Minister." " The Bishop will not admit him to preach and 
 administer the ordinances, on the ground of his previous ordination. 
 Had he never been ordained one great difficulty would be avoided. But, 
 although he verily believes that he has been called of God, and duly or- 
 dained, and has for so many years been authorized to fill the office of a 
 Gospel Minister, he must, by a public act, renounce it all, and count it for 
 NOTHING, and receive ordination just as though he had never been ordained/' 
 " He must now, by a public act, declare that he has never had any warrant 
 from God to minister in holy things, and that all he has done in the minis- 
 terial office, though fraught with such benefit to multitudes, has been with- 
 out validity." He must u engage in a transaction which implies, and is 
 understood to imply, that all his pious and successful labors have been* 
 
200 LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 resent it bitterly. They are not satisfied with the 
 apologetic explanations or subterfuges of those pro- 
 fessing Churchmen. They reject them indignantly, 
 and point to the formularies, the laws, and the history 
 of our Church, as plainly supporting their own con- 
 clusions. 
 
 Before leaving this subject a word or two must be 
 said upon a work that is the Standard authority upon 
 all matters connected with the Ecclesiastical law of 
 England. We refer to that now rare but invaluable 
 book, " Gibson's Codex Juris Ecclesise Anglieanas" 
 [2 vols, folio, London, 1713], Commenting on the 
 Preface to the Ordinal, which we have already treated, 
 the learned author says : 
 
 " Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. — Besides these, the Church 
 of Rome hath five others, viz., Subdeacons, Acolyths, Exorcists, 
 
 performed without any just authority, and contrary to the will of his Lord 
 and Master." "He has assisted in setting apart many well qualified 
 young men to the ministry by prayer and the laying on of hands •" "but 
 the moment the hands of the Bishop are laid an him he must in fact, 
 though contrary to all the impulses of his heart, keep himself at a dis- 
 tance from all these servants of Christ, must disallow the validity of 
 THEIR ordinations, and must have no more ministerial intercourse with 
 any of them." "If he puts himself under the sway of prelacy, he must 
 submit to its dictates, and, by an unwilling and constrained practice, must 
 support its exclusive claims. He has been accustomed * * * to offer up 
 prayer to God in the Sanctuary * * according to the various promptings 
 of his own fervent mind, and with the unction of the Holy Spirit; but 
 * * % % when he comes to be confined to forms" he "is not permitted to 
 express a thought or word, except what is in the book before him/' etc., 
 etc. — {Objections to Episcopacy, pp. 193, 197.) 
 
 Representations like these are frequently declared by some of our 
 extremists to be unjust. They are somewhat so in minor details, and in 
 tone. They are unfriendly in their spirit, but, as to their general scope, 
 they are indisputably true; and no mere assertion will ever satisfy the 
 public that they are not so. 
 
 One late writer says he had sometimes heard such "from ill-informed 
 Non-Episcopalians," and that he "uniformly replied that such a notion 
 was* a proof of their ignorance and prejudice." (Dr. Canjield's Review, 
 p. 25.) We would respectfully advise the Reverend gentleman to show 
 to such men as Mr. Barnes or Dr. Woods his "most excellent reasons," 
 rather than give them hard words. 
 
 The reader will find more on the subject of this note in Appendix, A. 
 
LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 201 
 
 Readers, and Osfciaries." "These (though some of them an- 
 cient) were human institutions, and as such cannot pretend to 
 come under the limitation which immediately precedes "from 
 the Apostles' time; for which reason, and because they were 
 evidently directed for convenience only, and were not immedi- 
 ately concerned in the Sacred Offices of the Church, they were 
 justly laid aside by our first Reformers." 
 
 Those, then, which were not so laid aside, but 
 named and described in the ordinal, were not " hu- 
 man," but directly concerned in the Sacred Offices. 
 But farther: 
 
 " ' Lawful Authority/ It is supposed that this general ex- 
 pression was used, lest the direct limiting of it to Episcopal 
 authority should give offence to the Protestant Churches abroad ; 
 but that they meant Episcopal authority is plain enough from the 
 last clause." 
 
 "'Had Formerly/ This last clause seems designed to 
 allow of Romish converted Priests, who were ordained by 
 Bishops before, and whom we receive without re-ordination (if 
 they renounce their errors), because that Church preserves the 
 Order of Bishops, and the substance of the primitive forms in 
 her ordination, though corrupted with many modern supersti- 
 tious rites." 
 
 The 23d Article, which is also supposed "to have been 
 worded in general terms, " for the purpose of not ex- 
 cluding ministers of the foreign Eeformed Church,' 7 
 is by the learned author said to have been moulded 
 upon the preface to the Ordinal [or at least conceived 
 in the same spirit], and is to be explained by it. He 
 refers to the notes above given as applying to the 
 Article. 
 
 From all this it is evident that the theory of Mr. 
 Goode, and the interpretation he offers, are not cor- 
 rect. Until a higher authority than that of this un- 
 equalled jurist can be adduced in favor of them, 
 they must stand condemned. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 IF there were a difference between the teaching and 
 the practice of the Church we might have con- 
 siderable difficulty in deciding which was the best 
 exponent of its spirit, and we would certainly find 
 it no easy matter to bind an acute opponent to the 
 issue. For if the custom were contrary to his wish, 
 and the standards did not justify or agree with the 
 custom, he would say that the administrators of the 
 law had departed from the spirit of those who framed 
 it. And on the other hand, if the usage were such 
 as he desired and the laws the opposite, he would say 
 that the latter were the product of a darker age, and 
 that the Church having discovered their unworthi- 
 ness had abandoned them. 
 
 But happily there is no such difficulty for us, no 
 such opportunity for an antagonist. The Church is 
 consistent. Let us examine her records, then, that we 
 may see what light they cast upon the subject now 
 discussed. 
 
 If Mr. Goode's theory be correct, history will show 
 that neither the English Church nor our own ever 
 gave special thought to the preservation of the Epis- 
 copal Order, or of the Apostolical Succession ; and 
 
 (202) 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 203 
 
 that they both received into their service all godly 
 and gifted persons who claimed to be ministers of 
 Christ without even stopping to ask whether they 
 had been Episcopally ordained or not. Such prac- 
 tice would necessarily follow if the Church's doctrine 
 were what Mr. Goode represents it ; but if our view 
 is the true one, we will find that a totally different 
 course was pursued. 
 
 We take it for granted that there will be no denial 
 of the purely Episcopal character of the Church at 
 the time of the Eeformation. The ministry was then 
 as it is now, constituted in divers Orders ; the Bishop 
 was then as now the only ordaining officer in the Eng- 
 lish Church. If this be granted (and we suppose 
 no one will assert the contrary) then it rests with our 
 author and his friends to show when or how this rule 
 was first broken or abandoned. We have seen what 
 the laws were at the beginning and all through the 
 history of the Church, and unless we are pointed to 
 some official rescinding of those laws, or some public 
 and recognized official action of a contrary character, 
 we must persist in maintaining that they never were 
 rescinded or set aside — but were always in force, 
 always acted on. , 
 
 Eeference is sometimes made (though not in the 
 work before us) to the case of those foreign divines 
 who were harbored and patronized by Cranmer and 
 the other authorities in England, as if the kindness 
 shown to them were equivalent to an acknowledg- 
 ment of the sufficiency of Non-Episcopal ordination.* 
 
 * Reply to Bishop H. Potter's Pastoral, by Rev. J. C Smith, D.D., in 
 Church Monthly, July, 1865. Also Gallagher's Pamphlet on True Apos- 
 tolical Succession, p. 30. 
 
204 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 They were made professors in the Universities of 
 Oxford and Cambridge — " therefore," say some advo- 
 cates of Presbyterian Orders, "the English Church 
 recognized their ministerial commission as valid." 
 N<m sequitur* Professors are not necessarily clergy- 
 men. But suppose the offices held by Peter Martyr 
 Martin Bucer, Fagius, etc., to have been such as none 
 but clerics could fill, does it follow that their appoint- 
 ment to them involved the recognition of Non-Epis- 
 copal Orders ? The writers we are now referring to 
 think it would, else they would not have brought 
 their names into the controversy. They evidently 
 suppose that those good men received their commis- 
 sion only by "the laying on of the hands of the Pres- 
 bytery ! " A little investigation would correct this 
 mistake* 
 
 One gentleman who writes under this erroneous 
 impression, says they were appointed to act as " pro- 
 fessors and preachers "jf If this were a fact it would 
 not justify his inference, for these reasons : (1) It is 
 not conceded that every person who preaches must 
 be ordained. Many contend that laymen may do so, 
 and instances in which laymen have preached with 
 great success may be easily mentioned. The liberty 
 we believe is granted in all Non-Episcopal Churches, 
 nor was it refused in the ancient Church, as the casa 
 of Origen will prove. And (what is still more to our 
 purpose) it is or has been granted in the English 
 
 * Dr. Smith calls them " Non-Episcopal divines. " We have heard of 
 another Clergyman who declared that " Melancthon was a Presbyterian 
 Minister, and yet President of the College of Cambridge and Rector of 
 the parish ! " 
 
 f E.ev. Mr. Gallagher, in the work mentioned before. This gentleman 
 sometimes allows his zeal to carry him farther than his authorities would 
 warrant. 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 205 
 
 Universities under special circumstances, though 
 never, so far as we know, in the English Church.* 
 (2) If ordination be regarded as a necessary prere- 
 quisite, those men were ordained. 
 
 But we deny the assertion. If there be a particle 
 of evidence in its favor we have not been so fortu- 
 nate as to discover it. The little that we have upon 
 the subject at all, points in the opposite direction.f 
 We may be told that Peter Martyr was a Canon of 
 Christ Church. It is confessed that he was, but what 
 of that ? Is a Canon necessarily a preacher ? Is it 
 not well known that laymen have frequently held 
 such preferments with (or even without) dispensa- 
 tions ? 
 
 But to strengthen the argument drawn from the 
 case of those foreign divines, reference is sometimes 
 made to the invitation given by Cranmer to John 
 Calvin who certainly was not Episcopally ordained.^ 
 Yet it proves nothing to the point ; Calvin was not 
 
 * Arguments in favor of lay preaching have been furnished by many 
 men whose opinions are well worth considering, such men, for instance, 
 as John Wesley, Adam Clarke, Bishop A. Potter, Dr. Muhlenburg, etc. 
 It will not be supposed, however, that we regard the Church as acknow- 
 ledging what they advocate, nor that we accept their views ourselves. 
 We merely refer to them to show that if one or two learned men were 
 allowed to preach that fact of itself would not necessarily imply that they 
 were acknowledged as validly ordained ministers. 
 
 j- Letter of Peter Martyr to Bucer, dated at Oxford, 1548, and urging 
 him to go to England : " If you do not preach in your own person you 
 must not doubt but that you will preach in those of others; for he who 
 supplies material for preaching of others, may be said to preach in theni." 
 — (Orig. Let., Vol. ii. p. 471.) 
 
 { Those who point to this invitation as implying a great deal, and who 
 quote the civil or laudatory expressions in Cranmer's letter, would do 
 well to consider the repeated invitations given to Melancthon and others, 
 and the vastly more cordial tone of the communications addressed to 
 them. Such comparison would at once destroy the idea that the authori- 
 ties of the English Church had special regard for the great Genevan 
 divine. 
 
 18 
 
20(3 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 invited to enter the ministry of the Anglican Church, 
 but to visit England for the purpose of consulting 
 with British and other Eeformers on uniformity of 
 faith. On this head, then, we need say no more. 
 
 In the action of the Ecclesiastical Authorities with 
 reference to the first Protestant Bishop of Gloucester, 
 we see evidence of a jealous regard for the Episcopal 
 Order. John Hooper, a good and zealous minister, 
 fled from England to escape the persecution result- 
 ing from the law of the " Six Articles." He spent 
 his time chiefly at Zurich, and became strongly 
 attached to the mode of worship there established. 
 On his return to England after Henry's death, he 
 was at once employed in furthering the work of 
 Eeformation, and was soon nominated to the vacant 
 See of Gloucester. 
 
 Some of his German friends who were then in 
 England, seem to have been under the impression 
 that he would not enter the hierarchy ; but great as 
 was the influence exerted upon him by his residence 
 in Switzerland,* there is no reason for supposing that 
 Hooper ever altered his original opinion on Church 
 polity ; nor do we believe that Bullinger would ap- 
 prove of his setting himself against the divinely con- 
 stituted Order of the ministry. He was perfectly 
 willing to accept the office, but he required some 
 changes to be made before he would consent to be 
 consecrated. He " scrupled " certain words in the 
 oath, and the wearing of the Episcopal vestments, 
 
 * Hooper writes to Bullinger, "If I am able to effect anything, and my 
 slender powers are of any benefit to the Church of Christ, I confess, and 
 by the blessing of God will confess as long as I live, that I owe it to 
 yourself, and my masters and brethren at Zurich." — (Ptirker's Soe. Libr., 
 O^ig. Letters, Vol. i. p. 73. See also, pp. 56, 84, etc., etc.) 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 207 
 
 and begged to be excused from using them. The 
 Primate reminded him that all the other Bishops 
 wore the same robes, and there could be no reason 
 for rejecting them which would not be a reflection 
 upon his brethren ; and, furthermore, that he had no 
 authority to allow any departure from canonical re- 
 quirements. Hooper appealed to the amiable young 
 king, who, finding that the Archbishop did not defend 
 the objectionable words in the oath, erased them 
 with his own hand, and left the other matter to be 
 decided by the Bishops themselves. Eidley was 
 then appointed to confer with Hooper, and did so ; 
 answering all his cavils, showing that the wearing 
 of this or that colored robe, or the wearing of any at 
 all was not an essential matter, but that settled and 
 common order could not be broken to please any 
 individual without endangering the whole system of 
 law and usage. Hooper denied that the vestments 
 were things indifferent. He saw in them an insult 
 to Christ. It was a matter of conscience with him 
 not to use any such " Aaronical habits," such "relics 
 of Popery!" And so, though wisely- counselled by 
 Martyr and Bucer, to whose judgment Granmer had 
 referred the point, he continued obstinately to re- 
 fuse compliance. The public soon became interested 
 in the discussion. Hooper himself appealed to them. 
 His friends represented him as a true Eeformer, and 
 those who opposed him as still inclined to Eomish 
 superstition ! He was also said to be harshly treated, 
 and this awakened sympathy. Those who were in- 
 clined either to defend or excuse him, regarded the 
 Bishops as over strict, or as not fully "evangelical." 
 Others again (by far the greater number) sided with 
 
203 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 the authorities, and maintained that if anything were 
 to be changed, it should be done in an orderly man- 
 ner, and not to gratify the will of a single individual. 
 Thus originated the two parties which, in one shape 
 or another, have ever since existed in the Church. 
 
 Despite the reasoning of Eidley and Cranmer, and 
 the advice of Bucer, the Bishop-elect continued ob- 
 stinate. He would not conform to the law, and he 
 even continued to declaim against it, so that one of 
 his friends remonstrated with him on his " unreason- 
 able and too bitter sermons." Finding him thus 
 refractory, the Privy Council ordered him to remain 
 a prisoner in his own house ; and when even this 
 did not check his opposition, he was committed to 
 the Fleet. He then offered to resign, but he was not 
 allowed. The course he had pursued tended to de- 
 prave the Episcopal Order, and to allow him then 
 to refuse it after he had so sharply censured all other 
 Bishops, would have been to give him a triumph, 
 and show that the Order in question was little re- 
 garded. His offer was therefore refused, and he was 
 kept a prisoner. At last, however, the firmness of 
 the authorities prevailed. He came to his senses ; 
 was duly consecrated ; wore the habits ;* and thence 
 after served God faithfully as a Bishop in the 
 Church. 
 
 Now Hooper was personally dear to the men who, 
 for the sake of law and decorum, were obliged to 
 stand out so firmly against him ; and the truth he 
 
 * " This Lent, habited in the Scarlet Episcopal Gown, after he had been 
 initiated or consecrated after the manner of our Bishops, he preached 
 before the King's majesty." — (Hi lies to Bullinger. Oriy. Zet., Vol. i., 
 271.; 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 209 
 
 preached was dearer still ; is it conceivable then that 
 at such a time they would allow the Church to be 
 deprived of his services, or subject him to imprison- 
 ment if the office to which he had been nominated 
 were merely one of human institution ? If not only 
 the dress belonging to it, but the office itself, were a 
 matter of indifference, would they have kept up the 
 controversy for nearly a year ? or, if he could have 
 shown that it was a mere matter of dignity would 
 not his part of that discussion have been of a very 
 different character ? 
 
 Another proof of the zealous regard entertained 
 for the Episcopal Order by the English Eeformers 
 is found in the fact, that strangers taking refuge in 
 England were required to conform to it. Those per- 
 sons were not English subjects, and so not properly 
 under the jurisdiction of the British Ecclesiastics, 
 and their, condition as exiles made the authorities 
 very unwilling to appear harsh or unkind to them. 
 Yet a grave question was involved. Ought the 
 Church to permit within her own bounds another 
 mode of worship and polity, or the teaching of 
 another faith ? Would not this be an encourage- 
 ment to those who loved novelty? would it not 
 seem to sanction division, and thus endanger the 
 peace of the Church? And ought so much to be 
 yielded for the sake of hospitality? The Bishops 
 thought not ; and so, when a Church building was 
 granted to strangers they were told that, though 
 they might have their own pastors, they must use the 
 services of the English Church, at least in the ad- 
 ministration of the Sacraments. And even with 
 respect to their ministry, they were required to come 
 18* 
 
210 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 as close to the Apostolic model as possible without 
 actually abandoning the system of their own coun- 
 tries. To this end. Superintendents (nominal Bish- 
 ops) were set over their Churches : A'Lasco in Lon- 
 don, and Pollanus in Glastonbury. To these the 
 ordinary pastors were subject, and they in turn were 
 under the supervision of the Bishops in whose dio- 
 ceses their charges lay. 
 
 The foreigners were not willing to accept the Eng- 
 lish services. A'Lasco, their most prominent man, 
 and one highly favored by all the authorities, pri- 
 vately strengthened this feeling. His congregations 
 presented remonstrances and petitions, and in answer 
 to these the Bishops told them they must either con- 
 form to the services or " disprove them by the word 
 of God.'' But this latter they could not do, and 
 the former they would not ; and so for at least a 
 whole year they were not suffered to have the sacra- 
 ments administered among them.* At last, owing to 
 the kindness of Cranmer and the King, this restriction 
 was removed. They were left free to use their own 
 mode of worship, but not to reject the Episcopacy. \ 
 
 *"Much mischief is stirred up against us by the Bishops, and espe- 
 cially by the Bishop of London, who does us the more harm, as he seems 
 more actively to support the Word of God V 'Micronius to Bullinger, 
 Grig. Let. Vol. ii., pp. 569, 575. See also the Letters of Utenhovius in 
 same volume.' 
 
 The perusal of the private communications of these men leaves a very 
 painful impression. With a very few honorable exceptions, these for- 
 eigners abused the hospitality shown them. A'Lasco did his best to 
 foment dissatisfaction in the English Church, and Micronius and others 
 slandered or abused freely those who differed from them. While receiving 
 protection and kindness, they privately spoke of their benefactors, to 
 whom they were publicly most reverential, as ''hypocritical and heretical 
 Bishops:" and even Ridley is styled "rather a buffoon than a Bishop!'' 
 
 t It was an Episcopacy nan jure divino. an Episcopacy without Apos- 
 tolical Succession. J'he Superintendent, as in Germany, was not of a 
 higher Order, but simply primus inter para. 
 
THE PBACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 211 
 
 Even in those early days strangers of a less com- 
 mendable character flocked into England. In lands 
 where the abolition of Episcopal regimen had loos- 
 ened the bands of order, they had become holders of 
 many foolish or ungodly notions, and finding no tole- 
 ration for them among their own people, they went 
 to England and represented themselves as suffering 
 for the truth of the Gospel. They soon began to 
 spread their peculiar doctrines, and breed a disorderly 
 and schismatic spirit among the people. They un- 
 settled some members of the foreign congregations, 
 and thus, as well as by their disputations, excited the 
 wrath of the pastors. A%nong the latter was Micro- 
 nius, who, writing to Bullinger, speaks of the 
 
 " Heresies introduced by our countrymen. There are Arians, 
 Marcionists, Libertines, Danists, and the like monstrosities in 
 great number." "We have not only to contend with the Pa- 
 pists * * * but much more with the sectaries and Epicu- 
 reans and pseudo-T?iY&rigeliea.ls." 
 
 Now if Mr. Goode's representation of the Church's 
 doctrine were correct, those " sectaries" would have 
 been at least as well treated as the other refugees. 
 On the broad principle of the right to judge for 
 themselves, to separate from the Church to which 
 they had belonged, and organize others without any 
 regard to the theory requiring a " tactual succession," 
 they were as well worthy of toleration or esteem as 
 their French and German brethren. What, then, was 
 the fact? Were those Non-Episcopal strangers ac- 
 knowledged, and favored with church buildings to 
 worship in ? The proclamations and injunctions 
 quoted in the last chapter enable us to answer the 
 question. They Vere all required to unite with the 
 English Church ; or, if they claimed to be regarded 
 
212 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 as sojourners, to join the Church of the Strangers, or 
 else to leave the country within twenty days ! How can 
 this be accounted for on Mr. Goode's theory ? We 
 know not ; but how it is to be explained we do know, 
 and shall now state. 
 
 The very thing which he and his followers contend 
 for, or which they represent as having been acknow- 
 ledged, was most strenuously denied by all the Re- 
 formers. We mean the right to establish "new" or 
 "particular" Churches. The common ground taken 
 by all the leading men of the time was that the 
 Church Catholic should be found everywhere, and 
 that that portion of it which existed in each nation 
 should be allowed to arrange its own affairs, provided 
 nothing were done contrary to the word of God. On 
 this principle the Church of France had no right to 
 interfere with that of Germany, nor the Church of 
 England with either. Each was so far independent 
 of all others; but individuals were not independent. 
 Every German, or Swiss, or Englishman was regarded 
 as a member of the Church established in his own 
 country, and separation from it was in no case sanc- 
 tioned, unless that branch of the Church had utterly 
 cast away the truth and imposed terms of communion 
 that were sinful. 
 
 When Pollanus, A'Lasco and their associates went 
 to England, then, they went not as individuals who 
 had. the right to set up "Churches" after their own 
 fancy, but as regular members of those previously 
 existing in their own land, and they were befriended 
 by the English as sojourners or seekers of sanctuary. 
 But the others, not claiming to belong to any Na- 
 tional Church, separating from all that they might 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 213 
 
 have a system of doctrine and a ministry of their 
 own, were treated as offenders against the unity and 
 peace of the Christian Congregation. In so treating 
 them England acted on the principle then held, as 
 we have said, by all the Reformers. 
 
 This being so, when we find Mr. Goode or his fol- 
 lowers stating that such and such laws or regulations 
 were adopted as very proper for "an Episcopal 
 Church, 7 '* we are led to suspect that those writers 
 are not so familiar with the doctrines and language 
 of the time as they profess to be. We think it would 
 be impossible for them to discover in a single docu- 
 ment of importance within almost the whole of that 
 century to which they so constantly refer, any such 
 expression as "an Episcopal Church," or "the Pres- 
 byterian Church." The reason of this is, that deno- 
 minational " Churches" were not then recognized or 
 tolerated anywhere. Yet these are the very bodies 
 for whose benefit Mr. Goode has written. 
 
 The laws, etc., quoted in the last chapter show con- 
 clusively that in Britain at least there was no allow- 
 ance of what are now called "particular" Churches. 
 No separation from the Christian Church as estab- 
 lished by law was sanctioned for a moment, save in 
 the case of those Germans or French who claimed 
 protection from the persecutor, and who, while they 
 sojourned in the land, were required to keep to them- 
 selves and use their own language. Outside the 
 ministry which the Church of England regarded as 
 Scriptural, no one was allowed to act as preacher 
 
 * See the replies of Dr. Canfield and others to Bishop Potter's Pasto- 
 ral ; also Goode on Orders, p. 83. 
 
214 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 or Priest save those alien ministers whose services 
 strictly limited to their own people.* The laws, we 
 say. make this plain, and the history shows that the 
 laws were enforced. From the days of Archbishop 
 Parker to those of Archbishop Laud all sectaries and 
 separatists were punished. This fact has been con- 
 tinually pressed as. a powerful argument against the 
 Church ; therefore it cannot now be denied. 
 
 During the reign of Mary the Church had no 
 existence as a free agent. 
 
 When the accession of Elizabeth opened the way 
 once more to true religion, the authorities engaged 
 immediately in the very work which, if Mr. Goode's 
 theory were true, they would have scrupulously 
 avoided. They took the greatest pains to preserve the 
 Episcopal Order and the Apostolical Succession. 
 Some of the Bishops were dead, some being heretical 
 or criminal, were deprived, and others should of course 
 be appointed in their place ; but owing to the murder 
 of Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and Hooper, it was doubt- 
 ful whether a sufficient number of Bishops favorable 
 to Reformation, could be found to give a valid and 
 canonical consecration.f Among the Sees to be filled 
 was that of Canterbury, the most important of all. 
 
 * Assertions to the contrary are very frequently and very confidently 
 made, but as they are for the most part general, they are not worth no- 
 ticing. Whenever anything like an actual instance is mentioned it can 
 be dealt with. We shall presently consider, in their proper order, the few 
 that have been brought forward. 
 
 f Bishop Short says, "against this evil a remedy had been provided by 
 the providence of God: for there still existed several members of the Epis- 
 copal Order, who having fled beyond the sea and escaped the persecutions 
 of Mary, became the instruments of continuing to our Church the Apos- 
 tolical Succession of Bishops." {History of Church of England, Amer. 
 Edit., p. 123.) We hope it is not necessary to inform the reader that 
 Bishop Short i3 not a High Churchman ! 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 215 
 
 For this the Queen and her advisers at once singled 
 out the learned and admirable Dr. Matthew Parker, 
 formerly chaplain to Anna Boleyn. He was u.n wil- 
 ling to assume the responsibilities of the primacy, and 
 so as a hostile writer (Sir James Mackintosh) says : 
 
 "A great part of the next year was employed in conquering 
 the repugnance of this humble and disinterested man, to the 
 highest dignity in the Reformed Churches." 
 
 We will allow Sir James to tell the story in his 
 
 own words : 
 
 "When Cecil and Bacon had finally succeeded in overcoming 
 his scruples, the consecration was delayed for some time, in order 
 to take such precautions as might best secure its validity from 
 being impugned. The Church of England then adopted and has 
 not since renounced, the inconsistent and absurd opinion that 
 the Church of Rome, though idolatrous, is the only* channel 
 through which all lawful power of ordaining Priests, of conse- 
 crating Bishops or validly performing any religious rite, flowed 
 from Christ, through a succession of Prelates down to the latest 
 age of the world. The ministers therefore first endeavored to 
 obtain the concurrence of the [Roman] Catholic Bishops in the 
 consecration : which those Prelates, who must have considered 
 such an act as a profanation, conscientiously refused. They were 
 at length obliged to issue a new commission, * * directed to 
 Kitchen of Landaff, to Ball [Bale] an Irish Bishop, to Barlow, 
 Scory and Coverdale deprived in the reign of Mary and to two 
 Suffragans. Whoever considers it important at present to ex- 
 amine this list will perceive the perplexities in which the Eng- 
 lish Church was involved by a zeal to preserve unbroken the 
 chain of Episcopal Succession. On account of this frivolous 
 advantage, that Church was led to prefer the common enemy 
 of Reformation to those Protestant communions which had 
 boldly snapped asunder that brittle chain ." 
 
 The consecration finally took place in the Chapel 
 at Lambeth, on the 17th of December, 1559, by Bish- 
 ops Scory, Barlow, Coverdale and Hodgkins. 
 
 *Sir James is mistaken here. The Church never held any such idea. 
 By the way, the reader will remember Mr. G-oode's assertion that the doc- 
 trine of Succession originated with Archbishop Laud ! 
 
213 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 most valued. Yet as it seems to us, it would have 
 saved a world of trouble if more care had been 
 taken to exclude from the Episcopal Order those 
 who were not as firmly attached to their own Church 
 as persons holding its highest trust should be. But 
 owing to the incautious haste, or to the necessity of 
 the authorities, the mitre was placed upon the heads 
 of such men as Grindal, Parkhurst, and Pilkington ; 
 the consequence was that conformity to the laws and 
 usages of the Church of England was not required 
 in the dioceses they governed. They were obliged, 
 indeed, to make occasional declarations against obsti- 
 nate disturbers of the unity and peace of the Church, 
 but their zeal was in word rather than in deed. 
 
 Archbishop Parker entered upon his office with a 
 full sense of all that was required of him, and a con- 
 scientious determination to fulfil his duty as far as 
 it was in his power. The Queen and Council had 
 issued injunctions and proclamations touching unity 
 of faith and worship, and special charges were given 
 to him to see that these were observed ; but he soon 
 discovered that he could hope for no assistance from 
 those who had acquired "Germanical natures." It 
 is true that much irregularity might be looked for 
 under all the circumstances, and also that much 
 might exist even in the smallest diocese without the 
 Bishop's knowledge.* But it is unfortunately too 
 
 * England of the sixteenth century must not be judged by what we 
 know of England or the United States to-day. Imagine what a Bishop res- 
 ident in New York would know of the affairs of a parish or the conduct of a 
 minister away in Genesee county, if there were no railroads, or telegraphs, 
 or newspapers, or communications by mail. No one could say what might 
 be going on even a hundred miles off or less. We believe that while so 
 many persons of unruly spirit were in the country, irregularities must 
 have been frequent, but the Church is not responsible for them. They 
 were violations of her law and usage, not tolerated, but unknown. 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH 219 
 
 evident that the men above named were not fully 
 disposed to carry out the laws. 
 
 On the 18th of November, 1560, Parker wrote to 
 Grindal (then Bishop of London) concerning persons 
 beneficed in his diocese, who were neither Priests 
 nor Deacons. A year afterward he had to repeat 
 the same inquiry, and again in 1567. The Queen, 
 alarmed at the extent of the disorder and contention 
 in the kingdom, wrote a reproving letter to the 
 Archbishop, as if the blame were his. She says that 
 
 " Through sufferance of sundry varieties and novelties, not 
 only in opinions but also in external ceremonies and rites, there 
 is crept and brought into the Church by some few persons 
 abounding more in their own senses than wisdom would, and 
 delighting in singularities and changes, an open and manifest 
 disorder and offence to the godly, wise and obedient persons." 
 
 These troubles she judged likely "to breed some 
 schism or deformity in the Church," and perceiving 
 that lenience or indifference had rather caused them 
 to increase "than to stay or diminish," she "straitly 
 charged" him to proceed to enforce "the laws and 
 ordinances provided by Act of Parliament ;" so that 
 " uniformity of order might be kept in every church 
 without variety and contention." 
 
 The Primate wrote at once, giving similar charges 
 to Grindal, but evidently without effect ; for several 
 weeks afterward he found it necessary to beg privately 
 that a letter should be sent from her Majesty or 
 Council to "my Lord of London," who without it 
 would not proceed to execute the laws and injunc- 
 tions, "and ye know," he says, "that there is the most 
 disorder." 
 
 In another letter to Cecil, dated 8th March, he 
 complained of Parkhurst, and expressed his surprise 
 
220 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 that the charge had not been given to Grindal as he 
 requested. Thus plainly intimating that " my Lord 
 of London n continued obstinately to disobey orders, 
 and that he had some friend at Court who secured 
 him from censure. This friend was either Knollys 
 or the ungodly Earl of Leicester, at that time the 
 Queen's favorite. 
 
 During the same month the Archbishop wrote 
 again to Cecil, complaining of the supineness of the 
 civil authorities after all their censures upon him, 
 and stating that not only clerical garments, but all 
 rites were then being called in question. Again on 
 the 7th of April 1565, be wrote that the factious per- 
 sons openly claimed " my Lord of London " as their 
 own, and that "my Lord of Durham (Pilkington*) 
 will be against us all, and will give over his bishop- 
 rick rather than the law of conformity should be 
 enforced in his diocese." 
 
 Again in November 1569, the Queen, through her 
 Council, wrote to the Archbishop, upbraiding him for 
 supposed diminution of care and diligence, whereby 
 many were gone into dangerous errors or contempt- 
 uous license. This must have been peculiarly gall- 
 ing to the good old Primate, who had constantly 
 begged in vain for their help in the executing of the 
 laws. He had said in 1565 that much hurt would 
 come through such "toleration," "the parties being 
 hardened in their disobedience." Considering this, 
 
 * This is one of the "authorities" quoted by Mr. Goode. See his 
 work, p. 31. 
 
 Bulhnger to Beza. — " There are yet good hopes of some of them, for it 
 appears that neither my friend Parkhnrst, who holds the See of Norwich, 
 nor Pil/cington, who is Bishop of Durham, have as yet ejected any min- 
 ister, nor, indeed, ever intend to do so." {Zurich Letters, ii v 144.) 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 221 
 
 then, it would be hard to understand how the Coun- 
 cil could blame him for any irregularities, if we did 
 not know that puritanism had crept in even there ; even 
 Bacon and Cecil were somewhat infected ; Knollys 
 was one of the most extreme of the party, and 
 Leicester was " their Chancellor." There is little 
 room for wonder, then, that the Primate was censured. 
 When Elizabeth asked, " Whence come these dis- 
 orders ?" The answer was, " The Bishops are remiss.' 7 
 When the malcontents asked, " Why are we not 
 allowed to do as w r e please?" the answer was, "The 
 Bishops are over-exact and cruel." But Parker saw 
 through the scheme, and in his letter to Cecil (then 
 Lord Burleigh) warned him of the evil that would 
 come of it. "If this be a good policy secretly to 
 work " against established law, " I (said the venerable 
 Bishop) will not be a partaker of it." 
 
 " It is, by too much sufferance, past my reach, and, my breth- 
 ren, the comfort that these Puritans have, and their continuance 
 is marvellous ; and, therefore, if her Highness, with her Coun- 
 cil (I mean some of them), step not to it, i" see the likelihood of 
 a pitiful Commonwealth to follow. God have mercy upon us." 
 
 Again to the same purpose, as if endowed wath 
 the spirit of prophecy, he wrote, 
 
 " If this fond faction be applauded to or borne with, it will 
 fall out to a popularity [or democracy! , and as wise men think 
 it will be the overthrow of all the nobilit} 7 , I fear ye shall feel 
 Muncer's commonwealth attempted shortly." 
 
 Sixty-eight years afterward it was established. 
 
 We have dw r elt longer on these matters than we 
 should have done were it not necessary to show that 
 through foreign refugees errors and disorders were 
 brought in, that through the unfaithfulness of two or 
 three puritanical bishops and courtiers^ they were 
 19* 
 
222 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 allowed to spread and increase, and that the true repre- 
 sentatives of the Church exerted themselves to stem 
 the current and prevent the evil they saw approaching. 
 
 The too common impression is that the Puritans 
 were such good, meek Christians, that they quietly 
 submitted to all hardships, and disobeyed only be- 
 cause conscience would not suffer them to yield com- 
 pliance. Doubtless there were some of this stamp, 
 but they were few in numbers, and borne helplessly 
 along in the current, " rari nantes in gurgite vasto." 
 The great body of them were simply self-willed and 
 turbulent men, whose peculiar garb, affected manner, 
 and apparent zeal for pure religion were merely the 
 emblems of a party. Men of tender consciences do 
 not enter the ministry and take oaths, and then de- 
 liberately break them ; nor do they forge letters of 
 Orders, or without ordination of any sort, represent 
 themselves as clergymen, and hold office and draw 
 salary for a series of years ! * True Christians do not 
 spend their time in strife and exciting dissatisfaction, 
 in denouncing and opposing those that are over them 
 in the Lord, or violating the sanctity of God's house 
 and worship. Yet these and other such things were done 
 by those who are even yet lauded as men of unusual 
 godliness, whose only fault was that they did not like 
 the surplice, or the sign of the cross in Baptism ! 
 
 This - is not the place to correct such erroneous 
 impressions, but we cannot help inviting the readers 
 
 * Archbishop Parker to Archbishop Grindal, of York, 17 March, 1574-5 : 
 "You think it will fall hardly with him who hath exercised spiritual 
 jurisdiction these fifteen or sixteen years, and thereupon you writ to stay, 
 if any suit should be made for him to escape by faculty, your Grace shall 
 understand that seeing you have sent me warning of it in time, I do not 
 intend to gratify his friends thereby; nor yet to favor the suit that might 
 be made unto me out of Carlisle/' etc.^-(Parker , s Cor., 474.) 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 223 
 
 attention to what lie will find on a single leaf of 
 Archbishop Parker's Correspondence. 
 
 Certain precisians complained to the government 
 that they could not have the holy sacrament admin- 
 istered in the parish churches, though on one occa- 
 sion six hundred persons met for that purpose. To 
 this the Archbishop replied that he knew nothing 
 of the facts, but he did know that the Churchwardens 
 in many parishes, for the purpose of making trouble 
 and difficulty, provided " neither surplice nor bread," 
 and that those 
 
 " Precise men for all their brag of six hundred communicants 
 did profess openly that they would neither communicate nor come 
 in the Church where either the surplice or the cap is." 
 
 And further, he tells Cecil, that on the previous 
 Sunday one of his chaplains was in the act of admin- 
 istering Holy Communion, or rather "reading the 
 passion, 7 ' when a man of the parish snatched the ele- 
 ments from the table "because the bread was not 
 common," and so the minister was derided and the 
 devout communicants disappointed. Again, he says 
 one Crowley (incumbent of St. Giles) was complained 
 of for a quarrel or stir which he had made in his own 
 church with some clerks who went there in their sur- 
 plices to bury a corpse ; he quarreled with the choris- 
 ters for their "porter's coats,"- and called the "sur- 
 plice man" a wolf! The Archbishop saw that he was 
 desirous of a mild martyrdom, wishing to be sent to 
 prison, so he " dulled his glory" by confining him to 
 his own house, and giving his parish to another. 
 
 But as if this were not disorder enough for a single 
 letter to report, the writer adds that there were some 
 in prison " who in this quarrel fell to open blows in the 
 
224 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Church! (pp. 277-8.)* Such were some of the acts 
 of men who began by objecting to clerical vestments 
 and other matters of no essential importance, but 
 went on to open contempt of everything that was not 
 in accordance with their own novel fancies. From 
 arguing against the oflSce of Archbishops and the 
 dignity and wealth of Prelates in general, they pro- 
 ceeded to attack the whole Episcopal Order. The 
 next step was to claim exclusive divine right for 
 their own system, and to denounce the Church as a 
 "synagogue of Satan." The next, when they had the 
 power, was to overthrow the Church, turn its revenues 
 to their own use, expel all Bishops and Clergy, and 
 murder the Primate. 
 
 Apropos of these men, we refer the reader to our 
 author's representation of their principles. He says : 
 
 "It must not be forgotten that the object of the early Non- 
 conformists was not the mere toleration of their own system, 
 but the utter subversion of the system of Church government 
 then established." — (Page 42, note.) 
 
 Here again he is mistaken. Nonconformity was 
 thirty years old before its adherents took such 
 ground; indeed the more moderate among them never 
 did take it. The most extreme of the early Noncon- 
 formists never went farther than to say that Episco- 
 pacy is an institution of man, and that a Bishop is 
 of the same Order as a Presbyter, f which is precisely 
 the doctrine of Mr. Goode ! 
 
 * All these extract.?, etc., are fromArchbishop Parker's Correspondence. 
 —(Parker, Soc. Ed.) 
 
 t* Archbishop Parker died May, 1575. In 1573 Cartwright con- 
 tended for parity and against all Archbishops. In 1585 the anonymous 
 libellers calling themselvers "Mar Prelates/' began to attack the whole 
 Episcopal Order, and in such style as clergymen have never been spoken 
 of since the days of the Apostles. In 1558 a classis of Separatists in 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 225 
 
 We turn now to the cases of those who have been 
 named as holding preferment in the English Church, 
 though having only Presbyterian Orders. Of these 
 the first is 
 
 Whittingham. — While in exile he was " or- 
 dained" in the English congregation at Geneva* 
 He was associated with John Knox in the attempt to 
 impose the Genevan system upon the English Church 
 at Frankfort. After his return to England he was 
 appointed, through the influence of Leicester, to the 
 Deanery of Durham, where Pilkington was Bishop. 
 The latter made no investigation as to his being in 
 regular Orders or not, so he was allowed to hold his 
 lucrative and honorable position. Yet even there he 
 could not behave himself as others did; his Noncon- 
 formity attracted attention, and he was suspended for 
 a time, although Bishop Pilkington tried to shield 
 him. When Pilkington died in 1576, his successor 
 [Barnes] called the Church there "an Augean Stable," 
 referring to the total neglect of regularity, etc., among 
 the Clergy. Archbishop Sandys, of York, in his vis- 
 itation, 1576-7, observed these disorders, and while 
 investigating them learned " that Whittingham was 
 no ordained minister according to the Order of the 
 Church of England." A special commission was 
 
 Warwickshire went the full length. They "unchurched" the Church, de- 
 creeing that Bishops have no proper authority, that no duty [or respect] 
 is due to them, and that it is not lawful to receive ordination at their 
 hands. To the same purpose were many subsequent declarations and 
 resolutions, as for instance, that ninety years later, when certain persons 
 arrested in a conventicle and brought before Sir John Lenthal, declared 
 that they would not obey the laws, for they were not true laws, nor con- 
 form to the Church, for it was not a true Church, that there was "do 
 true Church but where the faithful met." They of course were the 
 faithful. 
 
 * He married Calvin's sister. 
 
226 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. ' 
 
 appointed to adjudicate upon the case, to whom the 
 
 A tvlihi vlmn stflfWl tlin.t, 
 
 Archbishop stated that 
 
 M It was not lawful for VThittingham to hold that Deanery in 
 respect of his defect therein, and that he was worthy of depri- 
 vation because his ministry was not warranted by the law of 
 the land, being ordained by a few lay-persons at Geneva."* It 
 was further charged that Whittingham was "neither Deacon nor 
 Priest according to law, but a mere layman." To this he replied 
 that he was indeed neither Deacon nor minister according to the 
 order and law of the realm, "but ordered in Queen Mary's time 
 in Geneva, according to the form there used/' 
 
 Even of this he could show no proof. He pre- 
 sented a certificate of election to the office of preaching, 
 etc., in the English Congregation. This was all he 
 had to show, and so his case was lost. The Lord 
 President (Huntington), who evidently sympathized 
 with him, wrote to Burleigh expressing his unwil- 
 lingness to have him deprived as a mere layman, 
 saying, 
 
 "It could not but be ill taken in all the Reformed Churches 
 abroad, that we should allow of the Popish massing Priests in 
 our ministry, and disallow of ministers made in a Reformed 
 Church." 
 
 X evertheless, deprived he would have been had 
 not his death prevented it.f 
 
 A zealous advocate of Puritanism thinks he finds 
 even in Archbishop Sandys's course an endorsement 
 
 * The puritanical Hutton, then Dean of York, expressed the opinion 
 that he "was in better sort ordained than our ministers in England, and 
 that his ministry was much better than the Archbishop's was !" 
 
 f This President's decision was adverse to Archbishop Sandys, as may 
 be guessed from the letter to Cecil, but the process went on, and the case 
 was fsv.b judice when "Whittingham died. Above we have the judgment 
 of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which is certainly definitive. Notwith- 
 standing the easily ascertained facts of the case, the Rev. Mr. Gallagher 
 say-^ "when Whittingham produced his Geneva certifc;ite. the Lord 
 President dismissed the Council, saying that he could not in ronscience 
 consent to deprive him for that cause only." This is represented as the 
 conclusion of the matter. — (True Churchmanship, p. 33.) 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 227 
 
 of Presbyterian Orders ! He claims that their va- 
 lidity was acknowledged in the very charge that 
 Whittingham had not proved that he had been made 
 minister according to the order established at Geneva. 
 But this is strange logic. Was not the first step to 
 demand proof that there had been any ordination at 
 all, and if anything of the kind could be shown, then 
 to question its lawfulness or validity ? But Whit- 
 tingham's case did not endure the first test ; no evi- 
 dence of ordination by any mode was presented, and 
 therefore there was no necessity to say another word. 
 The same author supposes that there is a still 
 stronger acknowledgment in Sandys's letter to Bur- 
 leigh (Strypds Annals, iv v p. 620) : 
 
 " The discredit of the Church of Geneva is hotly alleged. 
 Verily, my Lord, that Church is not touched ; for he hath not 
 received his ministry in that Church * * * so far as yet can 
 appear." 
 
 On this the writer we refer to remarks : 
 
 " His Grace could only deny the fact of Presbyterian ordina- 
 tion ; he could not call in question its validity." 
 
 How is this known? There was no occasion to 
 call it in question. But if there had been, it would 
 have been done. How is it possible to infer from 
 the sentence above that if Whittingham had pre- 
 sented evidence of his having had the hands of Calvin 
 and his colleagues laid upon hirm the Archbishop 
 would yield the case, and say "that is sufficient?" Far 
 otherwise would it have been. Such an ordination 
 could not and would not have been allowed ; but as 
 the question would necessarily have occasioned ill 
 feeling, it was kept back as long as possible.* 
 
 * The writer here referred to is Dr. S. Hopkins, whose work on the 
 Puritans, in three large octavo volumes, we consider a credit to the 
 
22S THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 There was, however, a much stronger plea in his 
 favor than that of a Genevan ordination, viz: that sub- 
 sequently mentioned by Whitgift — necessity. "In 
 time of persecution he was ordained minister by them 
 that had authority in the Church persecuted"* and yet 
 "had he lived he would have been deprived/ 7 unless 
 he was granted a special dispensation, which would 
 N entitle him only to receive the temporalities of his 
 office — not to perform clerical duties. — {Strype's Whit- 
 gift, fol., p. 252.) 
 
 So this case is disposed of. The next is that of 
 Travers, whom Mr. Goode styles the " notorious 
 Puritan." This man was lecturer at the Temple, 
 while the illustrious Eichard Hooker was its 
 Master. His inordinate zeal for Calvinistic doctrine 
 and Genevan usages led him into controversy with 
 Hooker, which attracted: attention to his course, and 
 bred so much contention that Archbishop Whitgift 
 silenced him. He then wrote to the Lord Treasurer, 
 begging to have this suspension. removed, and in the 
 questioning that followed it was found that he had 
 
 country in this age. We by no means agree with Dr. H. as to the char- 
 acter of the Puritans, nor [as may be seen above] do we accept his de- 
 ductions from the authorities he cites; but in these days of trashy little 
 compends, or books filled with quotations at second hand (or even twenty- 
 second hand), it is refreshing to meet with a work in which we have 
 something more than scissors and paste can produce. Dr. Hopkins has 
 read for himself, and his book shows a much larger acquaintance with 
 even Church chronicles than many of our Episcopalian writers possess. 
 
 * Our Author's use of this quotation from Archbishop Whitgift is not 
 of such a character as to impress us very favorably. It does not seem to 
 justify what has been said of his "candor, impartiality, and profound 
 regard for the whole truth. " He says [p. 85-6] Whitgift •' did not deny 
 the validity of Presbyterian Orders in the abstract," for "he admits that 
 Whittingharn ' was ordained minister by those that had authority in the 
 Church* in which he was ORDAINED !" Thus suggesting the Genevan, 
 or Presbyterian, and not the Church of England "persecuted " of which 
 the Archbishop spoke. He skilfully stops his quotation at the word 
 " Church/' and makes the addition that suits his theory. 
 
THE PKACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 229 
 
 only Presbyterian Orders, whereupon he was notified 
 that without re-ordination he could not again be per- 
 mitted to exercise any ministerial functions. 
 
 " But he, taking it for granted that his ordination, received 
 in a congregation of the Reformed Church, from the hands of 
 Reformed Ministers, was lawful and good, argued that he ought 
 not to be ordained again to qualify him to perform his calling 
 of preaching the Gospel." — (Strype's Whitgift, p. 251.) 
 
 He argued that as the Church of God is ONE, those 
 who were duly ordained in one branch thereof ought 
 to be received in all. The Archbishop granted the 
 principle, but denied its application, and reminded 
 him that it was not acted upon by those who favored 
 presbyteries. He further claimed to be as legally 
 entitled to exercise his ministry as "many Scottish 
 men and others made ministers abroad/' and formally 
 acknowledged and employed as such in England. To 
 this the Archbishop answered, "/ know none such" 
 His next point was, that up to the thirteenth year of 
 Elizabeth's reign, even Popish Priests were allowed 
 to enter the Church, and when a certain system was 
 established to prevent evil from this, they were not 
 required to be re-ordained, but merely to subscribe the 
 Articles in testimony of their assent to the Church's 
 doctrine — as if he would say, " Since they were so 
 favorably dealt with, what favor ought not to be 
 shown to orthodox ministers?" To this the Arch- 
 bishop answered : " When the like Act is made for 
 his ministry, then he may allege it." 
 
 This, we should suppose, would settle all question 
 as to the sense of that law, or the interpretation put 
 on it by the authorities of the Church at the time it 
 was made. But Mr. Groode knows better than the 
 Primate. He says : 
 20 
 
2oO THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 ''The parties more particularly in the eye of the framers of 
 the Act were probably (!) those ordained by the Romish form, 
 but the application of the clause was of course general/' — (Pp. 
 47. 48*) 
 
 It might be supposed, from such a statement, that 
 the Reverend gentleman had never read the decision 
 in Travers's case, but we find him referring to it on 
 page So. The only ground, then, on which he can 
 have set forward a judgment of his own so contrary 
 to that decision, is that he believes himself better 
 able to understand the application of a law drawn up 
 in Elizabeth's days than a Prelate who had for years 
 administered it ! 
 
 It seems hardly necessary to repeat (our Author 
 to the contrary notwithstanding) that the benefit of 
 the clause referred to, though always claimed by the 
 Puritans, was never granted. It gave liberty to enter 
 the Church by mere subscription, etc., to those who 
 had been ordained by a different form. Why, then, 
 were they rejected, except on the ground that they 
 had not been ordained at all? The fact of their 
 being denied the benefit of the Act has always been 
 pointed to as a cruelty or sort of breach of faith ; it is 
 therefore confessed by themselves, and so put beyond 
 the power of denial now. (See Oldmixoris History.) 
 
 Travers referred also to the case of Whittingham, 
 and stated that he himself had been allowed [by 
 Archbishop Grindal] to act as minister for nearly six 
 years, and ought therefore still to be allowed. To 
 all this the Primate answered that he had no claim 
 whatever, that he was not lawfully made minister ; for 
 
 * This is also claimed by Rev. Dr. Canfield, who seems to think that 
 previous to that date Romish priests were re-ordained when received into 
 our Church. 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 231 
 
 " Misliking the Order of his own country, he ran to be or- 
 dered elsewhere by such as had no authority to ordain him. 
 That the case of Whittingham was different from his, for Whit- 
 tingham had received the best ordination he could at the time, 
 whereas ' he in time of peace, refusing to be made minister at 
 home, gadded to other countries to be ordained by such as had 
 no authority. 1 And further, that to speak of his being so long 
 permitted to preach was to abuse their patience — that he "never 
 allowed of that kind of calling, neither could he allow ofit" 
 
 This decision of itself should settle the whole con- 
 troversy. Archbishop Whitgiffc declared that he, the 
 Primate, could not allow such Orders, as they were 
 not allowed by the law of the Church, or of the realm. 
 Yet this was the Bishop of whom, on page 85, Mr. 
 Goode says he " admitted the validity of the Orders 
 of the Foreign Protestant Churches/" Comment on 
 such a statement is unnecessary. 
 
 Morrison. — We now come to the other case gene- 
 rally quoted as sufficient to prove the recognition of 
 Presbyterian Orders. It is the ojstly instance Mr. 
 Goode brings forward to substantiate his assertion 
 that for a hundred years such Orders were judged suf- 
 ficient by the authorities of our Church ! 
 
 Our author says : 
 
 " In 1582 (April 6), a license was granted by the Vicar-Gene- 
 ral of the Archbishop of Canterbury (Grindal) to a minister of 
 the name of John Morrison, who had only Scotch Orders, in the 
 following terms : 
 
 " ' Since you, the aforesaid John Morrison, about five years 
 past, in the town of Garvet, in the county of Lothian, of the 
 kingdom of Scotland, were admitted and ordained to Sacred 
 Orders and the holy ministry, by the imposition of hands, ac- 
 cording to^the laudable form and rite of the Reformed Church 
 of Scotland; and since the congregation of that county of Lo- 
 thian is conformable to the orthodox faith and sincere religion 
 now received in this realm of England, and established by public 
 authority ; we, therefore, as much as lies in us, and as by right 
 we may, approving and ratifying the form of your ordination 
 and preferment (prsefectionis) done in such manner aforesaid, 
 grant to you a license and faculty, with the consent and express 
 
282 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 command of the most Reverend Father in Christ the Lord Ed- 
 mund, by the Divine Providence Archbishop of Canterbury, to 
 us signified, that in such Orders by you taken, you may, and 
 have power, in any convenient places in and throughout the 
 whole province of Canterbury, to celebrate divine offices, to min- 
 ister the sacraments, etc.. as much as in us lies, and we may 
 de jure, and as tar as the laws of the kingdom do allow/ M etc. 
 [Stryptfs Life of Grindal, Folio, Bk. ii., c. xiii., p. 271; or Ox- 
 ford ed.. p. 4020 
 
 The first thing we observe in connection with this 
 is, a disingenuous omission. He copies the whole 
 from Strype, but takes care to omit what that honest 
 chronicler took care to insert. Strype says he sets 
 down this license because it was "somewhat ux usual." 
 Mr. Goode leaves out this statement and prints the 
 license, to prove that it was not at all unusual, but a 
 perfectly lawful and common thing! 
 
 "We next remark, that our author does not state 
 explicitly that Morrison had been ordained by a Pres- 
 bytery. He says he "had only Scotch Orders" — 
 which is precisely the case with almost every Episco- 
 pal minister in Scotland. But, though not said, it is 
 plainly implied, that the person licensed was neither 
 more nor less than a Presbyterian Minister.* We 
 doubt this. There is no positive evidence on the sub- 
 ject one way or the other. Probabilities must deter- 
 mine, and by them we are led to believe that John 
 Morrison had received Episcopal ordination. Our 
 reasons are these. 
 
 The license was granted in the spring of 1582, and 
 it is stated that he was ordained to Sacred Orders 
 about five years before. This would make the date 
 either 1576 or 1577. We have already seen that 
 
 * In this the Reverend gentleman, whether knowingly or not, follows 
 the Presbyterian, Dr. Miller, and the Methodist, Mr. Powell. 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 233 
 
 there was no opposition whatever to Bishops as such 
 in Scotland until 1575, when Andrew Melville, fresh 
 from Geneva, began to preach up simple Presbyte- 
 rianism. It was in the General Assembly of that 
 year that the question was first mooted " whether 
 Bishops, as they are now in Scotland, have their 
 functions in the word of God." It is not to be sup- 
 posed that the whole Episcopate of the Church of 
 Scotland melted away like a vapor almost as soon as 
 this question was proposed. We have proof to the 
 contrary. The battle between the conservatives and 
 the innovators was long and obstinately fought, and 
 with varying fortunes, and it was only in 1587, that 
 the latter succeeded in getting an Act which gave 
 the Presbyteries jurisdiction in their respective dis- 
 tricts. Prior to that time, then, the Bishop was the 
 ordinary and sole authority, and even in those dio- 
 ceses which had no Bishops, the general control and 
 the right of ordination were given by law to the Su- 
 perintendents. Consequently, a Presbytery had no 
 legal right to ordain prior to the year j ust mentioned. 
 But Morrison's admission to the ministry took place 
 years before, and the presumption of course is that 
 he was properly ordained by a Bishop. 
 
 This presumption is strengthened by the wording 
 of the document. If in the bitter strife of the times 
 the Cnurch in Lothian had taken sides against Epis- 
 copacy and cast it away, it certainly could not be said 
 to be " conformable to the orthodox faith and sincere 
 religion received in this realm of England and estab- 
 lished by public authority." Considering the special 
 significance at that time of the word " conform" and 
 all its derivatives, we think it in the highest degree 
 20* 
 
234 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 improbable that it could be applied to those whose 
 course was as bad, or worse, than that of the Non- 
 conformists. 
 
 But further. The license professes to be given so 
 far as "we may cle jure and as far as the laws of 
 the kingdom do allow." But no law allowed such a 
 license to be granted to any but regularly ordained 
 men, and so upon these several grounds we infer 
 that the ordination of John Morrison w r as not Pres- 
 byterian, but regular, that is, Episcopal ! ' 
 
 But suppose the contrary should be shown — sup- 
 pose that in the document itself he was plainly de- 
 scribed as being precisely what Mr. Goode and others 
 represent him,* would it follow that the granting of 
 such a license involved the Church's acknowledg- 
 ment of the validity of Non-Episcopal Orders ? Not 
 at all. The act of an individual, however exalted, is 
 not the act of the Church, unless it is done in the 
 regular manner, and in accordance with unquestioned 
 laws and principles. Our author has not attempted 
 to show that the granting of such a license to a Pres- 
 byterian would have been warranted in law ; and, if 
 not legal, what could it prove ? 
 
 We assert and will show, however, that it was en- 
 tirely illegal. Presuming that the party concerned 
 had been regularly ordained, the law required that 
 he should bring his letters dismissory from the 
 Bishop whose diocese he had left. Mere " Letters 
 of Orders," under the hand and seal of a Bishop, 
 would not suffice ; nor would a dismissory letter or 
 
 * Mr. Goode says "he had only Scotch Orders." Mr. Gallagher does 
 not mince matters thus; following Dr. Miller, he styles him a "Scotch 
 Presbyterian minister." — (See True Churchmanship, p. 32.) 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 235 
 
 certificate of good standing, if signed by a Chancellor 
 or any other but the Bishop himself. Yet the license 
 before us makes no reference to any letters dismis- 
 sory ; it professes to be given simply because the 
 person had been ordained about five years before. 
 Presuming, then, that Morrison had been properly 
 commissioned, licensing him, without the usual dis- 
 missory or commendatory letters of his Bishop, was 
 altogether irregular and illegal. 
 
 But still more overwhelming is the proof of its 
 unlawfulness, if he had not Episcopal Orders. We 
 request the reader to look back to the last chapter, 
 and consider the laws guarding the entrance # to, and 
 exercise of, the ministry. They required every one 
 desiring to be ordained Deacon to be twenty-three 
 years of age, a graduate of a University or other- 
 wise sufficiently learned, well approved and vouched 
 for, as to his personal character, by those clergymen 
 who put him forward, and sanctioned by the people 
 among whom he dwelt. Then, if satisfactory in all 
 these respects, and if a living or a "title" were pre- 
 sented be might be ordained, and, after the lapse of 
 a year and further examination, he might be ad- 
 vanced to the priesthood. Yet even then he was not 
 allowed to exercise that right to preach the Gospel 
 which is an essential part of the ministerial office. 
 The fundamental law of license was ; 
 
 "That none be permitted to preach, or interpret the Scrip- 
 tures, unless he be a Priest, or a Deacon at the least, admitted 
 thereunto according to the laws of this realme." 
 
 But the times required still greater strictness. 
 Properly ordained persons, however, could get the 
 special license by showing that they had the learning 
 
236 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 and ability necessary, and that thej^ were completely 
 orthodox and perfectly " conformable " to the laws 
 and usages of the Church; but, lacking these requi- 
 sites, they could not procure them, except by dishon- 
 orable connivance. 
 
 So strict were the enactments, that no regularly or- 
 dained minister could legally officiate, even once, in 
 any but his own church, without giving to the min- 
 ister and wardens sufficient evidence of his being a 
 true and duly licensed Minister.* For presuming to 
 preach without the necessary qualification and per- 
 mission the punishment was severe, and it was hardly 
 less severe for giving Orders or license to improper 
 persons. Yet here we have a document by which 
 full ministerial authority and privilege were given 
 to a man who certainly was not admitted to any func- 
 tion of the ministry, according to the laws of that 
 Church or realm ; who had presented no testimonials 
 of the kind required by law ; who had given no host- 
 ages whatever to the Church. For his benefit the 
 entire system of ecclesiastical law and usage had been 
 ignored ; and this high-handed violation of right is 
 quoted as proof of the Church's recognition of Non- 
 Episcopal Orders! 
 
 * See laws in last chapter; also the following, as bearing upon the 
 case before us: 
 
 "That none be permitted to preach or interpret the Scriptures, unless 
 he be a Priest, or a Deacon at the least [a Presbyterian minister was 
 neither], admitted thereunto according to the laws of this realm. " 
 
 "Whether there be any persons that intrude themselves and presume 
 to exercise any ministry in the Church of God, without imposition of hands 
 and ordinary authority;" u or whether any minister do remove from any 
 other diocese'to serve in this without letters testimonial of the ordinary 
 from whom he came, to testify the cause of his departing thence, and of 
 his behaviour." — {Archbishop Parker's Visit. Articles, 1569, Strype's 
 Parker; also Car dwell' 8 Documentary Annals, vol. i., p. 357; Ibid. f 
 407, etc. 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 237 
 
 By whom was that license given ? Mr. Goode men- 
 tions the name, but is very careful to say no more. 
 He does not even tell why the license was issued by a 
 " Vicar-General." We will supply the defect. Arch- 
 bishop Grindal, at whose " express command" the 
 paper was written, was himself at that time under sus- 
 pension (or sequestration) for connivance at irregular- 
 ities. 
 
 We have seen how he neglected or refused to ad- 
 minister the laws in his diocese of London, and how, 
 when Archbishop of York, he endeavored to shield 
 some who, in reference to the ministry, violated all 
 rule and propriety. Now, as Primate, he was no more 
 careful. He was directed to suppress certain meet- 
 ings, called "prophesyings," and declined doing so. 
 He was again directed, but, in place of obeying, he 
 remonstrated, and was then suspended. Those "exer- 
 cises" or " prophesyings " were attempts at evasion 
 of the law. We are told that they began in Scotland. 
 In England their first use was for the improvement 
 of the Clergy among themselves ; but they were 
 seized upon by those who had been silenced for non- 
 conformity, etc., and made a means of reaching the 
 people, as well as of holding controversy with reg- 
 ular ministers. They engaged in preaching and 
 prayers, and even the administration of Sacraments, 
 all without any authority and contrary to law. 
 
 Grindal expressed his willingness to interfere so 
 far as to check, but not to suppress the assemblies. 
 But that course had been tried ineffectually by his 
 predecessor; and in any case, as Archbishop Sandys 
 said, the thing, though it might be good in itself, yet 
 ought not to be encouraged, since it was an innova- 
 
23S THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 tion, wholly unauthorized. The first step would have 
 been to have had it legalized. Grindal, in his own 
 injunctions of 1576, acknowledges that 
 
 " Divers Ministers, deprived from their livings and inhibited 
 to preach, for not obeying the public orders and discipline of 
 the Church of England, have intruded themselves to be speakers 
 in the said exercises, and, being excluded from pulpits, have in 
 the said exercises usually made their invections against the 
 Orders, rites, and discipline of the Church." 
 
 Dr. Cardwell says : 
 
 " Laymen were allowed to take part in the debates ; noncon- 
 forming ministers were allowed also ; occasion had been taken 
 to attack the character of individuals, public and private ; 
 speeches had been made against the established government 
 and services of the Church, and some speakers had shown 
 themselves ill affected toward the State." — [Doc. Annals, Vol. 
 i., p. 422.) 
 
 Still the Primate would not suppress those disor- 
 derly debating societies, and so he was sequestrated ; 
 and while under this disability he gave the license to 
 John Morrison ! * It is not necessary to add another 
 word upon the subject. 
 
 Thus, then, we have disposed of all the cases 
 generally referred to as proving that our Church 
 recognized Non-Episcopal Orders. 
 
 The only other item of evidence which Mr. Groode 
 has offered for his boast of a hundred years is a gen- 
 eral statement made in a supposed letter of Bishop 
 Cosin to some M. Cordel, and also by Bishop Fleet- 
 wood (A. D. 1712). They are to the same effect, viz: 
 
 "We had many ministers from Scotland, from France, and 
 the Low Countries, who were ordained by Presbyters only, and 
 
 * We do not wish to be severe or uncharitable. Grindal was evidently 
 a good man, but he was not heartily reconciled in all respects to his own 
 Church, and so far was an unfaithful Bishop. We are sure that he acted 
 conscientiously, but we are no less sure that he acted improperly. 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 239 
 
 not Bishops, and they were instituted into benefices with cure 
 * * * and yet were never re-ordained, but only subscribed the 
 Articles." — [Bishop Fleetwood in Goode on Orders, p. 47.) 
 
 To this we reply that Bishop Fleetwood was writ- 
 ing of what took place a hundred years before his 
 time/ and could not, therefore, give evidence. If he 
 had any records, etc., to justify his assertion, he should 
 have referred to or produced them. Without origi- 
 nal authorities to sustain him, he can no more be 
 heard than Mr. Goode himself. 
 
 As to Bishop Cosin (if the letter be really his), 
 though he had somewhat better means of knowing, 
 he points to no records or well-known cases. And 
 after all to what could he testify ? To irregularities 
 only. The laws are explicit, and they are before our 
 eyes. If the Parkhursts or Pilkingtons of a later 
 date admitted men in opposition to those laws, their 
 so doing was not the Church's act but their own. So 
 that if the facts were as stated above, it would prove 
 nothing more than a disgraceful laxity on the part 
 of the Bishops, who, in spite of the Canons, received 
 unqualified persons into their dioceses. 
 
 And now we beg leave to offer some evidence of 
 the opposite character, something that will put Fleet- 
 wood's statement, and that attributed to Cosin, in the 
 class of mere " tradition and hearsay." 
 
 In the "proposed alterations" of the (English) 
 Book of Common Prayer (A. D. 1689), which are in 
 every important particular the same as the paper of 
 " Concessions " drawn up by the then Dean Tillotson 
 (See Birctis Life of Tillotson, pp. 168-9), we find a 
 plain declaration, which, coming from men who were 
 at the time the highest officials in the Anglican 
 
240 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Church, and as such had the best possible opportu- 
 nity of knowing all the facts, is of vastly greater 
 value than the opinion or ■:it of any individ- 
 
 ual. In this formal document, the Bench of Bishops, 
 or rather the Commissioners appointed under the 
 Great Seal* (in furtherance of the policy for which 
 most of them were advanced to the Episcopate f), 
 proposed as follows : 
 
 14 Seeing the Reformed Churches abroad are in that imperfect 
 state that they cannot receive ordination from Bishops, it is 
 humbly proposed whether they may not be received by an im- 
 position of hand in these, or such like words. * Take thou au- 
 thority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the Holy 
 Sacraments in this Church, as thou shalt be lawfully appointed 
 thereunto. 
 
 '•Whereas it has been the constant practice of the Ancient 
 Church to allow no ordination of Priests (i. e. Presbyters) or 
 Deacons without a Bishop, and that it has likewise been the 
 
 CONSTANT PRACTICE OF THIS CHURCH EVER SINCE THE REFORMA- 
 TION to allow none that were not ordained of Bishops, where 
 they could be had; yet in regard that several in this kingdom 
 have of late years been ordained only by Presbyters, the 
 Church, being desirous to do all that can be done for peace, and 
 
 * Among the commissioners were Lamplugh. Compton, Sprat. Burnet 
 and other Bishops, also Stillingfleet, Patrick. Tillotson, Sharpe, Beveridge, 
 Tenison. and four others, who were subsequently rewarded by elevation 
 to the Episcopal bench. Historians say that " Tillotson. Burnet. Teni- 
 son, and all the men of that school'' were willing to waive the question 
 of Presbyterian Orders by adopting a course similar to that used in the 
 ancient Church in reference to "those who had been ordained by here- 
 tics." Yet Burnet seems to disclaim this. He says. "We had before us 
 all the Looks and papers that they the [Non-Episcopalians] had at any tune 
 offered, Betting forth their demands, together with many advices and pro- 
 positions which had been made at several times * * * * so we prepared 
 a Scheme to be laid before the Convocation, but did not think that ice, our- 
 selves, much less that any other person, was any toay limited or bound to 
 comply with what we resolved to propose.'' For an account of this 
 whole business see Lathbury's valuable History of Convocation, p. 320., 
 etc.. etc. 
 
 ■f- That English clergymen have sometimes been promoted to the higher 
 Order for the purpose of carrying out a certain policy favored by the Gov- 
 ernment, is too well known to require proof. A very naive acknowl- 
 edgment of the fact in his own case was made by the late Bishop Stan- 
 ley of Norwich. — (See his life etc., by his ion, the present Dean Stanley). 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 241 
 
 in order to the healing of our dissensions, has thought ft to re- 
 ceive such as have been ordained by Presbyters only, to be or- 
 dained according to this office, with the addition of these words, 
 ' If they shall not have been ordained already/ " — (See Proctor 
 on Book of Common Prayer, p. 157). 
 
 Let it be borne in mind that the persons who made 
 this formal acknowledgment, and who begged as a 
 favor for Nonconformists or Dissenters that which 
 Mr. Goode represents as having been freely granted 
 to them as a right for a whole century, were the so- 
 called "Latitudinarian" divines, who were certainly 
 the best friends that Non-Episcopalians ever had in 
 the English Church.* If they had known of any 
 such liberty as Mr. Goode speaks of, would they not 
 have stated the fact and made it the basis of argu- 
 ment or appeal? In place of such assertion or 
 argument, however, we have the plain acknowledg- 
 ment that the " constant practice" of the Church 
 "ever since the Beformation" had been to exclude 
 those who were not Episcopally ordained. And we 
 see that the greatest length to which these extra-libe- 
 ral divines were willing to go falls far short of Mr. 
 Goode's representation. The favor they ask for 
 their dissenting friends is not that they may be ad- 
 mitted on account of their Presbyterian " ordina- 
 tion," but that when they come in due course to be 
 
 * " They were attached to the form of Church Government and the 
 mode of public worship established by the laws of England, and they 
 recommended them exclusively to others, yet they would not have it be- 
 lieved that these were of divine institution and absolutely necessarj 7 ." 
 {Reed's edition of Murdoch's Jfosheim, p. 830.) Here Mosheim has con- 
 founded things that are not at all similar. No person ever contended 
 that the mode of worship was of divine institution, so that on that point 
 the persons alluded to had no opponent. As to the other, their failure at 
 the time and the odium that has ever since attached to the name of " La- 
 titudinarian," show plainly how the Church regarded their attempt to 
 change its fundamental principles. 
 21 
 
242 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 ordained by a Bishop he may insert a hypothetical 
 clause I * 
 
 We need not remind the reader that these " propo- 
 sals" were never acceded to — it is not so well known, 
 however, that they were never presented. They were 
 skilfully drawn up for the purpose of being brought 
 into Convocation. They were well considered and 
 backed by all the influence of the Court, yet never 
 submitted to the House. This fact speaks volumes. 
 It shows that the Government party was in antagon- 
 ism to the Church, and however powerful it might 
 be, its numbers were still so few that their defeat was 
 certain if they had endeavored to introduce a mea- 
 sure even so far revolutionary. The temper of the 
 House was shown by its emphatically rejecting Til- 
 lotson and choosing Dr. Jane as Prolocutor, and by 
 the significant words in which he closed his inauo;u- 
 ral address " nolumus leges Anglise mutariP These 
 things and the struggle of the next few days showed 
 the concessionists that the Church would not sanction 
 their course, and so, as Proctor says, " they did not 
 venture to submit their proposals to the Convocation, 
 it being quite certain that they would he rejected? " 
 
 * It should also be borne in mind that in making these proposals the 
 Commissioners expressly declare that even they would not sanction them as 
 a general rule. After suggesting the hypothetical form they say: 
 
 " By which as she retains her opinion and practice which make a Bishop 
 necessary to the giving of Orders when he can be had, so she does likewise 
 leave all such persons as have been ordained by Presbyters only, the free- 
 dom of their own thoughts concerning their former ordinations. It being 
 withal expressly provided, that this shall never be precedent for ye time 
 to come and yt shall only be granted to such as have been ordained 
 before the day of ." 
 
 The Editor of the N. Y. u Christian Times," who reprints this document, 
 says quite truly that this project had never been entertained before, but 
 he errs when he states that in 1689 " it fell through for lack of time ! It 
 was in course of formation, or subject of thought and effort -for five years 
 at least. We have given in the text the true reason why it was, as he 
 says, u never even reported to the Convocation." 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 243 
 
 Thus it is seen that neither compliant Bishops, nor 
 a Presbyterian King could induce the representa- 
 tives of the Church to admit any change which 
 would involve surrender of its distinctive princi- 
 ples. 
 
 The animus of the Government was displayed by 
 the course it pursued in interfering with the Convo- 
 cation and finally withdrawing its license in 1717 ; from 
 which time, until very recently, no permission was 
 granted to engage in synodical action. The alien 
 Government (administered by Dutch William and 
 his Hanoverian successors) had little regard for the 
 Church of England. And, as the Convocation would 
 not betray its trust, that Government doomed it to 
 silence. For one hundred and fifty years it was not 
 allowed to deliberate or to speak. But now, at last, 
 thank God,* the restriction has been taken off, and 
 we may hear again the Yoice of the Church. 
 
 As to the law and the practice since 1662, there is 
 no debate. Our author yields the point, confessing 
 that both are exclusive. And he thinks this per- 
 fectly right, inasmuch as every Church has power 
 to regulate its own affairs! Thus he classes the 
 arrangement of the sacred ministry among things 
 indifferentf 
 
 * The writer's thankfulness is not for anything Convocation has done 
 since it was left free to consult and speak, but for the point gained in the 
 removal of the gag. Far better pleased would we be if every province in 
 Great Britain should hold a synod every year, and then once in three or 
 five years the National Convocation of delegates from the various dioceses 
 would assemble in the Capital. We do not consider that that body as 
 now constituted properly represents the Church, still it is greatly better 
 than no synod at all. 
 
 •)- In this also he is dutifully followed by some at least of his American 
 disciples, but he is much more prudent or more precise in his use of words 
 than they. He would be the last man to say that Episcopacy is a cere- 
 mony ! We never saw it so described until Mr. Gallagher's pamphlet fell 
 
244 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 For this attempt at explanation we care very little. 
 The fact which he acknowledges is quite sufficient. 
 We are therefore are at liberty to assert that, at this 
 very day the law is what he labors to prove that it 
 M not. and further, that it has been the same (even on 
 his own admission) for at least two hundred years, and 
 that throughout the whole of that period the practice 
 has been in complete accordance with the law. 
 
 His only ground for maintaining that the doctrine 
 of the Church is really in harmony with his theory 
 is (as the reader will remember), that in 1662 certain 
 changes were made by what he calls "the Laudean 
 divines, who then had the upper hand."' In opposi- 
 tion to this, we have shown, in the last two chap- 
 ters, that no such changes were made in the form- 
 ularies and laws, and that his statement regarding 
 the introduction of new matter in the Preface to 
 the Ordinal is a suggesiio fahi, utterly unworthy 
 of any candid reasoner.* (2) We have also shown, 
 
 into our hands, but therein (page 38) that gentleman so refers to it and 
 even quotes Saravia, as if he supposed the difference between Xon-Epis- 
 copalians and us to be a mere matter "of external rites!" 
 
 * The statement here referred to has been made directly m five places, 
 viz. ; pages 18, 19, and 48, and twice on page 83 j it is also implied in 
 several other places. As a matter of course, the more zealous among 
 Mr. G-oode's American followers accept and repeat it. Thus Dr. Canfield 
 says, "The Laudean party under Charles II. asked for a change," which 
 was granted! The Rev. Mr. Gallagher also mentions the ''changes in 
 the Ordinal/* and speaks repeatedly of the " innovations " of Laud and 
 his party. It is gratifying to find, however, that persons of more reason- 
 able spirit and more exact information use very different language. Thus 
 the Rev. Dr. Smith, says : " This Preface stands now substantially as it 
 has ever since the Reformation. Some changes of expression were in- 
 troduced into it in 1661, but in its actual requirements it has remained 
 unaltered." — (See Reply to Bishop H. Potter, Church Monthly, July, 1865.) 
 
 In the same spirit the editor of the Christian Times savs, in his issue 
 for July 20, I860 : 
 
 "It has been thought that the clause added to the Ordinal, in 1662, in- 
 troduced a new qualification." " The words in italics [' or hath had for- 
 merly Episcopal consecration or ordination^ were added at that time. 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 245 
 
 on his own authority, that if the Laudean divines 
 had desired to make any such alterations in the 
 formularies, "the power was not in their hands."* 
 (3) And now, in this chapter, we have proved that in 
 the practice of the Church, in connection with the 
 subjects we are discussing, there has been no change 
 whatever.f Consequently, to use an expression of 
 
 But this was nothing new, for the Ordinal, as previously established, in 
 1549, said, i To the intent these Orders should be continued and reve- 
 rently used and esteemed in this Church of England, it is requisite that 
 no man {not being at this present Bishop, Priest, or Deacon) shall execute 
 any of them, except he be tried, examined, and admitted according to 
 the form hereinafter following." Here we have in a parenthesis the same 
 thing in effect. And to say that this clause was designed to unchurch all 
 Non-Episcopal bodies is useless, because the view was not held by those 
 who made the amendment. It is clear that the law itself experienced NO 
 essential change at the hands of the Laudeans, On the contrary, from the 
 beginning it was actually relaxed. In the Ordinal of 1549, 'it is de- 
 clared that no man, not already Bishop, Priest, or Deacon/ shall execute 
 any function of said offices, ' except he be called, tried, examined or ad- 
 mitted according to the form hereinafter following.' How USELESS is it, 
 then, to say, that while this clause of the Ordinal stood, the Non-Episco- 
 palians could lawfully hold the offices and enjoy the emoluments of the 
 Church of England!" 
 
 * Ooode on Baptism, American* edition, page 480. In our eleventh 
 chapter we shall show further, that the persons called Laudean divines 
 by our author (or those to whom such a title could with any sort of reason 
 be applied) did not hold the exclusive views that he says it is "certain" 
 they did. They are represented by him in one place as the most extreme 
 of all Episcopalians in their doctrine on the point now debited, yet else- 
 where he tries to show that they were as liberal as himself. The truth 
 is that they were no more " exclusive," and no more " loose " or " liberal," 
 than the Church to which they belonged. 
 
 f We cannot refrain from printing here the valuable admissions made 
 by the Editor of u The [New York] Christian Times, " in the same able 
 and candid article that we have just quoted. It will be seen that the 
 writer endorses fully the view that we have maintained throughout this 
 chapter. 
 
 "It has been supposed by too many that in the days of Laud the law 
 of the Church of England was made a vast deal more stringent in regard 
 to the maintenance of Episcopacy than before, and that prior to 1662 it 
 was lawful for Presbyterians to officiate and hold livings in the Estab- 
 lishment. But this was far from being the case : for the LAW of the Church 
 was almost substantially the same both before and- after that period, and 
 what was unlawful at one time must have been unlawful at another. It 
 is true that in the days of Laud men became more stringent in their views 
 of ordination, yet the law experienced no material change." — [Christian 
 Times, July 20,' 1865.) 
 21* 
 
246 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 his own, his argument has been disposed of, "root 
 and branch." 
 
 If the reader should desire to investigate more 
 thoroughly the subject of Church practice, we refer 
 him confidently to the general history of the British 
 nation, though written in nearly every case by per- 
 sons hostile to our cause — Hume and Smollett, Mack- 
 intosh, Lingard, Hallam, and Macaulay; but more 
 especially do we commend to his perusal the Eccle- 
 siastical histories already referred to — Collier's, 
 Fuller's, Carwithen's, Short's, Southey's Book of the 
 Church, Soame on the Eeformation ; the smaller 
 works on the same by Blunt, Wilson, and Bishop 
 Burnet's voluminous and badly arranged, yet valua- 
 ble history, and the whole works of the honest and 
 pains-taking John Strype. To these may, or rather 
 ought to be, added the biographical notices, etc., in 
 the Parker Society Library, and the lives of Cran- 
 mer, Jewel, and Laud, by Le Bas (if fuller ones can- 
 not be had) ; Clarendon's History of the Great Kebel- 
 lion, Burnet's History of his own Times, Lathbury's 
 History of the Prayer Book, the Convocation, and 
 the Xon- Jurors ; Birch's Life of Tillotson ; Life of 
 Prideaux, etc.; and ISTeale's Puritans, if its marked 
 unfairness be guarded against : it should always be 
 followed by one or other of the replies to it (say 
 Bishop Maddox's), as well as by Walker's Sufferings 
 of the Clergy. 
 
 From these and all other works bearing upon the 
 question at issue the reader will get but one testi- 
 mony. Whether adversely given or not, it is still 
 the same, namely, that through all changes of for- 
 tune the Church has remained faithful to its first 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 247 
 
 profession, and that, unmoved by the outcries and 
 accusations of its adversaries, it has always acted 
 upon its avowed principles, from the days of Hart, 
 Cole, and Middleton to those of Fox, Nay lor, Penn, 
 or Bunyan * 
 
 The American Church, as our readers know, was 
 for more than three generations a part of the English, 
 holding the same doctrines and regimen, and follow- 
 ing the same usages in worship. It was one and the 
 same Church on both sides of the Atlantic, though 
 here weak and imperfect, for want of immediate Epis- 
 copal supervision and service. The national inde- 
 pendence of the United States severed the connection, 
 but produced, of course, no difference in creed or con- 
 stitution. 
 
 We have already seen that Mr. Goode's book ac- 
 knowledges the substantial identity as still existing, 
 and expressly maintains that the doctrine of both 
 
 * This name awakens feelings and is suggestive of thoughts very dif- 
 ferent from those with which we regard the Penrys and the Bastwicks, 
 or even the Cartwrights and Sampsons, the Owens and Neales, who are 
 all classed under the common title of Puritans or Nonconformists. As 
 truly as it may be said of any man, that he acted under a sense of duty, 
 or with strict regard to the promptings of conscience, we believe it may 
 be said of the glorious dreamer, John Bunyan. We firmly believe not 
 only that he was influenced solely by the hope of doing good, but also 
 that his labors with voice and pen were the means of spiritual profit to 
 many. Still, it does not follow that his work was authorized. It was his 
 duty to have procured a proper commission before undertaking the office 
 of Minister in Christ's Church, and without such commission, however 
 pure in his intentions, he was but an intruder into the sanctuary. If we 
 are asked how we can account for God's giving any blessing upon the 
 ministry of such a person, we reply, the Lord is not bound ; He giveth 
 as it hath pleased him. He knows where the intention is good, and also 
 where presumption begins; and we believe, that, for the sake of the pure 
 motive and unconscious offending of many who run before they are sent, 
 He pardons their defect, and accepts their service. Our business, how- 
 ever, is not to devise pleas for irregularity, or speculate upon the length 
 to which one may go with impunity in neglecting or opposing the insti- 
 tutions of God, but carefully to search out His will, and to conform to it 
 under every circumstance. 
 
-43 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Churches being the same, whatever, in any disputed 
 point, settles it for one, "settles it for both." We 
 therefore turn to the history of our American Church, 
 and from it we hope to show that the doctrine, as 
 regards Episcopacy and Apostolical Succession, is 
 just the opposite of what he defends. 
 
 In the colonial period of our history a memorable 
 event occurred, the results of which are clearly trace- 
 able now, after the lapse of a century ; we mean the 
 conversion to Episcopacy of the Professors in Yale 
 College, Connecticut. That we may not appear to 
 color the account of this remarkable occurrence, we 
 will give it as it is found in the " Christian Observer" 
 for December, 1832, to which Evangelical magazine, 
 of course, Mr. Groode will not object. After stating 
 that the Rev. Dr. Cutler, Dr. Johnson, etc., .etc., who 
 were "Presbyterians or Congregationalists, became 
 unsettled on the subject of Church government, and 
 so set themselves to examine 'honestly and impar- 
 tially ' the best books on both sides of the question," 
 the writer proceeds : 
 
 " Accordingly they carefully compared together what was 
 offered by Hoadley and Calamy. They put in the opposite 
 scales Sir Peter King's * Inquiry' and Slater's 'Original 
 Draught/ They then examined Potter on Church Govern- 
 ment, and Mr. Johnson read several of the earliest and best 
 Fathers, in their original languages. The effect was, that from 
 the facts of Scripture, compared with those of the primitive 
 Church, it appeared plain to them that the Episcopal govern- 
 ment was universally established by the Apostles wherever they 
 propagated Christianity ; that through the first Order of the 
 Ministry, called Bishops, the power of the priesthood was to be 
 conveyed from the great Head of the Church, and although Pres- 
 byters preached and administered the sacraments, yet that no 
 act of ordination and government for several ages teas ever al- 
 lovied to be lawful, without a Bishop at the head of the Presby- 
 tery. All these [things] appeared to them as evident, from the 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 249 
 
 universal testimony of the Church, as the true canon of Scripture 
 itself It was therefore impossible for them, after the inquiry, 
 not to suspect, not only the regularity, but even the lawfulness 
 and validity of their ordination/' Mr. Johnson and six others 
 were summoned before the College Trustees, and were ques- 
 tioned as to their belief. " The declaration of some of them was 
 that they doubted the validity of Presbyterian Orders, and of 
 others that they were fully persuaded of the invalidity of it." 
 The Memoir goes on to say that Governor Burnett, of New York 
 [son of the Bishop], " assailed Mr. Johnson with Clarke's semi- 
 Arianism and Hoadley's principles respecting ecclesiastical au- 
 thority." "Mr. Johnson read these authors willingly, and ad- 
 mired them as writers, but was shocked with observing their 
 artifices and subtleties." " He was soon able to satisfy himself 
 that Christ and his Apostles did actually establish a certain form 
 and order of government in the Church, which, as to all its essen- 
 tial parts, was to continue to the end of the world ; and that it 
 was not left to the discretion of any human authority to alter or 
 reject it, as might best suit with worldly convenience."* 
 
 Of the seven learned and able men thus won by sheer 
 force of facts and reasoning out of the very camp of 
 the enemy, four went to England for ordination, brav- 
 ing the dangers of a double sea-voyage in those times, 
 rather than be without the " ministry of Apostolical 
 Succession." From these men originated that which 
 is to-day the flourishing diocese of Connecticut. 
 
 During the Revolutionary war the Episcopal Clergy 
 were much distressed. Many of them were English 
 by birth, and many who were Americans were un- 
 willing to take a course that would involve, as they 
 believed, violation of their ordination oath. So, cling- 
 ing to their former allegiance, they voluntarily left the 
 country. Others were driven out, and of those who 
 remained some were so suspected and opposed that 
 they could no longer carry on their work. Conse- 
 quently the Church was almost extinct. In the great 
 
 * This extract is not quoted verbatim, except where it is so marked. 
 
250 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 State of New York there were only three, or possibly 
 four, clergymen; in New Jersey about two; and for 
 a considerable time there was only one in all Pennsyl- 
 vania ; but he was one for whom we have good reason 
 to thank God — William White, clarum et venerabile 
 nomenl 
 
 In 1782 this eminently good man, deploring the 
 condition of the Church, and seeing no other way of 
 Repairing its waste places, proposed, in a pamphlet 
 (which he published without his name), that the 
 Clergy then in the country should take steps for per- 
 petuating the ministry, and otherwise preventing the 
 total destruction of our Zion. We may hold different 
 opinions as to the propriety of recommending ordina- 
 tion by Presbyters, even in such a case, but there can 
 be no doubt whatever of the fact that the circum- 
 stances were such as to justify any course that neces- 
 sity could justify, and that if they had not been such 
 Dr. White would never have made the suggestion. 
 
 We know few things that illustrate more markedly 
 the demoralizing influence of partyism than the way 
 in which this good man has been misrepresented, on 
 account of the production just mentioned. He has 
 been described as an utter opponent of Scriptural 
 Episcopacy and Apostolical Succession. From the 
 repeated statements to this effect, made in certain 
 journals, the present w r riter, who had then no better 
 opportunity of knowing the facts, believed that Dr. 
 White thought no more of Episcopacy than Bishop 
 Hoadley did, and the surprise which a first glance at 
 his own works produced will not soon be forgotten. 
 
 It has always, of course, been regarded as a matter 
 of prime importance to be in harmony with the 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 251 
 
 Father of the American Church, and thence this 
 most unjust representation of his opinions. His 
 pamphlet (which never served any purpose, inas- 
 much as the providence of God soon put an end to 
 the difficulty, which seemed insurmountable when it 
 was written) has been reprinted in Philadelphia, after 
 an interval of seventy-seven years, for the purpose 
 of aiding a party, and under pretence of setting forth 
 his true views on the subject of Church government. 
 Thus, that which was produced under circumstances 
 of peculiar exigency has been treated as if it were 
 written in the ordinary state of the Church, or as if, 
 from what he proposed in such an emergency, we 
 could justly infer what he would defend or permit in 
 a more favorable time. 
 
 If he had never written anything else upon the 
 subject we confess that, with proper guards and ac- 
 knowledgments, this pamphlet might be referred to; 
 but, inasmuch as he did write formal lectures and 
 dissertations upon it, we should suppose that persons 
 who really wished to ascertain his views would study 
 them; or that parties honestly desiring to propagate 
 the opinions of the venerable author, would not, 
 while those writings are accessible, resort to this 
 exceptional pamphlet, and give to it the title of 
 " Bishop White on Episcopacy." But this is not 
 our present business. 
 
 The suggestion of Dr. White was that the Ameri- 
 can Clergy should express publicly 
 
 "A general approbation of Episcopacy, and a declaration of 
 intention to procure the Succession as soon as conveniently may 
 be, but in the mean time to carry the plan into effect without 
 waiting for the Succession." 
 
 Even here, then, we see a tender regard for that 
 
252 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 which Mr. Goode and persons of his school regard 
 
 so little. 
 
 But how was the proposal met by the Church? 
 
 His own "Memoirs" will inform us. 
 
 " The author found himself in danger of being involved in a 
 dispute with the Clergy of Connecticut, in the name of whom, 
 assembled in Convention, the Rev. Abraham Jarvis addressed a 
 letter, complaining -of the performance, although doubtless mis- 
 taking the object of it. This letter was answered, it is hoped, in 
 a friendly manner, and there the matter ended. The same 
 Convention, in the address sent by them to the Archbishop of 
 York, alluded to the pamphlet as evidence of a design to set up 
 an Episcopacy on the ground of Presbyterial and lay authority. 
 No personal animosity became the result of this misapprehen- 
 sion, and other matters have manifested consent in all matters 
 essential to ecclesiastical discipline." — (Pp. 89, 90.) 
 
 And then, as if to condemn by anticipation the 
 course of those who have claimed to be his only true 
 followers, the venerable author goes on to say : 
 
 " On the communication from Connecticut it will not be offen- 
 sive, at the present day, to make the following remarks. There 
 pervades it the defect of not distinguishing between the state 
 of public concerns then and as they stood when the pamphlet 
 [appeared]. Nearly a year,* and the acknowledgment of inde- 
 pendence, had intervened." — (P. 91.) 
 
 "It is difficult, in avoiding one extreme, not to fall under the 
 appearance of its opposite. Many years after the publication 
 of the pamphlet, a clergyman of standing in an Anti-Episco- 
 palian society alleged some passages of the performance as sus- 
 taining ordination not Episcopal, but he had the candor publicly 
 acknowledge his mistake when it was pointed out to him" — 
 (P. 92.) 
 
 We have dwelt on this so far for two reasons : (1st) 
 Because the opinions of Bishop White are of special 
 consequence. (2nd) They would naturally control 
 his conduct, and his acts would be considered (in a 
 
 • He thus protested against its being judged after an interval of one 
 year. What would he have said if he had known that it would be re- 
 printed, as a sort of "campaign document/' more than fifty years later? 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 253 
 
 greater degree than those of any other man) the acts 
 of the Church. (3rd) It is the only matter in our 
 history that has even the appearance of favoring Mr. 
 Goode's theory. To this statement one exception 
 may be made, viz., that the Southern Churchmen 
 seemed inclined to surrender Episcopacy ;* at all 
 events, they were so indifferent that, though they 
 had chosen Dr. Griffith to be their Bishop, they 
 would not bear the charges of his voyage to Europe 
 for consecration, and he being too poor to make the 
 journey at his own expense, they remained without 
 a Bishop. This comparative indifference is acknowl- 
 edged, but unhappily it did not stand alone. Asso- 
 ciated with it were laxity of morals, absence of true 
 Church life, and willingness to abandon fundamental 
 doctrines of the Gospel. Those who would have 
 preferred a Prayer Book with the doctrine of the 
 Trinity left out, might be expected to get, in other 
 respects, as far as possible from the Christian Church 
 of all ages. 
 
 But to return. The difficulty having been in a 
 very great measure removed, by the acknowledgment 
 of American independence, Dr. White and other cler- 
 gymen engaged at once in the attempt to put their 
 beloved Church in a better position. 
 
 " The first step towards the forming of a collective body of the 
 Episcopal Church in the United States was taken at a meeting, 
 for another purpose, of a few clergymen of New York, New 
 Jersey, and Pennsylvania, at Brunswick, in New Jersey, on the 
 13th and 14th of May, 1784." 
 
 In the same month a meeting was held in Phila- 
 delphia, where, under the influence of Dr. White, 
 
 * Bishop White's Memoirs, p. 79. 
 
 22 
 
254 THE PKACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 resolutions were passed, which were also adopted at 
 a meeting of the Clergy of Massachusetts, held at 
 Boston, in the following September. Of these reso- 
 lutions, the third declares the intention to preserve 
 uniformity to the doctrine and worship of the Church 
 of England, as far as possible. The fourth reads 
 thus : 
 
 " That the Succession of the Ministry be agreeable to the 
 usage which requireth the three Orders of Bishops, Priests, 
 and Deacons ; that the rights and powers of the same be re- 
 spectively ascertained ; and that they be exercised according to 
 reasonable laws, to be duly made." 
 
 Even previous to these resolutions others no less 
 
 decided were passed in Maryland, at the Conventions 
 
 of August, 1783, and June, 1784, chiefly under the 
 
 influence of the eminent Eev. Dr. Smith, Provost of 
 
 Pennsylvania University. Of these the second was: 
 
 "That ever since the Reformation it hath been the received 
 doctrine of the Church of which we are members * * * * that 
 there be three Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, 
 Priests, and Deacons, and that an Episcopal ordination and 
 commission are necessary to the valid administration of the Sac- 
 raments and to the due exercise of the ministerial function in 
 the said Church."* — [Bishop White's Memoirs, p. 93.) 
 
 * This resolution being the work of Dr. Smith, it may surprise the 
 reader to hear that he also is claimed as an opponent of Succession, be- 
 cause, in a sermon before the first General Convention, he said: 
 
 "It will not be so much a question at the last day, of what Church we 
 were; not whether we were of Paul or Apollos, but whether we were of 
 Christ Jesus, and had the true marks of Christianity in our lives." 
 
 This is certainly strong proof that the preacher did not hdld to the doc- 
 trine of Succession ! * 
 
 In the Convention which passed Dr. Smith's resolutions a prominent 
 member was Dr. Claggett, afterwards Bishop of the diocese. If the reader 
 will bear this in mind he will be better able to appreciate the force and 
 fairness of the following argument. A Reverend gentleman, to whose 
 pamphlets we have referred more than once, proposes the question 
 whether the use of the term " Ministers of Apostolic Succession," in our 
 Institution service, does not involve the doctrine? He says it does not. 
 "There is not the slightest allusion to a ministerial tactual Succession!" 
 Such is his decision, and this is the reason for it: 
 
 " The Prayer itself was introduced into the Liturgy and recommended 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 255 
 
 These three Diocesan Conventions, then, declared 
 point-blank their unshaken attachment to principles 
 which our author regards as " monstrous," and which 
 he endeavors to show were never held by the Epis- 
 copal Church. 
 
 The Northern and Eastern provinces were more 
 forward still. The Churchmen there were not willing 
 to put up any longer with an imperfect ministry. 
 They knew that what God had ordained in his 
 Church was necessary for its life and growth, and 
 so they resolved to procure a Bishop. The procla- 
 mation of peace opened the door for the accomplish- 
 ment of their wishes ; and so, even before the British 
 soldiery had left our shores, the Clergy of Connec- 
 ticut selected the Eev. Dr. Learning to be their Epis- 
 copal head. His age and infirmities prevented his 
 accepting the office, and then their attention was 
 turned to the Eev. Dr. Samuel Seabury, who was 
 duly elected on the 21st of April, 1783. 
 
 Dr. Seabury went immediately to England, with 
 his credentials and an earnest entreaty from the 
 Clergy of Connecticut, that their Bishop-elect might 
 receive canonical consecration. From the petition 
 they forwarded we extract a single sentence : 
 
 " To lay the foundation for a valid and regular Episcopate 
 in America, we earnestly entreat your Grace that, in your 
 Archiepiscopal character, you will espouse the cause of our 
 sinking Church, and at this important crisis afford her that 
 
 for use when Bishops White, Claggett, and Moore formed the majority 
 of our House of Bishops, the same divines who signed the comprehen- 
 sive catholic address to General Washington, already given. No prayer 
 of an exclusive ecclesiastical character would have been permitted to be in- 
 introduced into our services at that day. Bishop White's influence was 
 paramount in the Convention!" — {Gallagher on True Apostolical Succes- 
 sion, p. 28.) 
 
256 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 relief upon which her very existence depends, by consecrating 
 a Bishop for Connecticut.' 
 
 But, however much the English Prelates might, as 
 individuals, desire to grant the request of the Ameri- 
 can Church, they had not the power. Their actions 
 wore defined and limited by law. They had no au- 
 thority to proceed in such a case, no right to conse- 
 crate any one without the royal order or permission, 
 and no right to use any other consecration service 
 than that in which the oath of allegiance to the 
 British monarch was included. If they were to 
 grant the prayer of the Connecticut Clergy it would 
 be necessary to get a special Act of Parliament, or 
 at least the royal mandate, and neither could be 
 readily procured just then, when the ministers were 
 suffering the disappointment and pain of defeat. 
 Nearly a whole year was spent in negotiation, and, 
 as nothing could be done, Dr. Seabury applied to the 
 then weak and persecuted Church of Scotland, which, 
 to quote the language of Bishop A. C. Coxe, 
 
 " Had not only preserved the Apostolical Succession, it had 
 maintained the faith in its purity ; and, having been deprived 
 of all its temporalities, was entirely free from the State, and 
 able to act for itself."* 
 
 After mature deliberation, it was determined to 
 grant the request, and on the 14th day of November, 
 A. D. 1784, Dr. Samuel Seabury was duly ordained 
 or consecrated Bishop, in the ancient city of Aber- 
 deen, by the Eight Eev. Bishop Kilgour, Primus; 
 Bishop Petrie, of Eoss and Moray; and Bishop John 
 Skinner, coadjutor to the Primus. 
 
 * Sermon on Bishop Seabury, quoted in Norton's Life. 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 257 
 
 The sermon was preached by Bishop Skinner (fa- 
 vorably known to us as the author of the work in 
 defence of ''Primitive Truth and Order"), who, as 
 Eev. Mr. Norton says, in his sketch of Seabury's 
 life, 
 
 " Clearly and unanswerably explained the origin and nature 
 of the authority by ichich alone the ministers of Christ are em- 
 powered to act in His behalf." 
 
 The general character of the sermon may be 
 learned from the following extract, given by the 
 same writer : 
 
 "As long as there are nations to be instructed in the prin- 
 ciples of the Gospel, or a Church to be formed in any part of the 
 inhabited world, the Successors of the Apostles are obliged, 
 by the commission which they hold, to contribute as far as they 
 can, or may be required of them, to the propagation of these 
 principles, and to the formation of every Church upon the most 
 pure and primitive model. No fear of worldly censure ought to 
 keep them back from so good a work ; no connection with any 
 state nor dependence on any government whatever should tie 
 up their hands from communicating the blessings of that king- 
 dom which is not of this world, and diffusing the means of sal- 
 vation by a valid and regular ministry, wherever they may be 
 wanted." 
 
 This is sufficient to show the idea of the Church 
 and ministry entertained by those who gave (and also 
 as we know by him who then received) the Episcopal 
 authority. 
 
 Bishop Seabury returned to America in the follow- 
 ing summer, landing at Newport, Ehode Island, on 
 the 20th of June, 1785. 
 
 "On the 27th of September," says Bishop White, in his Me- 
 moirs, "there assembled, agreeably to appointment, in Phila- 
 delphia, a Convention of clerical and lay deputies from seven 
 of the thirteen United States." " The Convention entered on 
 the business of the Episcopacy with the knowledge that there 
 was now a Bishop in Connecticut, consecrated not in England, 
 but by the Nonjuring Bishops of Scotland ; for Dr. Seabury, 
 22* 
 
253 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 not meeting assurance of success with the Bishops of the former 
 country, had applied to the latter quarter for the succession 
 which had there been carejvtty maintained, notwithstanding their 
 severance from the State in the revolution of 1688. Bishop Sea- 
 •lmry had returned to America, and had entered on the exercise 
 of his new functions in the beginning of the preceding summer, 
 and two or three gentlemen of the Southern States had received 
 ordination from him. Nevertheless, the members of the Con- 
 vention, although generally impressed with sentiments of re- 
 spect towards the new Bishop, and although, with the exception 
 01 a few, alleging nothing against the validity of his Episco- 
 pacy, thought it most proper to direct their views in the first 
 instance towards England." 
 
 Offers of a very friendly character were made by 
 the Danish authorities, but for the same reason they 
 were declined. Dr. White and Dr. Provoost went, as 
 Seabury had done before them, to the heads of the 
 English Church. But they were not immediately 
 successful. Although the way was cleared consider- 
 ably by changes that had taken place in the interim, 
 there were still some difficulties to be overcome. At 
 last, however, on the 4th of February, 1787, 
 
 " In the chapel of the Archiepiscopal palace of Lambeth, Dr. 
 White and Dr. Provoost were ordained and consecrated Bishops 
 by the Most Rev. John Moore, Archbishop of Canterbury. The 
 Most Rev. William Markham, Archbishop of York presented, 
 and the Bishops who joined with the two Archbishops in the im- 
 position of hands were the Right Rev. Charles Moss, Bishop of 
 Bath and Wells, and the Right Rev. John Hinchcliff, Bishop 
 of Peterborough." 
 
 " Before the end of the same month the newly consecrated 
 Bishops sailed from Falmouth for Xew York, where they arrived 
 on Easter Sunday, April 7th, and soon after began the exercise 
 of the Episcopacy in their respective dioceses." — [Memoirs, 
 p. 28.) 
 
 And now we ask the reader to consider how all 
 this can be reconciled to the theory of Mr. Groode. 
 In such great scarcity of clergymen, why should the 
 life of any one of the little band have been risked in 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 259 
 
 the double sea-voyage ?* Why should the Clergy in 
 America have stooped to make such requests to the 
 English authorities? Why should their chosen can- 
 didates have been required to wait the tardy law's 
 delay, if that which was sought were really no more 
 than a matter of human appointment ? If the Pres- 
 byter and Bishop were essentially of the same Order, 
 all the authority or jurisdiction might have been 
 given here, without expense or risk or humiliating 
 applications and delays. Why then did the whole 
 American Church, as represented by the Connecticut 
 and the Philadelphia Convention, judge that, at all 
 sacrifices, the Church should procure a properly con- 
 secrated Order of Bishops? Was it not because they 
 held views diametrically opposite to those of Mr. 
 Groode? They did not think the doctrine of Apos- 
 tolical Succession " monstrous." They did not regard 
 the Episcopate and Presbyterate as one Order. They 
 did not recognize the validity or lawfulness of Pres- 
 byterian ordination. 
 
 But it is capable of proof that the opinions of those 
 English Prelates who transmitted the Succession did 
 not differ from those of the Church to which the gift 
 was imparted. If the Archbishop, etc., had looked 
 upon the Episcopate merely as an office or dignity 
 (as distinguished from a sacred Order), having once 
 done what was required of them, they would have 
 given themselves no further concern. But this was 
 not the case. The constant law of the Church had 
 
 * Of those who went to England for Orders in those days, one in five 
 perished. Messrs. Giles and Wilson, on their return voyage, were ship- 
 wrecked and lost near the mouth of the Delaware. Such was the too 
 frequent result of Atlantic voyages in those times. Deaths also occurred 
 from disease, as in the case of Mr. Brown, one of Johnson's colleagues. 
 
260 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 required that three Bishops should take part in every 
 consecration ; not that one could not give a valid au- 
 thority, as well as ten, but that there should always 
 be enough to secure a full and unquestionable com- 
 mission. Here then were only two ordained by them 
 as Bishops for America, and if they by themselves 
 should consecrate others, or even if they should, for 
 that purpose, unite with any others, the validity of 
 whose Orders might be doubted, an irregular or ques- 
 tionable Episcopate would be the result; and so they 
 required a sort of pledge that Bishops White and 
 Provoost would not proceed to any consecration 
 without first obtaining the requisite number.* 
 
 To those who regard the Bishop as simply a Pre- 
 siding Elder, or who look upon the Apostolical Suc- 
 cession as a "figment," all this must appear no more 
 than solemn trifling. Consequently, the grave and 
 reverend divines who were so scrupulous had no such 
 opinions. 
 
 But to return to America. 
 
 "On the 28th of July, 1789, there assembled the Triennial 
 Convention, by whom the Episcopacy of Bishops White and 
 Provoost * * *. was duly recognized. At this Convention there 
 naturally occurred the importance of taking measures for the 
 perpetuating of the Succession, which some circumstances had 
 subjected to considerable difficulty." — [Memoir, p. 29.) 
 
 The good Bishop then goes on to say, that the 
 Clergy of Massachusetts had nominated Dr. Bass, and 
 requested Bishop Seabury, Bishop Provoost, and him- 
 self to unite in consecrating him ; but, although per- 
 fectly willing on other grounds, he considered such 
 an act would be a violation of " the faith impliedly 
 
 * Bishop White's Memoir, p. 29. 
 
THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 261 
 
 pledged." Yet, to -show his desire for such a union 
 with the Bishop and Church of Connecticut, he ex- 
 pressed his belief of the validity of Bishop Seabury's 
 consecration, and the Convention passed a vote to that 
 effect. But why all this care, or why did Bishop Pro- 
 voost deny the validity of that consecration, if the 
 whole matter were one of mere form and dignity ? 
 The very objection to the genuineness of Bishop Sea- 
 bury's Episcopal commission could have no other 
 foundation than a belief in the necessity of Apostol- 
 ical Succession. 
 
 The consecration in England of Dr. Madison as 
 Bishop of Vi-rginia removed the difficulty about 
 uniting with Bishop Seabury in such services, and 
 so, when the Eev. Thomas J. Claggett, D.D., came to 
 be consecrated Bishop of Maryland, Bishop Provoost 
 presided, and Bishops Seabury, White and Madison 
 united with him in the laying on of hands. A writer 
 in the " Churchman's Magazine," quoted by Eev. Mr. 
 Norton says : 
 
 Bishop Claggett " used to speak with much satisfaction of the 
 union in his consecration of the direct ancient line of the Apos- 
 tolic Succession with that which, more than a century before, 
 had been derived from that line for Scotland, and thence de- 
 scended in the Scotch line."* 
 
 From that time to this the succession has been care- 
 fully maintained in the American Church.f There 
 
 * This is the Bishop Claggett who (according to Mr. Gallagher) would 
 not have sanctioned the use of the words u Apostolical Succession " in 
 the Prayer Book, if they were to be understood as meaning Apostolical 
 Succession ! 
 
 f It has been regarded as a matter both of interest and value that the 
 English Succession was once more conveyed to this Church by the Right 
 Rev. Dr. Fulford, Bishop of Montreal and Metropolitan of Canada, who 
 participated in the consecration of the late Bishop Wainwright, of New 
 York, and again in that of Bishop Quintard, of Tennessee, October, 
 1865. 
 
262 THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 has been no violation of the venerable canons, and 
 no acknowledgment of any person as Bishop, Priest, 
 or Deacon who had not been previously ordained as 
 sueh by proper Episcopal authority. Consequently, 
 the history and present practice of the American 
 Church are, like those of its English parent, in 
 unison with the principles we defend, and irrecon- 
 cilably opposed to those of Mr. Goode. 
 
OHAPTEE X. 
 
 SECONDARY STANDARDS. 
 
 AMONG- those works which possess a value or 
 authority greater than the unsanctioned writ- 
 ings of individual men, and almost as great as the 
 formularies or official documents, we might class all 
 the works of Cranmer ; but we prefer reserving for 
 the next chapter what still remains to be furnished 
 from his pen. 
 
 The various publications which can be classed as 
 secondary standards, having been set forth by the 
 highest authority or adopted by Convocation, as ex- 
 pressing the Church's doctrine, are the Homilies, the 
 Catechisms of Poynet and Nowell, Erasmus's Para- 
 phrase on the New Testament, Jewel's Apology, and 
 (though in a less degree) Bullinger's Decades. 
 
 These works were written at a time when the rights 
 of the Episcopal Order were not called in question 
 in England. The Homilies were for a plain, unlet- 
 tered people, who had never known any other than 
 an Episcopal ministry, and among whom there was 
 no question upon the matter. The same remark ap- 
 plies to the Catechisms, while Jewel's Apology was 
 simply the Anglican Church's justification of her 
 separation from the Roman communion ; and, as we 
 
 (263) 
 
264 SECONDARY STANDARDS. 
 
 have no difference with Borne as to the parry poe 
 
 the right to ordain, nor as to the necessity for a 
 
 transmitted authority,, full and special reference to 
 those matters would not be made in that work. 
 
 Still something bearing upon our general subject 
 mav be found in it and the others. 
 
 The Homilies. — In these it is evidently taken for 
 granted that the true constitution of the Church of 
 Christ is precisely what the Preface to the Ordinal 
 declares, and what we maintain it to be. So the c 
 of Bishop is always referred to as lawful and Scrip- 
 tural, and the pretensions of the Eoman Prelate 
 
 :- treated not as a usurpation over the rights 
 of P but of Bishops. 
 
 '• The office of Bishops and Pastors is to praise good men for 
 well doing, that they may continue therein ; and to rebuke and 
 correct by the word of God the offences and crimes of all evil- 
 iis] sed persons. — [On Charity: Amer. ed., Baltimore. 1823.) 
 
 " And as they have most earnestly written, so did they most 
 sincerely and most diligently, in their time, teach and preach 
 ling to their writings and examples, for they were then 
 preaching Bishops, and more often seen in pulpits than in 
 princes' palaces: more occupied in His legacy who said. 'Go ye 
 into all the world and preach the Gospel to all men/' than in 
 embassages and affairs of princes of this world. — [Against Peril 
 ofMolatry.) 
 
 '•We may well conclude, according to the rule of Augustine, 
 that the Bishops of Rome and their adherents are not the true 
 Church of Christ, much less then to be taken as chief heads 
 and rulers of the same." 
 
 " They will be termed universal Bishops and Heads of all 
 Christian Churches through the world." — [For Whit-Sunday.) 
 
 . : Hviy Scriptures do teach most expressly that our Sa- 
 viour Christ himself, and his Apostles St. Paul and St. Peter, 
 with others, were unto the magistrates and higher powers which 
 ruled at their being upon earth, both obedient themselves, and 
 did also diligently and earnestly exhort all other Christians to 
 the like obedience unto their princes and governors, whereby it 
 i lent that men of the Clergy and ecclesiastical ministers, 
 >bs, ought th ally and before others 
 
 to be obedient unto their princes/ 1 
 
SECONDAKY STANDARDS. 265 
 
 " The Bishop of Rome being by the order of God's word none 
 other than the Bishop of that one See and Diocese, and never yet 
 able to govern the same, did by intolerable ambition challenge 
 not only to be the head of all the Church dispersed throughout 
 the world, but also to be lord of all kingdoms of the world," 
 etc., etc. — [Against Wilful Rebellion.) 
 
 Poyket. — The definition of the Church of Christ 
 given in the Catechism, of Edward VI. is not much 
 to the point, but yet may be fairly regarded as im- 
 plying nearly all that we contend for. 
 
 " That congregation is nothing elsse but a certayne multytude 
 of menne which, wheresoever they be, professe the pure and 
 uprighte learning of Christ, and that in such sort as it is faith- 
 fully set fourth in the Holy Testament by the Evangelists and 
 Apostles ; whiche in all points are governed and ruled by the 
 laws and statutes of theyr King and hye Byshoppe, Christe, in 
 the bonde of charity ; which use his holy mysteryes, that are 
 commonlie called Sacramentes, with such purenesse and simpli- 
 city (as touchynge theire nature and substance) as the Apostles 
 of Christ used and left behind in writing. The marckes there- 
 fore of this Churche are: firste, pure preachyng of the Gospel; 
 then brotherly love, out of which, as members out of al one 
 body, springeth good wyl of eche to other ; thirdly, upright 
 and uncorrupted use of the Lorde's Sacraments according to 
 the ordynaunce of the Gospell ; laste of all, brotherlye correc- 
 tion and excommunication, or banishynge those out of the 
 Church which wyl not amend their lives. This marcke the 
 holye fathers termed discipline. This is that same Churche 
 that is grounded upon the assured rocke Jesus Christ and upon 
 trust in him. This is that same Church which St. Paul calleth 
 the piller and upholding stay of truth. To this Church belong 
 the keies whearwyth heaven is locked and unlocked ; for that 
 is done by the ministration of the worde ; whereunto properly 
 appertayneth the power to bind and loose, to holde for gylty 
 and to forgive synnes. So that whosoever believeth the Gospell 
 preached in this Church he shall be saved, but whoso believeth 
 not the same shall be damned." — (Randolph's Enchiridion, 
 Vol. i., p. 26.) 
 
 JSTowell. — To the same effect is that given in 
 
 Nowell's Catechism. After mentioning as among 
 
 the notes of the Church, " praedicationem, invoca- 
 
 tionem et Sacramentorum administrationem synce- 
 
 23 
 
266 SECONDARY STANDARDS. 
 
 ram,* 1 all of which require, of course, a regular 
 ministry, he proceeds : 
 
 11 Sunt hse quidem Ecclesise visibilis notse praecipuae et plane 
 necessarian; ut sine quibus ne Ecclesia quidem Christi esse, 
 dicive recte possit. Sed et in eadem Ecclesia si probe instituta 
 jiurit coins gubernationis ordo et modus," etc., etc. 
 
 The rite of Confirmation is thus spoken of: 
 
 ''Episcopus enim ration em Religionis a pueris exquirebat; 
 pueri Fidei suae rationem Episcopo reddebant ; quos vero in re- 
 ligionis scientia progressus jam satis magnos fecisse Episcopus 
 putabat eos approbabat, et imposita illis manu bene precatus 
 dimittebat. Hanc Episcopi approbationem benedictionemque, 
 nostri Confirmationem apellant." 
 
 Let it be borne in mind, as already stated, that the 
 Order of Bishops was acknowledged as of divine in- 
 stitution by all in England when this was written, 
 and it strongly corroborates oar position. 
 
 Erasmus. — In the Injunctions issued on the acces- 
 sion of Edward VI. (A. D. 1547), it was ordered, that 
 
 " Every parson, vicar, curate, chantry priest, and stipendiary, 
 being under the degree of Bachelor of Divinity, shall provide 
 and have of his own, within three months after this visitation, 
 the New Testament, both in Latin and in English, with Para- 
 phrasis upon the same of Erasmus, and diligently studying the 
 same, conferring one with the other." 
 
 In the Visitation articles of inquiry set forth in 
 the same year, by Archbishop Cranmer, it is asked 
 
 " Whether in every cure they have provided one book of the 
 whole Bible of the largest volume in English, and the Para- 
 phrasis of Erasmus, also in English, upon the Gospels [all that 
 was then translated], and set up the same in some convenient 
 place in the Church, where their parishioners may most com- 
 modiously resort to the same/' 
 
 Another inquiry was, whether the Clergy had pos- 
 sessed themselves of the Bible and of the said Para- 
 phrase, as ordered in the Injunctions. Questions and 
 orders to the same effect were issued at different times 
 
SECONDARY STANDARDS. 267 
 
 thereafter, as, for instance, in the injunctions of Queen 
 Elizabeth, in 1559 ; by the second Protestant Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury (Parker), in 1569 ; again by 
 Archbishop Grrindal, in 1576 ; and again by Arch- 
 bishop Bancroft, in 1610. These orders to procure 
 and study Erasmus's Paraphrase were so long kept 
 up, or so often repeated, that that work may be safely 
 said to have received stronger commendation from 
 the authorities of the Church than any uninspired 
 composition, save the Liturgy, Articles, and Homi- 
 lies. At the very least, it stands on the highest level 
 next to thern^ or among the secondary standards, and 
 probably did more to form the opinions of the divines 
 of that age than any other book. How then does its 
 teaching affect the question before us? We need 
 only reply, that it describes the office of Timothy and 
 Titus as that of Bishop and Archbishop, and gives 
 to every text in connection with the authority com- 
 mitted to those Apostolic men the very rendering 
 that is always insisted on by Episcopalians. So de- 
 cidedly of this character is it, that even Gardiner, the 
 Eomish Bishop of Winchester, protested against it 
 on that account, as well as others. His objections to 
 advocacy of the Episcopacy could only lie against 
 making it jure divino, and not derived through the 
 Pope; so, when he did object, we may know that 
 Erasmus took the very ground so distasteful to the 
 followers of the Pope and of Mr. Groode. Gardiner 
 says : 
 
 " Whatsoever might be spoke to defame princes' government 
 is not left unspoken. Bishops be more gentle handled. Erasmus 
 maketh them very Kings of the Gospel, and calleth the true 
 kings of the world profane kings." — (Strype's Crannier, 12mo. 
 edit., London ; Vol. ii., p. 325.) 
 
268 SECONDARY STANDARDS. 
 
 Such, then, is the light in which the Episcopate 
 was represented in a work that was for so long the 
 authorized exposition of the Gospel Scriptures, "de- 
 livering," as Bancroft said, "plainly to every man's 
 understanding the true sense and meaning of the 
 whole New Testament." Here, then, we have, for 
 three-fourths of the century which Mr. Groode claims, 
 a series of official endorsements of a work teaching 
 doctrines the very opposite of those put forth in this 
 "Essay" before us. 
 
 Jewel. — The Apology for the Church of England, 
 from the pen of Bishop Jewel, was one of the most 
 valuable works ever issued by an Episcopal divine. 
 But it has an importance beyond what its intrinsic 
 excellence would give. It had the express sanction 
 of Convocation; it was adopted as the Church's work, 
 and, with the Defence of it against Harding, was put 
 up in the churches for public perusal.* The whole 
 works of this eminent Prelate were also commended 
 in the injunctions of Archbishop Bancroft, A. D. 
 1610.t 
 
 We refer to the Apology, then, to see what it con- 
 tains bearing upon our topic. Let it be borne in 
 mind that the English Eeformers considered it "evi- 
 dent, from Holy Scripture and ancient authors," that 
 there had always been in Christ's Church those three 
 Orders, " Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ;" and further, 
 that at the time the Apology appeared this threefold 
 ministry was not impugned in England, nor, of course, 
 
 * So important was the Apology considered, that Archbishop Parker 
 wrote a public letter of thanks to Lady Bacon for her translation of it 
 into English, by which she had "deserved well of the Church of Christ." 
 
 f See Carclwell's " Synodalia," Vol. ii., p. 160. 
 
SECONDARY STANDARDS. 269 
 
 questioned at all by the Bomanists, against whom the 
 work was written. 
 In answer to the cry 
 
 11 That we are all heretics, and have forsaken the faith, and 
 have with new persuasions and wicked learning utterly dis- 
 solved the concord of the Church/' he says : 
 
 " If we do show it plain, that God's holy Gospel, the ancient 
 Bishops, and the primitive Church do make on our side, and that 
 we have not without just cause left these men, and rather have 
 returned to the Apostles and old catholic fathers," etc., etc. — 
 (P. 56, Parker Soc. ed.) 
 
 " We believe that there is one Church of God, and that the 
 same is not shut up (as in times past among the Jews) into 
 some corner or kingdom, but that it is catholic and universal," 
 etc., etc. 
 
 " Furthermore, that there be divers degrees of Ministers in the 
 Church, whereof some be Deacons, some Priests, some Bishops; 
 to whom is committed the office to instruct the people, and the 
 whole charge and setting forth of religion."— (P. 59.) 
 
 " Furthermore, we say that the minister ought lawfully, duly, 
 and orderly to be preferred to that office of the Church of God, 
 and that no man hath power to wrest himself into the holy 
 ministry at his own pleasure and list. Wherefore these per- 
 sons do us the greater wrong which which have nothing so com- 
 mon in their mouths as that we do nothing orderly or comely, 
 but all things troublesomely and without order ; and that we 
 allow every man to be a priest, to be a teacher, and to be an 
 interpreter of the Scriptures." — (P. 60.) 
 
 " Indeed, we grant that certain new and very strange sects, 
 as the Anabaptists, Libertines, Menonians, Zwenckfeldians, have 
 been stirring in the world ever since the Gospel did first spring. 
 But the world seeth now right well (thanks be given to our God) 
 that we neither have bred nor taught nor kept up these mon- 
 sters."— (P. 67.) 
 
 Appended to Lady Bacon's translation is an ac- 
 count of the Church and Universities, as then (and 
 in a great measure still) governed. It says : 
 
 "Among us here in England no man is called or preferred 
 to be a Bishop, except he have first received the Orders of priest- 
 hood and be well able to instruct the people in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures." 
 
 These extracts furnish satisfactory testimony to 
 23* 
 
270 SECONDARY STANDARDS. 
 
 the constitution of tlie Church as it really existed, 
 and to the light in which it was regarded by the 
 chief divines of that day. 
 
 Bullinger. — As this eminent theologian be- 
 longed to a Church in which ministers were set 
 apart by laying on of the hands of Presbyters, it 
 could not be expected that in any of his writings he 
 would directly condemn that custom. We are not 
 surprised, therefore, to find him arguing, in one part 
 of the fifth Decade against the exclusive right of the 
 Bishop to ordain. But the reader may not be pre- 
 pared to find him furnishing such decisive testimony 
 against the doctrine of Presbyterian parity as this : 
 
 " Now by all these things we think it is manifest to all men 
 what Orders the Lord himself hath ordained from the begin- 
 ning, and whom he hath consecrated to the holy ministry of the 
 Church and to govern his own Church. He laid the foundation 
 of the Church at the beginning by Apostles, Evangelists, and 
 Prophets. He enlarged and maintained the same by Pastors 
 and Doctors. To these Elders and Deacons were helpers." 
 
 " For many ages since and immediately after the foundation 
 of Christ's kingdom on earth, the Apostles, Evangelists, and 
 Prophets ceased, and there came in their place Bishops, Pastors, 
 Doctors, and Elders, which order hath continued most steadfastly 
 in the Church ; that now we cannot doubt that the order of the 
 Church is perfect and absolute, if at this day also there remain 
 in the Church of God Bishops or Pastors, Doctors also or El- 
 ders."— (Vol. v., pp. 108, 109.) 
 
 Bullinger's use of the word " ordain " in the place 
 mentioned above is ambiguous. It was understood 
 as meaning to choose, or appoint, for he speaks of or- 
 daining " by lot," which of course was electing. But 
 the English authorities did not wish even this lesser 
 right to be denied to Bishops, so the editor added a 
 note, in which he quotes Bullinger against himself. 
 
CHAPTEE XI. 
 
 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 BEFOBE furnishing our catena of authorities in 
 support of the principles herein maintained; we 
 would remind the reader of what has been said on 
 this subject in Chapter Y. The opinions of divines 
 are valuable indeed, but they are not the Vox Ec- 
 CLESI^E. At best they are but echoes of that voice, 
 or in harmony with it. If they give a different, or 
 even an uncertain, sound, they go for nothing. 
 
 The mere fact that many prominent clergymen 
 have held such or such views does not go one step 
 towards proving that the Chukch holds them. The 
 most it can do is to create a presumption in favor of 
 their being Church doctrine, which reference to the 
 proper sources of information will either confirm or 
 destroy. Opinions, having thus no positive value in 
 such a discussion as the present, we attach no especial 
 importance to them. Consequently we look upon this 
 part of our work as the least satisfactory, though it 
 is the one upon which Mr. Goode lays greatest stress. 
 We claim for what is to follow no more than the 
 weight that is due to indirect corroborative evidence, 
 but as such we confidently submit it to the consider- 
 
 (271) 
 
272 OPIXIOXS OF DIVINES. 
 
 ation of the reader. Having fully and carefully ex- 
 amined the standards and, as we believe, ascertained 
 their teaching, we are at liberty to furnish testimony 
 from eminent Bishops and other clergymen in the 
 successive periods of the Church's history, in support 
 of the interpretation we have given to the authentic 
 documents ; and in doing this we shall take care to 
 give, as far as we have been able to ascertain them, 
 the mature or real opinions of the men whose works 
 we quote. 
 
 Akqhbishop Craxmeb, naturally heads the list. 
 If a Eomanist were to print the "Kecantation" of 
 this great and good man as the true expression of 
 his opinion upon the character and authority of the 
 Church of Eome, we presume Mr. Goode would very 
 indignantly denounce such a proceeding as manifestly 
 unfair or dishonorable. But it would not be one jot 
 less fair than printing the "Keplies : ' of 1540 as his 
 real or only views upon the Christian ministry. This 
 has been done by several prominent Anti-Episcopal 
 controversialists, much to their discredit ; but there 
 was this measure of excuse for them — they could 
 not be expected to have much knowledge of Cranmer 
 and his works, beyond what is supplied in the gen- 
 eral histories of the country. An Episcopal minister 
 should have a much better acquaintance with the 
 real character and the writings of the Father of the 
 Eeformed Church of England ; but some, we regret 
 to say, repeat the misrepresentations of their Pres- 
 byterian or Methodist predecessors, and thus leave 
 themselves open to the suspicion of being ignorant 
 of Cranmer 's judgment upon so grave a matter, or 
 else of suppressing the truth. We shall not attempt 
 
OPINION'S OF DIVINES. 273 
 
 to decide upon which, horn of the dilemma our author 
 would prefer being impaled. 
 
 In a former chapter we have shown that previous 
 to 1540 the Archbishop held views totally different 
 from those expressed in the memorable paper of that 
 year, and we have stated that subsequently to it he 
 openly avowed opinions equally irreconcilable with 
 those in that unfortunate document. Does Mr. Groode 
 know this? If he does, why does he conceal it? 
 If not, why does he not read the very works from 
 which he quotes ? Will he explain to his readers 
 his silence upon the well-known fact, that, on the very 
 sheet from ivhich those answers were reprinted, Cranm,er, 
 at some subsequent time, indicated a complete change of 
 mind, by affixing his signature to the responses of 
 Dr. Leighton. Mr. Good copies the "Answers" from 
 Collier and Burnet. Either of these would have in- 
 formed him of the Archbishop's return to his senses, 
 or rather to his liberty. Burnet says, that in 1548 
 
 "Cranmer" "had now quite laid aside those singular opin- 
 ions which he formerly held of the ecclesiastical functions ; for 
 now, in a work which was wholly his own, without the concur- 
 rence of any others, he fully set forth their divine institution!" — 
 (Hist. Reformation, Vol. i., p. 341, Bonn's edit.) 
 
 But of this circumstance Mr. Goode's readers are 
 not informed. 
 
 The work to which Burnet refers is the " Cate- 
 chism" commonly called Cranmer's, though origin- 
 ally written in German, by one of the Eeformers 
 (probably Osiander, Cranmer's father-in-law), trans- 
 lated into Latin by Justus Jonas, and into English 
 either by Cranmer himself or under his supervision. 
 Burnet thinks it exclusively his own, but it was not 
 so. It was his by full adoption, and, doubtless, also 
 
274 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 by change and addition, and the sentiments expit 
 in the body of the work harmonize thoroughly with. 
 those in the dedicatory letter to the King, which was 
 from his own hand. It is supposed, on good grounds, 
 that the " Sermon on the Keys," included in the Cat- 
 echism, is the Archbishop's own composition. It is 
 plainly attributed to him in the copy now before us, 
 which is a black-letter fac simile, printed at London, 
 in 1708.* From this remarkable sermon we print 
 a few paragraphs, which the reader will hardly be- 
 lieve could be written by the same Cranmer of whom 
 our author speaks. 
 
 The text is Eonians x. 1-1, 15, and the preacher 
 says it declares "two lessons:'' 
 
 " The first is. that it is necessary to our salvation to have 
 preachers and ministers of God's most holy word to instruct us 
 in the true faith and knowledge of God. 
 
 "The second is. that preachers must not run to this high 
 honor before they be called thereto, but they must be ordained 
 and appointed to this office, and sent to us by God." etc., etc. 
 
 "Again, the teachers, except they be called and sent, cannot 
 fruitfully teach. For the seed of God's word doth never bring 
 forth fruit unless the Lord of the harvest do give increase, and 
 by His Holy Spirit do work with the sower. But God doth not 
 work with the preacher whom He hath not sent ; as St. Paul 
 saith, ' How shall they preach, if they be not sent V Where- 
 fore it is requisite that preachers should be called and sent of 
 God ; and they must preach according to the authority and com- 
 mission of God granted unto them, whereby they may strengthen 
 men's belief, and assure their consciences that God hath com- 
 manded them to preach after this or that manner." 
 
 * "Taken from A Sermon of the Authoritie of the Eaves, fol. ccxxvi. 
 of the book entituled ' CATECHISMUS. that is to Bay, a short instruc- 
 tion into Christian Religion, etc., by the Most ReVd Father in God 
 Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Metro- 
 politans GtiaUertu Lynue. excudebai 1548/" 
 
 The spelling has been modernized. In the original it was thus : 
 u .So ye haue, good children, the begynnynge and foundation of the 
 ministers of Qod'a wr-rde, and of the Autboritye of the Kaves as our 
 lord Jesus Christ did fir.-t ordeyne and institute the same.'' 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 275 
 
 "Our Lord Jesus Christ hath both ordained and appointed 
 ministers and preachers to teach us His holy word and to min- 
 ister his Sacraments, and also hath appointed them what they 
 shall teach in His name/' etc., etc. "Therefore he called them 
 and sent them, and gave them instructions what they should do 
 and speak to us in His name, to the intent that we should give 
 sure credence unto their words, and believe that God will work 
 with us according to His words by them spoken. And He hath 
 promised, therefore, that whatsoever they shall bind upon earth 
 should be bound in heaven, and whatsoever they should loose 
 upon earth should be loosed in heaven also/' 
 
 Having thus shown the divine institution and au- 
 thority of the Christian Ministry, the Archbishop 
 proceeds to speak of the Apostles' having laid their 
 hands upon persons "who were godly and mete to 
 preach God's word." 
 
 " And they that were so ordained were in deed, and also were 
 called the ministers of God, as the Apostles themselves were, as 
 Paul saith unto Timothy. And so the ministration of God's 
 word was derived from the Apostles unto others after them by 
 imposition of hands and giving the Holy Ghost, from the Apos- 
 tles' time to our days. And this was the Consecration, Orders, 
 and unction of the Apostles, whereby they at the beginning 
 made Bishops and Priests, and this shall continue in the Church 
 even to the world's end. And whatsoever rite or ceremony hath 
 been added more than this cometh of man's ordinance and 
 policy, and is not commanded by God's word." 
 
 " Wherefore, good children, you shall steadfastly believe all 
 those things which such ministers shall speak unto you from the 
 mouth and by the commandment of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 And whatsoever they do to you, as when they baptize you, 
 when they give you absolution, and distribute to you the body 
 and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, these you shall so esteem 
 as if Christ himself in his own person did speak and minister 
 unto you. For Christ hath commanded His ministers to do this 
 unto you, and He himself (although you see him not with your 
 bodily eyes) is present with His ministers and worketh by the 
 Holy Ghost in the administration of his Sacraments." 
 
 "And on the other side, you shall take good heed and beware 
 of false and privy preachers which privily creep into cities and 
 preach in corners, having none authority, nor being called to 
 this office. For Christ is not present with such preachers, and 
 therefore the Holy Ghost doth not work by their preaching, but 
 
276 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 their word is without fruit or profit, and they do great hurt in 
 commonwealths.^ 
 
 Such, then, were the real opinions of Cranmer 
 upon the constitution of the sacred Ministry and 
 Apostolical Succession. 
 
 Bishop Eidley. — This learned Prelate was the 
 friend and associate of Cranmer, and a fellow-sufferer 
 with him for the truth of Christ. He has not left 
 behind him any very express statement of his views 
 on the subjects under consideration, but, as he was 
 one of the principal authors of our first standards, 
 as his administration of his diocese was in strict 
 accordance with the doctrine of the 36th Article and 
 the Ordinal, and as he did not write a sentence op- 
 posed to the principles we maintain, we are entitled 
 to presume that he held them. His opinion of the 
 Church is as follows : 
 
 "The holy Catholic Church 1 ; which is the communion of 
 Saints, the house of God, the city of God, the spouse of Christ, 
 the body of Christ, the pillar and stay of the truth : this Church 
 I believe according to the Creed ; this Church I do reverence 
 and honor in the Lord. But the rule of this Church is the 
 word of God, according to which rule we go forward unto life. 
 And as many as walk according to this rule I say, with St. Paul, 
 1 Peace be upon them and upon Israel which pertaineth unto 
 God/ " 
 
 The marks of this Church he enumerates thus : 
 
 " The sincere preaching of God's word ; the due administra- 
 tion of the Sacraments; charity; and faithful observing of eccle- 
 siastical discipline according to the word of God." 
 
 "And that Church or congregation which is garnered with 
 these marks is in very deed that heavenly Jerusalem, which 
 consisteth of those that be born from above. This is the mother 
 of us all, and by God's grace I will live and die the child of this 
 Church. Forth of this, I grant, there is no salvation." 
 
 To the objection that this Church is " invisible," 
 Eidley replies : 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 277 
 
 " The Church which I have described is visible. It hath 
 members which may be seen, and also I have before declared 
 by what marks and tokens it may be known." 
 
 In answer to the next objection of "the Antonian," 
 he says : 
 
 " That the name of the Church is taken after three divers 
 manners in the Scripture." 
 
 These he goes on to explain. The first is the whole 
 body of professing Christians ; the second, the faithful 
 within that body, " which hath the same outward society 
 of the Sacraments and ministry of the word'f the third, 
 the -unfaithful, who are therefore rather the synagogue 
 or church of Satan. 
 
 At his Disputation at Oxford, just before his mar- 
 tyrdom, when charged with the authorship of a cer- 
 tain Catechism said to have been put forth in the 
 Synod of London (it was one of those already quoted, 
 i. e. either Poynet's or Cranmer's), he replied : 
 
 " I grant that I saw the book, but I deny that I wrote it. I 
 perused it after it was made, and I noted many things for it, 
 so I consented to the book. I was not the author of it. 
 
 " Those articles were set out, I both writing and consenting 
 to them. Mine own hand will testify the same ; and Master 
 Cranmer put his hand to them likewise, and gave them to others 
 afterwards." 
 
 In his Farewell Letter he describes at large the 
 characteristics of the Church of England as reformed, 
 rising such language as to show that, in his mind at 
 least, it needed no further reformation. And in the 
 same paper, taking leave of the See of London, he 
 styles himself, "the chief minister of God's word, the 
 Pastor and Bishop of the Diocese." 
 
 Defending himself from the charge of schism, he 
 says: 
 
 " I know that the unity of the Church is to be retained by all 
 means, and the same to be necessary to salvation. But I do 
 24 
 
278 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 not take the mass, as it is at this day, for the communion of the 
 Church, but for a Popish device," etc., etc. " The sect of the Ana- 
 baptists and the heresy of the Novatians ought of right to be 
 condemned : forasmuch as, without any just or necessary cause, 
 they wickedly separated themselves from the communion of the 
 congregation.' 1 — (Woi^ks, etc., p. 120, etc., etc., Parker Society 
 Library.) 
 
 In his Articles of Inquiry, A.D. 1550, we have 
 
 already found this question : 
 
 " Whether any of the Anabaptists' sect or other use notori- 
 ously any unlawful or private conventicles, wherein they do use 
 doctrines or administration of Sacraments separating themselves 
 from the rest of the parish ?" 
 
 In the same document we have also this : 
 
 "Whether any minister useth wilfully and obstinately any 
 other rite, ceremony, order, form or manner of communion, 
 matins or even-song, ministration of Sacraments, or open 
 prayers, than is set forth in the Book of Common Prayer." — 
 (Works, p. 532.) 
 
 From these extracts we believe the reader will be 
 able to form an idea of tne side which this learned 
 divine and noble martyr would have taken in such a 
 controversy as the present. 
 
 William Tyndale, Translator of the Bible and 
 Martyr. — Although Tyndale was put to death ten or 
 eleven years before the Church of England was free 
 and fully reformed, yet his writings were always in 
 great esteem, and reprinted from time to time, under 
 the auspices of eminent divines, such as Bale and 
 Eoxe, and had doubtless much to do in forming public 
 opinion. 
 
 We do not know a single person of that period in 
 England in whose works a greater number of severe 
 sayings about Bishops, etc., might be found. Some 
 of these might easily have been pressed into our 
 author's service ; possibly they have been in " the 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 279 
 
 larger work republished in this country in 1853," 
 which we have never seen. In explanation of such 
 passages, and of his whole treatise called " The Prac- 
 tice of Prelates," it is enough to say that he was bit- 
 terly persecuted by Bishops, and knew few, if any, 
 of that Order, who were not Eomish in doctrine and 
 impure or cruel in character. The inducements then 
 to catch hold of Jerome's mistake and decry the Order 
 of Bishops were very strong, but yet Tyndale did 
 not do it as he might have done ; he could bear true 
 testimony in the face of all. Thus he says : 
 
 " Paul in his Epistle, and also Peter, called the Prelates and 
 spiritual governors, which are Bishops and Priests, Elders. 
 Now, whether ye call them Elders or Priests, it is to me all one, 
 so that ye understand that they be officers and servants of the 
 word of God ; unto the which all men, both high and low, [must 
 be obedient,] that wi]l not rebel against Christ, as long as they 
 preach and rule truly, and no longer." — [Prologue on St. Mat- 
 thew, Doctrinal Treatises, p. 479, Parker Soc.) 
 
 " Every man may be a common preacher, then, you will say, 
 and preach everywhere by his own authority. Nay, verily, 
 no man may yet be a common preacher, save he that is called 
 and chosen thereto by the common ordinance of the Congrega- 
 tion."* "And though no man may preach openly, save he that 
 hath the office committed unto him, yet ought every man to en- 
 deavor himself to be as well learned as the preacher, as nigh 
 as it is possible. And every man may privately inform his 
 neighbor; yea, and the Preacher and Bishop too, if need be." — 
 {Expository Treatises, p. 36.) 
 
 On page 161 of the same volume, and elsewhere, 
 we find him speaking of " the Bishops that succeeded 
 the Apostles." 
 
 In "the Practice of Prelates" (same work, page 253) 
 he undertakes to show what Orders the Apostles or- 
 dained in the Church. He points out the common 
 
 * "The kingdom of Heaven take for the Congregation or Church of 
 Christ." — {Tyndale Expository Treatises, p. 40.) 
 
280 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 use of the names Bishop and Presbyter for those 
 of one class, and Deacon or Minister for those of an- 
 other ; and these two, with the Apostles, make up the 
 three Orders which the Church preserves. 
 
 Thomas Becon was one of Cranmer's chaplains. 
 He was a voluminous writer, and his productions are 
 generally excellent. In his Catechism, he gives to 
 Timothy and Titus the title of " Bishop." He styles 
 the Jewish High Priests " Bishops," and in various 
 other such ways indicates his agreement in the doc- 
 trine and usage of the Church. When he comes to 
 explain why the Church Catholic is called holy, he 
 says it is to distinguish it from others that are un- 
 holy: 
 
 " The Ethnicks, the Jews, the Mahometans, the Anabaptists, 
 the Arians, with all the rabble of heretics and sectaries, have 
 their churches also ; but all those churches are the synagogues 
 of Satan, " etc., etc. 
 
 Speaking of the Orders of ministers in the old 
 dispensation, he calls them Bishops, Priests, and Le- 
 vites, and refers to the history " of Dathan and Abi- 
 ram," to show how grievously God did punish their 
 great sin of disobedience. In his chapter on the 
 ministry, he says : 
 
 "The Spiritual Magistrate — I mean the minister of God's 
 word — is the ordinance of God" 
 
 "A little before our Lord and Saviour Christ ascended with 
 his body into the kingdom of his Father, he said to his Apos- 
 tles, and also to all their Successors, which are all spiritual 
 ministers that labor in word and doctrine, ' Teach all nations, 
 baptizing them/ etc., etc.; 'And behold I am with you con- 
 tinually unto the world's end.'" "And St. Paul saith, God 
 hath ordained in the Church, ' first Apostles, secondarily Pro- 
 phets, thirdly Teachers,'" etc. 
 
 To the question whether every man that will may 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 281 
 
 take upon him the office of the ministry, the 
 
 reply is: 
 
 "Nothing less; for St. Paul saith, How shall they preach, 
 except the} 7 be sent?" " Those that take upon them the min- 
 istry before they be called are of the number of those whom 
 God, by the prophet, describeth in this manner : ' I sent them 
 not, and they ran ; I spake not unto them, and they preached/ " 
 
 As to the modes of calling to the ministry, he says 
 
 there are two: 
 
 "One is when they be called immediately of God, as the 
 prophets and Apostles were which were raised up of God to 
 prophesy and to teach, without any vocation or calling of man. 
 And this kind of vocation God useth customably outwardly to 
 approve and confirm with wonderful testimonies and signs, as 
 we may more see in Moses, Helias, etc. But this calling hath 
 now ceased. The other is when the ministers be called medi- 
 ately, as they say, and in order of men, that is to say of the 
 [spiritual] magistrate of the people." 
 
 To the question, " What is the difference between 
 
 a Bishop and a spiritual minister?" he answers: 
 
 " None at all. Their office is one ; their authority and power 
 is one." 
 
 But that this reply does not involve the Presbyte- 
 rian theory of parity is very evident, as in a subse- 
 quent paragraph, on the same page, he says that 
 St. Paul 
 
 " Unto Bishop Titus write th thus : For this cause left I thee 
 in Crete, that thou shouldest reform the things that are unper- 
 fect, and shouldest ordain Elders in every city." 
 
 And in similar mode, all through his works, he 
 gives to the Bishop the position always assigned to 
 him, as separate from and superior to the Presbyter. 
 Thus he speaks of the " Honorable Bishops and holy 
 Fathers which lived after the Apostles' time," " the 
 Bishops and Ministers of Christ's Church," etc., etc. — ■ 
 (Catechism, etc., Parker Societj^ Library.) 
 24* 
 
282 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 Eoger Hutchixsox, Fellow of St. John's College, 
 Cambridge, A. D. 1550 : 
 
 M I do not mean that every man or woman may christen, 
 marry, purify women, may loose and bind consciences, may 
 distribute the holy Sacrament, but I mean that Popish and out- 
 ward priesthood is crept into the Church of God against the 
 word of God ; and I do believe and confess no more Orders of 
 ministers but three, that is, Deacons, Presbyters, and Bishops. 
 These three the Scripture alloiceth,* and shewed the manner of 
 their creation and declareth their office and duties." — ( On Image 
 of God, etc., Parker Society, p. 50.) 
 
 Bishop Alley, Exeter; consecrated July 14, 
 1560. — Strangely enough, Mr. Goode begins his Ca- 
 tena with this now almost wholly forgotten divine, be- 
 cause the order of time demands it! He quotes from him 
 nothing more than that mistake of Jerome's, of which 
 we have already spoken, and even in making that 
 quotation he prefers not giving " Jerome's words in 
 full." We regret very much that a copy of Alley's 
 works cannot be procured in this country ; not that 
 we attach particular importance to his opinion, but 
 because we are inclined to think that some other por- 
 tions of his book would speak a different language 
 from that in the passage, as quoted by Mr. Goode. 
 But, taking his words just as they are given, we find 
 in them nothing that cannot be easily explained. 
 
 " These words are alleged, that it may appear Priests among 
 the Elders to have been even the same that Bishops were. But 
 it grew by little and little that the whole charge and cure should 
 be appointed to one Bishop within his precinct, that the seeds 
 of dissension might utterly be rooted out." 
 
 In connection with this we remark, that it refers 
 entirely to Apostolic times. (1) No Churchman 
 
 * The verb "allow" meant much more in former times than it does 
 now. Above, it means to sanction and something more, to appoint, to 
 authorize. 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 283 
 
 denies that in the New Testament the names Epis- 
 copos and Presbyteros are used interchangeably, and 
 applied to ministers of the second Order ; but the 
 admission of this does not at all affect the evidence 
 for a higher Order, to which, in the Post- Apostolic 
 age the title of " Bishop " was confined. (2) Suppos- 
 ing that it did grow by little and little* that the whole 
 charge was given to one Bishop within his district, 
 this change took place within the times of the Apostles, 
 and under their influence. Jerome makes it evident 
 that this is his own meaning, for he refers to changes 
 following from "one saying I am of Paul, and another 
 I of Apollos," which, we take for granted, Mr. Groode 
 will confess to have been before the death of St. Paul, 
 who tells us of it. But if the Apostles sanctioned or 
 made the change, it was divinely instituted. 
 
 Bishop Pilkington. — As may be supposed, from 
 what has been said in the last chapter, we attach no 
 great value to the opinions of this divine upon the 
 subject of Church order. It is from such as he was 
 that our author gets "much stronger testimony" than 
 even Alley can supply; but it will go for little with 
 any who bear in mind that he was criminally negli- 
 gent of his Episcopal duty, and left his cathedral and 
 diocese in such utter disorder that they were likened 
 to an "Augean stable." Still we are not afraid to 
 take up what Mr. Goode quotes from him, and give 
 it full consideration. The gist of it is in the follow- 
 ing sentences : 
 
 * St. Jerome, Comment on Galatians i. 19. 
 
 " Paulatim vero tempore," etc., etc. " By little and little, in process of 
 time, others also were ordained Apostles by those whom the Lord had 
 chosen." — (Quoted in Presbyterian Clergyman looking for the Churchy 
 p. 477.) 
 
284 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 " But this is to be understood, that the privileges and supe* 
 riorities, which Bishops have above other ministers, are rather 
 granted by men for maintaining of better order and quietness 
 ID commonwealths than commanded by God in His word. Min- 
 isters have better knowledge and utterance some than other, but 
 their ministry is of equal dignity. God's commission and com- 
 mandment is alike indifferent to all, Priest, Bishop, Archbishop, 
 Prelate, by what name soever he be called." 
 
 Here our author stops. He inserts a few dots to 
 stand in the place of six lines in the original, which 
 we consider too important to be omitted. The last 
 sentence is certainly very strong, and as we read it 
 in Mr. Goode's work we naturally conclude that Pilk- 
 ington believed that God's commission, etc., was in 
 every respect alike to Bishop and Priest, and, knowing 
 his history, we are not surprised that he should think 
 so ; but, if we turn from Mr. Groode to Pilkington 
 himself, we find that he meant nothing of the sort. 
 He was not speaking of authority in general, or in 
 all its departments, but of authority to discharge the 
 ordinary work of a Christian minister. His sentence 
 does not end with " called," as our author makes it, 
 but goes on describing or quoting the commission ; 
 and this portion, which shows his meaning, is wholly 
 omitted. Here are the lines which our author did 
 not think it necessary or advisable to print : 
 
 "Go and teach, baptizing in the name of the Father and of 
 the Son and of the Holy Ghost ; and again, Whose sins soever 
 ye forgive, they are forgiven, and whatsoever ye loose in earth, 
 it is loosed in heaven, etc." " Likewise the Lord's Supper, by 
 whomsoever, being lawfully called, it be ministered, it is of like 
 strength, power, and holiness." 
 
 At this point Mr. Goode resumes. He makes, in 
 the same quotation, two other omissions, that are of 
 similar character, and evidently designed, so that we 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 285 
 
 find the Eeverend gentleman unwilling to trust his 
 own witness. 
 
 The reader, who considers what is now laid before 
 him, will perceive that the original writer did not 
 mean to assert that in all things Bishops and Priests 
 are equal, but in their power to preach the Gospel, to 
 administer Sacrament, and to "absolve from sins."* 
 The equality does exist, as far as the ordinary min- 
 istry is concerned, f but no farther — of government 
 in the Church or the power of ordination not a word 
 is said in the whole passage. It has no immediate 
 bearing, then, upon our subject ; it is only made to 
 appear as if it had by skilful management. 
 
 But let us hear the Bishop's sentiments on the ne- 
 cessity of strict discipline, and on the authority which 
 exists of right, and ought to be enforced. 
 
 Speaking of certain parties who "willingly excom- 
 municate themselves and will come at no congrega- 
 tion," he says : 
 
 " God grant all such obstinate contemners of His Church and 
 His word their just and deserved discipline I This overmuch soft- 
 ness that is used, and an opinion of some that be zealous in re- 
 ligion, whereby they think that they may not punish an ill man 
 for his conscience and religion, doth much harm, and embold- 
 eneth them in their ill doings. Surely, in my opinion, they that 
 have authority, and will not correct such wilful dealings, be 
 partakers and maintainers of others' ill-doing, and fill both the 
 Church and commonwealth with disobedient persons. " — ( Works, 
 Parker Society, p. 382.) 
 
 These are strong words. Suppose Laud had written 
 them. What bursts of indignation they would have 
 
 * In one of the sentences omitted by Mr. Goode? Pilkington ridicules 
 the idea that a Priest may absolve small sins, and that " greater belong 
 to the Bishop ; the Archbishop claims another higher sort," etc., etc. 
 
 ■j* Equality, "quoad ministerium" is what Jerome really claims, and 
 what all Churchmen grant. 
 
286 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 excited ! what outcries against intolerance ! But in- 
 asmuch as they are from the pen of a good "German- 
 ical " Bishop, and as his desire was to force obedience 
 upon "Papists," pather than "Puritans/' there is, of 
 course, no censure ! 
 
 In the same work from which we have just quoted 
 he gives his judgment against the Puritan discipline, 
 at that time " so vehemently urged/' and shows, from 
 the analogy of his subject (the building of the walls 
 of Jerusalem), that in the Lord's work every com- 
 pany of workmen should have their overseer; and 
 overseer is simply the English of Episcopus. 
 
 In his Confutation, etc., from which Mr. Goode has 
 taken these passages above, he says : 
 
 " To be a Bishop is to be an Officer, a ruler, a guide, a teacher 
 of God's flock in God's Church, and to be a true successor in a 
 bishopric is to succeed in like pains, care, and diligent regard 
 of God's people. Is he an officer that does not his office V y 
 (Page 604, etc.) 
 
 Here he is arguing against si succession of persons 
 and place " as useless unless associated with sound- 
 ness of doctrine and zealous discharge of duty. But 
 that even he did not " repudiate" the " theory of 
 Apostolical Succession " is sufficiently evident from 
 the following. 
 
 " Does Cyprian make any more for his purpose? Mark his 
 words and judge. ' They that be made Bishops (says he) K)ut 
 of the Church and not by tradition of the Apostles by succes- 
 sion, are not Bishops, but thieves/ etc. I am content to be 
 judged by these words. I proved afore by Paul and Timothy, 
 by Dionysius, etc., that the Order by which our Bishops and 
 Priests are made now is more agreeing to the order of the 
 Church in Cyprian's time and tradition of the Apostles, than 
 that misorder whereby the Popish prelates order [ordain] their 
 clergy." 
 
 This, then ; after all, is the real doctrine of the man 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 287 
 
 whose "much stronger testimony " on his own side 
 Mr. Groode professed to give. We are sincerely 
 obliged to him for requiring us to bring it forth.* 
 Before taking leave of " My Lord of Durham' 7 and 
 Bishop Alley, we must correct another of our au- 
 thor's errors. He says 
 
 "Both these were among the Bishops who settled our Arti- 
 cles on the accession of Queen Elizabeth." 
 
 That event took place November, 1558, and the 
 Convocation which "settled our articles" did not sit 
 for two years after. If, instead of it, our author 
 refers to the Commission appointed in 1559 to revise 
 the Liturgy, neither Pilkington nor Alley was a 
 Bishop at the time. The former, however, was on 
 the Commission; the latter was not. If he does 
 mean the Convocation which met in 1560, Alley was 
 a member of it, and Pilkington was not. In either 
 case his statement is incorrect. 
 
 Bishop Jewel. — The next divine to whom Mr. 
 Goode appeals is the illustrious author of the Apol- 
 ogy from which we gave extracts in the last chap- 
 ter. He quotes (on page 32) two long paragraphs 
 from Jewel's " Defence" of the former work. Of the 
 first of these quotations we shall not speak more 
 than this: it is marked by omissions of the kind 
 we have described, and yet, even as our author prints 
 it, it does not give an inkling of the Bishop's own 
 views. His opponent, Harding, stated that to deny 
 the difference between a Bishop and a Priest was 
 heresy. Jewel retorts that by this saying he con- 
 
 * Pilkington ends the paragraph from which we quote, with these words : 
 "Thus, like a foolish boy, he has gotten a rod to beat himself withal; Goci 
 send him more wit," 
 
288 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 demns some even of the saints and fathers of the 
 Church, and he might have added, many of the the- 
 ologians of the Roman Sect ; but in this rebuke to 
 Harding he did not say a word that would commit 
 himself to the opinions he quotes. That his esti- 
 mate of the Episcopate was not what our author 
 asserts, may be learned from the following extracts : 
 
 " I grant Bishops may be called the heads of their several 
 Churches/' 
 
 44 Optatus saith ' there be four sorts of heads in the Church : 
 the Bishops, the Priests, the Deacons, the faithful (or laity)'" 
 (Def. Apol, Parker Soc'y, p. 269.) "His own Anacletus saith 
 * * * * more than these two Orders of Priests (Bishops and 
 Elders) neither hath God appointed us, nor have the Apostles 
 taught us/ And yet of these same two several Orders, St. Hie- 
 rome seemeth to make only one Order ; for thus he writeth * * * 
 ' I hear say there is a man broken out into such wilful fury 
 that he placeth Deacons before Priests, that is to say before 
 Bishops. And again * * * ' The Apostle Paul especially teach- 
 eth us that Priests and Bishops be all one/ The same St. Hie- 
 rome, 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 faith- 
 ful ; and other Order of the Church he knoweth none." 
 
 He then gives the same quotations from Jerome 
 to which we have referred so often : " Idem est Pres- 
 byter qui Episcopus," etc., etc., and proceeds: 
 
 " 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 Min- 
 sters, 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 Mr. Harding maketh his 
 account of four of the less or inferior Orders, meaning thereby 
 Ostiarios, Lectores, Exorcistas, Acoluthos. His own Ignatius 
 addeth thereto three other Orders, Cantatores, Laboratores, 
 Confitentes," etc., etc.— (Page 272.) 
 
 " In this so great dissention and darkness, what way will Mr. 
 Harding take to follow? By Anacletus there be two Orders ; 
 by Clemens and St. Hierome, three ; by counterfeit Hierome, 
 seven ; by others, eight ; by others, nine ; by others, ten." 
 (Page 272, 273.) 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 2S9 
 
 Jewel then proceeds to argue against and ridicule 
 the four minor Orders contended for by his antago- 
 nist, but writes not a syllable against the Three Or- 
 ders " which Christ hath ordained in his Church." 
 
 When Harding asserts that English Bishops have 
 neither Order nor Consecration, Jewel notes in the 
 margin: "A manifest untruth; for we have both." 
 And then replies in the text : 
 
 " He thought if he could make the world believe we have 
 neither Bishops, nor Priests, nor Deacons this day in the Church 
 of England, he might then the more easily claim the whole 
 right unto himself."— (Page 322.) 
 
 Again on page 334 he thus addresses Harding : 
 
 " Whereas it further pleases you to call for my letters of 
 orders, and to demand of me whether I be a Priest or no? 
 what hands were laid over me ; and by what order I was made ? 
 I answer you, I am a Priest, made long since by the same order 
 and ordinance, and I think, also by the same man and the 
 same hands that you, Mr. Harding, were made Priest by, in 
 the late time of that most virtuous Prince, King Edward the 
 sixth ; therefore ye cannot well doubt of my priesthood without 
 like doubting of your own." 
 
 " Further, as if ye were my metropolitan, ye demand of me 
 whether I be a Bishop or no ? I answer you, I am a Bishop, 
 and that by the free and accustomed Canonical election of the 
 whole chapter of Sarisbury assembled together for that pur- 
 pose. Our Bishops are made in form and order as they have 
 been ever by free election of the chapter ; by consecration of 
 the Archbishop and other three Bishops, and by the admission 
 of the Prince." 
 
 " Therefore we neither have Bishops without Church, nor 
 Church without Bishops. Neither doth the Church of Eng- 
 land this day depend of them whom you often call apostates, as 
 if our Church were no Church without them. ... If there 
 were not one, neither of them nor of us left alive, yet would 
 not therefore the whole Church of England flee to Lovaine, 
 Tertullian saith : 'And we being laymen, are we not Priests? 
 It is written, Christ hath made us both a kingdom and Priest 
 unto God his Father. The authority of the Church, and the 
 honor by the assembly, or council of order sanctified of God, 
 hath made a difference between the lay and the clergy. Where, 
 25 
 
290 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 as there is no assembly of ecclesiastical order, the Priest being 
 there alone (without the company of other Priests) doth minis- 
 ter the oblation and also baptize ; yea, and be there but three 
 together, and though they be laymen, yet is there a Church. 
 For every man liveth of his own faith." 
 
 Mr. Goode quotes this, and says significantly: "It 
 is needless to point out how much this passage im- 
 plies." Notwithstanding which, we very sincerely 
 wish he had pointed it out ; for insinuations are 
 harder to deal with than plain statements. We pre- 
 sume the gravamen of it is found, "as he seems to 
 believe, in (1) the reference to Lovaine, and (2) to 
 laymen constituting a Church. 
 
 Now of the first the meaning is not as Mr. Goode's 
 Italics suggest: that if there were no true Bishops 
 in the English Church, they would not accept authority 
 or succession from Romish Prelates, but simply this, 
 in which we most heartily join with him; even the 
 total want of Bishops would not compel us to fly to 
 Lovaine [i. e. to turn Romanist and go there as Harding 
 had done\ ; we would rather depend on our prayers, rather 
 fall bach upon our personal priesthood, than become 
 apjostates. 
 
 The other point which Mr. Goode thinks so plainly 
 in his favor, and which some persons regard as indi- 
 cating very loose views of the ministry, has no such 
 meaning. It is well known that laymen were ad- 
 dressed in Scripture as a "priesthood," and called 
 upon to offer themselves as living sacrifices unto the 
 Lord ; but surely no one holds, on that account, that 
 all laymen are in the true sacerdotal or ministerial Order. 
 Now it is to this sort of a priesthood, and to a Church 
 consisting of such only, that Jewel spoke of resorting 
 rather than apostatize. He does not say that a society 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 291 
 
 of such Christian men would be a Church in the full 
 and proper sense of the term ; nor does he desire for 
 a moment to deny or interfere with the sacred Orders 
 of the ministry, though Mr. Goode insinuates, and 
 his followers think, that that is his veritable meaning. 
 Let us hear his own words, as they appear on the 
 same page : 
 
 " But ye tell us i There is a priesthood internal, and a priest- 
 hood external ; and there is a difference between laymen and 
 priests.' What needed this talk, Mr. Harding? There is 
 not one of us that ever taught otherwise. We know that the 
 priest or minister of the Church of God is divided from the rest 
 of his brethren, as was the tribe of Levi from the children of 
 Israel, and hath a special office over the people. Neither may 
 any man force himself into that office without lawful calling. 
 But as touching the inward priesthood and exercise of the soul, 
 we say, even as St. Peter and St. John and Tertullian have 
 said : In this sense every faithful christian man is a priest, and 
 offereth unto God spiritual sacrifices. In this sense only, I say, 
 and not otherwise." — (Page 336.) 
 
 So much, them for the artful suggestion (or else 
 the very singular mistake) of our author. We have 
 given up considerable space to this vindication of 
 the eminent Apologist, but not more than his worth 
 demands. We close our quotations from him with 
 this pregnant sentence : 
 
 " We succeed the Bishops that have been before our days. 
 We are elected, consecrated, confirmed, and admitted as they 
 were. If they were deceived in anything, we succeed them in 
 place, but not in error. " — (P. 339.) 
 
 Akchbishop Parker. — The judgment of this 
 second Protestant Primate may be gathered from 
 what has been given in the Ninth chapter. We 
 subjoin a few brief extracts, however, for the purpose 
 of making this chain complete. 
 
 In 1560, Nicholas Heathe, (deprived) Archbishop 
 
292 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 of York, and others of the Eomish clergy, wrote a 
 letter threatening all the Eeformed Bishops and 
 Ministers with the Pope's displeasure, excommuni- 
 cation, etc. To this Parker replied by showing the 
 absurdity and arrogance of the Bishop of Eome in 
 presuming to judge or lord it over others of the 
 same Order as himself. In this letter he makes the 
 profession usually made by the English Reformers, of 
 willingness to leave all disputed matters to the test 
 of Holy Scripture and Christian antiquity ; and he 
 speaks with pride of those British Bishops who in 
 old time repudiated the claims of the Bishop of 
 Eome. He then adds : 
 
 " I and the rest of our brethren, the Bishops and Clergy of 
 the realm, supposed ye to be our brethren in Christ. But we 
 are sorry that ye, through your perverseness, have separated 
 yourselves not only from us, but from those ancient fathers and 
 their opinions." — [Correspondence, page 112.) 
 
 We shall not quote any of his very numerous 
 complaints of the troubles and turmoils of what he 
 calls those exulceratissima tempora. These have been 
 sufficiently referred to already. The following is 
 from one of his letters to Cecil describing his recep- 
 tion and intercourse with the French Ambassador : 
 
 " The substance of his inquisition was much <or the order 
 and using of our religion, the peculiarities whereof I discoursed 
 unto him. He noted much, and delighted in our mediocrity, 
 charging the Genevians and the Scotch of going too far in 
 extremity. I perceive they thought, before their coming, we 
 had neither status preces, nor choice days of abstinence, as 
 Lent, etc., nor Orders ecclesiastical, etc., etc. And thereupon 
 * * * I did beat that plainly out of their heads. yj — (P. 215.) 
 
 I signified unto them that we had both Bishops and Priests, 
 married and not married, every man at his liberty * * *. In 
 fine, they professed that we were in religion very nigh to them. 
 I answered that I would wish them to come nigher to us, ground- 
 ing ourselves (as we do) upon the Apostolical doctrine and pure 
 time of the Primitive Church" 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 293 
 
 In his joint letter with Sandys to another Bishop 
 
 he says: 
 
 " God hath placed us to be governors in His Church, hath 
 committed unto us a care and charge thereof, and will one day 
 require a reckoning at our hands for the same. Seeing that 
 God's cause is brought into question, and the Church many 
 ways troubled, we must, with good courage, stand to the defence 
 thereof, and resist the underminers." — [Correspondence, p. 435.; 
 
 Aechbishop Whitgift. — Grindal succeeded Par- 
 ker in the Primacy, and on his demise Whitgift 
 entered upon the office, A. D. 1584. 
 
 We scarcely know how to characterize the treat- 
 ment which this great champion of the Church has 
 received from our author. He is first mentioned on 
 page 29 thus : 
 
 " Archbishop Whitgift held (as we shall show presently) that 
 Bishops and Priests are, strictly speaking, of the same Order." 
 
 An assertion thus positively made with promise 
 of proof, is received by the confiding reader as suf- 
 ficient. He does not doubt that "Whitgift believed 
 just as Mr. Groode states, although such a representa- 
 tion of his views is very different from any he may 
 have had before ; he cannot for a moment suppose that 
 a thing asserted so plainly could be without founda- 
 tion, and therefore he yields belief in advance of 
 proof. On page 33 the promised evidence is fur- 
 nished, and it amounts to just nothing/ Eead it as 
 it appears in Mr. Groode's work, and the fair verdict 
 must be " not proven/'' Whitgift quotes Jerome (to 
 the effect so often mentioned) but does not afford the 
 least warrant for the statement that he believed in a 
 parity of order in Bishop and Presbyter. Mr. Groode 
 then goes on to quote Whitgift's opinions on Church 
 government, but not another word of evidence is 
 25* 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 furnished as to his views of ordination, and vet on 
 page 85 our author uses the following language, 
 emphasizing it as he well knows how to do : 
 
 M Archbishop Whitgift ( * * as Tve know from his writings) 
 admitted the validity of the Orders of the Foreign Protectant 
 Churches!" 
 
 The reader will please turn back for a moment to 
 page 231, and there he will see what such a statement 
 is worth. Thus we have a certain thing asserted 
 boldly on the strength of evidence yet to come, no 
 such evidence really furnished, and yet afterwards 
 (as if it had been) even a greater thing claimed, and 
 set forth with all the force which types can give ! 
 
 But we have not yet done with those quotations. 
 Happening to know that Gartwrighi wished to establish 
 the very parity of Order for which our author contends 
 and that "Whitgift opposed him. we wondered how 
 Mr. Goocle had managed to make the latter speak his 
 opponent's language : but comparison of our author's 
 quotation with the original made it very clear : and, 
 knowing that the reader will admire the dexterity 
 displayed in the matter, we place both before him, 
 thus : 
 
 Mr. Goode says : Archbishop Whitgift 
 
 " As to the parity of Or- sa ^ s : 
 der in Bishops and Priests, 
 he [Whitgift] speaks thus : 
 
 li ; Every "bishop is a priest, "Every bishop is a priest, 
 
 "but every priest hath not the but every priest hath not the 
 
 name and title of a bishop, in name and title of a bishop, in 
 
 that meaning that Jerome in that meaning that Jerome in 
 
 this place [Ad Evagr.] taketh this place taketh the name of 
 
 the name of a bishop. . . . a bishop. . . . Neither shall 
 
 Neither shall you find this yon find this vrord Episcopus 
 
 word episcopus commonly used commonly used but for that 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 295 
 
 but for that priest that is in 
 degree over and above the rest, 
 notwithstanding episcopus be 
 oftentimes called presbyter, be- 
 cause presbyter is the more gen- 
 eral name.'" — (Essay on Or- 
 ders, p. 33.) 
 
 priest that is in degree over 
 and above the rest, notwith- 
 standing Episcopus be often 
 called Presbyter, because Pres- 
 byter is the more general name ; 
 so that M. Doctor [Whitgift] 
 saith truly that it is with us one 
 thing to be a Bishop, another 
 thing to be a Priest; because 
 every Bishop is a Priest, but 
 every Priest is not a Bishop \" 
 M I know these names be con- 
 founded in the Scriptures, but 
 I speak according to the man- 
 ner and custom of the Church 
 ever since the Apostles' time." 
 — (Whitgift' s Works, Vol. ii., 
 p. 252.) 
 
 So that the first of the two quotations shows us 
 Mr. Doctor saying precisely the contrary of what is 
 ascribed to him. Let us now turn to the other. 
 
 Whitgift quoted by Goode. 
 
 "Although Hierome confess, 
 that by Scripture presbyter and 
 episcopus is all one (as in deed 
 
 Whitgift Himself.* 
 
 "You [Cartwright] untruly 
 report of Hierome, for he speak- 
 eth of a Deacon, not of an Arch- 
 deacon. But it is your manner 
 so to deal. Surely, I marvel 
 that you will utter so manifest 
 untruths. But if Hierome 
 should so say, yet is your ar- 
 gument nothing ; for though 
 an Archdeacon be inferior to a 
 Minister (whom you call El- 
 der), yet doth not that prove but 
 that there may be degrees among 
 the Ministers, and that the chief- 
 est of them in authority may be 
 called a Bishop; as Hierome 
 also in that epistle declareth. 
 
 " And although Hierome 
 confess that by Scripture Pres- 
 byter and Episcopus is all one 
 
 * Italics, etc., are ours. 
 
296 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 they be quoad ministerium,) (as indeed they be quoad min- 
 yet doth he acknowledge a su- isterium), yet doth he acknowl- 
 periority of the bishop before edge a superiority of the Bishop 
 
 the minister before the Minister. For be- 
 sides these places that I have 
 alleged in my answer to the 
 Admonition, he saith thus in 
 the same epistle * * the one 
 is a name of age and the other 
 of dignity. And a little after 
 * * The Elder is contained in 
 the Bishop. Therefore, no doubt 
 Therefore no doubt this is Je- this is Jerome's mind, that a 
 rome's mind, that a bishop in Bishop, in degree and dignity, 
 degree and dignity is above the is above the Minister, though he 
 minister, though he be one and be one and the selfsame with 
 the self-same with him in the him in the office of minister- 
 office of ministering the word ing the word and Sacraments ; 
 and sacraments." — {Essay on and therefore he saith, Pres- 
 Orders, p. 33.) byter continetur in Episcopo; 
 
 because every Bishop is a Pres- 
 byter, but every Presbyter is 
 not a Bishop \" — ( Whitgift, 
 vol. ii., p. 254.) 
 
 This is the way in which an expert controversialist 
 can make white appear black. It is, on the whole, 
 one of the most skilful performances of its kind that 
 we have ever seen. But let us hear more from the 
 Archbishop : 
 
 "It is not to be denied but that there is an equality of all 
 ministers of God's word quoad ministerium, ' touching the min- 
 istry/ for they have all like power to preach the word, to min- 
 ister the Sacraments. * * * But quoad Ordinem et politiam, 
 'touching Order and government/ there always have been and 
 must be degrees and superiority among them." — [Ibid., p. 265.) 
 
 " In all these places Hierome doth not maintain the authority 
 of one man [a Pope] over the whole Church, but thinketh it 
 necessary that in every province there be one to be chief over 
 the rest, for unity sake, and for rooting out of contentions and 
 sects. And therefore, contra Luciferianos, he saith, that unless 
 this superiority were, there would be as many schisms in the 
 Church as there be Priests/'— (P. 222.) 
 
 On this it might be remarked that it makes Epis- 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 297 
 
 copacy appear no more than a prudential human 
 arrangement, but elsewhere Whitgift shows, from 
 the reference to St. Paul's mention of the schisms at 
 Corinth, that it was in St. Paul's day, and of course 
 appointed by him and the other Apostles, and there- 
 fore a divine arrangement. And when Cartwright 
 (anticipating the course of those who now-a-days in- 
 geniously argue that "from the Apostles' time" means 
 "since or after their time") says, with reference to 
 another quotation, "the words 'from Mark' may be 
 rather taken exclusively to shut out St. Mark and the 
 time wherein he lived," Whitgift replies, that this is 
 but " a dallying " with Jerome's words. 
 
 " The place is evident ; he saith ' from the time of Mark the 
 Evangelist/ whom undoubtedly he would not have named, un- 
 less the manner had been in his time." — (P. 250.) 
 
 " Notwithstanding that part of the office of the Apostles is 
 ceased which consisted in planting and founding of churches 
 throughout the world, yet this part of government and direc- 
 tion of churches remaineth still, and is committed to Bishops! 
 Therefore, saith Ambrose * * * 'Apostoli Episcopi sunt/ 
 Apostles are Bishops, because Bishops do succeed them in 
 preaching the word and governing the Church." — (P. 230.) 
 
 Here again we offer a sentence or two upon Order, 
 which, of course, Mr. Goode did not see : 
 
 "Chrysostom in that place maketh degrees in the ministry, 
 and placeth the Bishop in degree above the minister; which 
 utterly overthroweth your equality." — (P. 20.) "This superior- 
 ity that Chrysostom talketh of overthroweth that part of the 
 Admonition that I. confute ; for theyfrlo not only disallow the 
 office of the Archbishop, but of the Bishop also, and would have 
 a mere equality among the ministers. This I repel, as well as 
 the other." "Chrysostom * * -* giveth as much superiority to 
 the Bishop as I do, and maketh as much difference between him 
 and the minister ; for I grant that quoad ministeriam they be 
 all one, but that there be degrees of dignity. And so saith 
 Chrysostom, that ' there is little difference betwixt a Bishop 
 and a Priest, but that a Bishop hath authority to ordain 
 Priests; and all other things that the Bishop may do the Priest 
 
298 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 also may do, tit at excepted ;* so that Chrysostom here speaketh 
 only of the ministry of the Bishop, not of his authority in the 
 ecclesiastical government," etc., etc. — (P. 2G1.) 
 
 These extracts render it unnecessary for us to add 
 a word upon the subjects they touch. But there is 
 another intimately allied to them, which our author 
 has made one of his strong points. He claims that 
 the great Archbishop, whose long life was spent in 
 the service and defence of the Church of England, 
 regarded the whole question of polity as one of little 
 consequence, and even confessed that no one kind of 
 Church government is so established by Scripture 
 authority as to claim the allegiance of all men. In 
 making this representation the Reverend gentleman 
 treads in the footsteps of the Presbyterian advocate, 
 Dr. Miller, and is followed in turn by those who 
 have of late undertaken to defend his theory.* 
 
 The language of certain passages in Whitgift's 
 Defence of his Answer is of such a character as to 
 give a sort of warrant to these representations, as 
 the reader will perceive. His opponent, Cartwright, 
 contended that his favorite scheme of discipline had 
 Scriptural, and therefore exclusive warrant, so that 
 its acceptance was, as Mr. Groode states, " necessary to 
 salvation." On this point Whitgift says : 
 
 " I confess that in a Church collected together in one place, 
 and at liberty, government is necessary in the second kind of 
 
 * We refer here particularly to the Rev. Messrs. Gallagher and Can- 
 field. The latter, without quoting any one passage to this effect, men- 
 tions Whitgift among those whose testimony "might be adduced" to 
 confirm hi.s theory. — (See Reciew, etc., p. 16, and Gallagher on Apostol- 
 ical Succession, p. 26.) 
 
 Mr. Powell, the Methodist advocate, did not try to use Whitgift's words 
 to contradict his life, but, to our surprise, we find even Dr. J. C. Smith 
 doing so. He confesses, however, that he quotes not from the original, 
 but from Mr. Goode. 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 299 
 
 necessity; but that any one kind of government is so necessary 
 that without it the Church cannot be saved, or that it may not 
 be altered into some other kind thought to be more expedient, 
 I utterly deny, and the reasons that move me so to do be these. 
 The first is, because 1 find no one certain and perfect kind of 
 government prescribed or commanded in the Scriptures to the 
 Church of Christ, which no doubt should have been done, if it 
 had been a matter necessary unto the salvation of the Church." 
 
 And again, as our author quotes : 
 
 " I deny that the Scriptures do *- * * set down any one cer- 
 tain form and kind of government of the Church to be perpetual 
 for all times, persons, and places without alteration." — (Goode 
 on Orders, p. 33.) 
 
 We readily acknowledge that nothing could appear 
 more fairly cited than these sentences, and that they 
 seem strongly to favor our author's scheme. Ac- 
 cepting them as correct, the reader may think it 
 strange that Whitgift should oppose or surrender* 
 on one page the very position which he has main- 
 tained on another, and he may be inclined to re- 
 gard the great Archbishop as too inconsistent to be 
 worthy of attention. But let such judgment be de- 
 ferred for a little. 
 
 We might very reasonably deny that such quota- 
 tions tell against us, inasmuch as it has not been 
 asserted or supposed that Episcopacy is "necessary 
 to salvation." But though this would be a perfectly 
 correct statement, and a fair way of meeting such 
 assertions as those in the passages cited, it is not our 
 reply. We shall not answer Archbishop Whitgift 
 thus, until we find that he has given us occasion. 
 This he has not done. We deny, in the most positive 
 manner, that he ever meant what those passages from 
 his work appear to mean, and are put forward to 
 support. The whole quotation is unfair ; it is a per- 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 feet specimen of the class described in our second 
 chapter, page 30. 
 
 In this controversy, now-a-days, "government" has 
 a definite or technical meaning. If we say that a 
 person looks upon "Church government 1 ' as a matter 
 of little importance, we mean that he sets no value upon 
 the Episcopal more than Presbyterian or the Con- 
 d [rational form of polity. It is very natural, there- 
 fore, when one reads such sentences as those quoted 
 by Mr. Goocle, to put upon them the interpretation 
 he wishes, viz. : to regard the Archbishop as declar- 
 ing that it makes really no great difference whether 
 a Church retains Episcopacy or not ! But very far 
 from this was the judgment of him whom Fuller calls 
 "the worthiest man that ever the English hierarchy 
 did enjoy." Such could not be the opinion expressed 
 in a book which excited the wrath of the Puritans 
 by its maintaining the calling of Bishops to be " by 
 the word of God/' "superior to other ministers of 
 Christ." * 
 
 What ; then, is the true sense of the passages in 
 question? We will reply to this by showing that 
 the word "government" is not used in them with 
 reference to the question of " Bishop versus Presby- 
 ter/' but in its large and general sense of rule, order, 
 jurisdiction, or management. It is used to embrace 
 everything connected with the general principles of 
 constitution, and with the details of discipline or mode 
 of administration, f 
 
 * Strype's Whitgift, fol. 304. 
 
 t We have already referred to the word "Succession" as an instance 
 of a term frequently understood as bearing, in quotations from old 
 writers, a very different meaning from what they intended to convey. 
 Many other such instances might be given." The saying u We are sore 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 301 
 
 Ex. Gratia : 
 
 ' If you mean that the Government of the Church is spiritual 
 because God by His Spirit's gifts and ministry of His word 
 doth govern it, you say truly, * * * but if you mean that there 
 need be no civil magistrate, no civil and politic laws, no external 
 discipline, no outward ceremonies and orders, you are greatly 
 deceived.' 7 — (Vol. iii., p. 420.) 
 
 These things, then, are all included in the one word 
 
 " government." 
 
 " Christ is the Head of the Church and spiritually govern eth 
 the same in the conscience : but because it hath also an outward 
 and visible form, therefore it requireth an outward and visible 
 government, which Christ doth execute as well by the civil 
 magistrate as he doth by the ecclesiastical minister." — {Ibid, 
 419.) 
 
 These extracts are sufficient to show that the word 
 is used in a " large and general sense," and that Whit- 
 gift did not necessarily refer to the constitution of the 
 ministry or to the debates upon that point. The same 
 
 let and hindered " sounds now-a-clays like a contradiction : and "preventing 
 grace/' if not looked upon as "restraining grace," is a mystery! It is 
 evident, then, that if these or other words whose application has changed 
 in the lapse of years, are understood in their modern sense, they do not 
 give the meaning of the author from whom they are taken, and that a 
 skilful quoter might use them to prove exactly the opposite of what the 
 writer wished to maintain. — Take another instance : 
 
 We have had a belligerent Bishop among us of late ; but if Mr. Goode's 
 mode of quoting were allowed, it would be nn easy matter to show that 
 there was nothing unlawful or strange in that; for Richard Hooker and 
 Bishop Bilson testify that in their day there was a " Regiment of Bishops !" 
 And John Knox testifies to the use of Amazons in Scotland in his trumpet- 
 blast against " the Monstrous Regiment of Women \" 
 
 Just as "regiment" would be misused if so quoted, " government" is 
 misused by our Author. That it bore the general meaning explained 
 above is very easily proved by a reference to writers of the period in 
 question. Thus Sampson, the puritan, " By Government, I mean, not the 
 touch of the princely authority in the Church of Christ." "But I speak 
 of that reforming of the regiment with the doctors, proctors, chancellors, 
 officials, and such officers that have and execute according to canonical 
 and Romish law." — (Strype's Parker, III., p. 317.) 
 
 Bishop Cooper, in his Admonition, calls it " aeconomia ecclesise" "exter- 
 nal government, form of jurisdiction." (See p. 115.) Hooker also uses 
 it in the same sense, as we shall see. 
 26 
 
302 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 thing is evident from the following in his " Table of 
 Dangerous Doctrines." 
 
 " The essential points of ecclesiastical government may well 
 agree with any lawful state of commonwealth and civil kind of 
 government ; as the gospel may be truly preached in them all, 
 the sacraments rightly ministered, discipline duly executed, and 
 such like : but the accidental points of government (as the 
 manner of electing ministers, the kind of discipline, accidental 
 ceremonies, and other such rites and ceremonies) maybe varied 
 according to time, place, and persons, and are so to be framed 
 as they may best agree with the state and government of every 
 commonwealth." — (Vol. III., pp. 554, 5.) 
 
 The reader will observe here (1) that in his own 
 full definition of the word as he is using it, he makes 
 no mention of either Presbyter or Bishop ; the ques- 
 tion of " parity or imparity " is not before his mind 
 at all ; and (2) that where he speaks of government 
 which "may be varied according to time, place, per- 
 sons, etc.," he refers only to the accidents of polity, 
 ceremonies, details of discipline, etc. Of the threefold 
 constitution of the sacred ministry he never uses such 
 language. 
 
 If we turn now to volume I. we will find that, in 
 
 the very place from which our author has quoted, 
 
 Whitgift has "used the word government in the sense 
 
 we have just shown, and in no other. Cartwright 
 
 was advocating the establishment of his own pet 
 
 system, which involved a presbyterial consistory with 
 
 right of discipline, excommunication, etc., over all lay 
 
 people, and certain mode of performing the ordinances 
 
 of worship, and urging this as having divine authority 
 
 and being therefore necessary to salvation. To this 
 
 Whitgift replies : 
 
 " You add that ' excommunication and other censures of the 
 Church which are forerunners unto excommunication, are mat- 
 ters of discipline, and the same are also of faith and of salva- 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 803 
 
 tion/ There are two kinds of government in the Church, the 
 one invisible and the other visible ; the one spiritual, the other 
 external * * * * The visible and external government is that 
 which is executed by man, and consisteth of external discipline 
 and visible ceremonies practised in the Church. If you mean 
 this kind of government then must I ask you this question, 
 Whether your meaning is, that to have a government is neces- 
 sary to salvation ; or to have some one certain form and kind 
 of government not to be altered in respect of time, persons, or 
 place? Likewise would I know of you what you mean by 
 ' necessary to salvation?' whether you mean such things without 
 the which we cannot be saved, or such things only as be neces- 
 sary helps unto salvation? For you know that this word " ne- 
 cessary ;; signifieth either, that without the which a thing can- 
 not be, or that without the which it cannot so well and con- 
 veniently be. 
 
 " But forsomuch as you afterwards make mention of excom- 
 munication and other censures of the Church * * * I take it that 
 you mean the external government and that ' kind of government/ 
 And yet must I ask you another question, that is, whether you 
 mean that this government * * * is necessary at all times, or 
 then [only] when the Church is collected together and in such 
 place where it may have government. For you know that the 
 Church is sometimes by persecution so dispersed that it appeareth 
 not * * * nor hath any certain place to remain in : so that it 
 cannot have any external government or exercise of any discipline. 
 But to be short, [and here Mr. Goode's quotation begins] I 
 confess that in a Church collected together and at liberty, 
 government is necessary in the second kind of necessity [that 
 is, as a help] ; but that any one kind of government is so neces- 
 sary that without it the Church cannot be saved, or that it may 
 not be altered into some other kind thought to be more expe- 
 dient, I utterly deny."— ( Works, Vol. I., pp. 183, 184.) 
 
 It is manifest, then, that in the quotation we are 
 considering, Whitgift speaks of what we should call 
 "discipline" or " order" or "general economy/' and not 
 what is now meant when we speak of " Church gov- 
 ernment;" and that the -subject of "thkee oedeks or 
 one" "Episcopacy or Presbytery/' was not at all 
 before his mind. So evident is this, that we profess 
 our inability to understand how Mr. Groode could 
 make such a mistake as he has done in quoting the 
 
801 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 passage to prove that Whitgift regarded Episcopacy 
 as a thin^ indifferent! 
 
 In the paragraph immediately following our au- 
 thor's quotation, the Archbishop says : 
 
 " That kind of government and discipline that you mean, 
 that is excommunication V " If excommunication (which is a 
 kind of government) be necessary to salvation, then any man 
 may separate himself from every Church wherein is no excom- 
 munication." 
 
 This surely would have corrected the mistake if 
 our author had happened to see it. Indeed, we think 
 that it ought to have been corrected by some words 
 which he must have seem as he has taken the trouble 
 to omit them from the short paragraph he gives on 
 page 34. 
 
 Mr. Goode quotes : Whitgift says : 
 
 " I deny that the Scriptures " Yet do I deny that the 
 
 do set down any one Scriptures do express particu- 
 
 certain form and kind of gov- larly everything that is to be 
 
 ernment of the Church, to be done in the Church (which you 
 
 perpetual for all times, persons, yourself afterwards confess), 
 
 and places without alteration." or that it doth set down any 
 
 one certain form," etc., etc., etc. 
 
 Such, them is the way in which Mr. Groode quotes 
 Whitgift to show that he allows "the equality of 
 Bishops and Presbyters jure divino." But that any- 
 thing like such an interpretation can be jTut upon 
 his language, is utterly denied. We are willing, 
 however, to regard our author's course as occasioned 
 by misconception of Whitgift's meaning ; if not that, 
 it is something much worse. 
 
 And now, (since we indignantly refuse to accept 
 those passages as expressing the Archbishop's views 
 on the subject we are discussing) we feel obliged to 
 quote a few sentences of what he has written ex- 
 pressly upon it. 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 305 
 
 " The admonition * * * affirmeth that ' the right of ordering 
 ministers doth at no hand appertain to the Bishop/' This do I 
 improve in this place, and prove that the right of ordering and 
 electing ministers doth appertain to the Bishop ; but I have 
 contented myself with the fewer proofs, because their assertion 
 is so absurd that it cannot but discredit their learning with all 
 learned men." — [Tract iii., Chap, vii.) 
 
 Treating of the Apostle's charge to Timothy (5th 
 
 Chapter 1st Epistle, etc.), he says : 
 
 " The words are spoken of Timothy in respect that he was a 
 Bishop ; neither hath the Apostle given any such like admoni- 
 tion to any Church in any of his epistles." 
 
 He then goes on to quote Ambrose, Chrysostom, 
 
 and CEcumenius, and adds : 
 
 ' 'Whereby it plainly appeareth that these ancient fathers 
 think this precept, * Lay thy hands suddenly on no man/ to 
 be given only to Timothy in respect that he was a Bishop, and 
 therefore also to appertain unto Bishops only to ordain minis- 
 ters."— (Vol. i., p. 433.) 
 
 Having quoted Jerome to the same effect, he 
 says: 
 
 " Hierome here taketh the Bishop only to have authority to 
 ordain and appoint ministers." 
 
 Ohrysostom is again cited, and Theophylact re- 
 ferred to, and then the Archbishop proceeds : 
 
 " Thus, then, you see how evidently both those places of 
 scripture, and also those ancient fathers, do overthrow that 
 saying of the Admonition, that ' the right of ordering doth at 
 no hand appertain to a Bishop/ and how manifestly also the 
 same have justified that which I have said, that is ' that Bishops 
 have authority to admit ministers/" 
 
 " True it is that 1 am persuaded that both Timothy and Titus, 
 and consequently other Bishops have authority to ordain and 
 appoint ministers alone." — (Ibid, page 435.) 
 
 " It is the general consent of all the learned fathers that it 
 pertaineth to the office of a Bishop to order and elect ministers 
 of the word. In this saith Hierome in Epist. ad Evagrium, ' a 
 Bishop doth excel all other ministers in that the ordering and 
 appointing of ministers doth properly pertain unto him" — 
 (P. 437.) 
 
 26* 
 
306 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 u The words of Hierome be these: ' Quid enim facit excepta 
 ordixatioxe Episcopus quod presbyter non facit f* ' What doth 
 a Bishop that a minister doth not except ordination? Whereby 
 he manifestly affirmeth as much as I in this place require, that 
 is, ' that the right of ordering ministers doth appertain to the 
 Bishop.' The same also Chrysostom in the like words in 1 
 Timothy iii." — (Page 440.) 
 
 When Cartwright argued (precisely as Mr. Groode 
 does), that the Bishop and Pastor were all one, 
 Whitgift replied, quoting Scripture and Fathers, Cy- 
 prian, Tertullian, Jerome, etc. to the contrary : 
 
 " There teas superiority among ministers of the word even 
 in the Apostles' time, which I prove by the Scriptures and 
 other testimonies/' 
 
 " This equality of ministers which you require is both flatly 
 against the Scriptures and all ancient authority of councils and 
 learned men, and the example of all Churches, even from 
 Christ's time."-— (Vol. ii., page 401.) 
 
 Such, then, are the views of that eminent Prelate 
 
 upon the alleged parity of Bishops and Presbyters. 
 
 We learn his judgment of the monstrous doctrine of 
 
 Apostolical Succession from passages like these : 
 
 " Where the Apostles could not be present themselves, there 
 they appointed some other to govern the Church for them, as 
 the Apostle Paul did Titus at Greta." "And in that the Apos- 
 tles * * * gave unto them such authority, it is evident that 
 therein they made them successors, which they did not without 
 sufficient warrant and testimony of the Spirit of Ged." — (Vol. 
 ii., p. 356.) 
 
 " Bishops do succeed the Apostles in this function 
 of government." To this purpose he quotes Cy- 
 prian, Ambrose, and Zuingle, "old writers and new" 
 (Vol. i., p. 355), and asks : 
 
 " Have you any example of any lawfully placed in the min- 
 istry without the election and admission of the Bishop V — 
 (Vol. L, p. 440.) 
 
 These may suffice to show what his opinions really 
 were upon Succession, and the rights of the Episco- 
 pate, and with them we end. More space has been de 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 307 
 
 voted to the good Primate than we at first designed ; 
 but to rescue him from misrepresentation is worth 
 it all and more. And in answering all that our 
 author attempts to prove from him, as to there being 
 no Scriptural warrant for any form of Church gov- 
 ern ment, we answer all of the same kind that he and 
 others allege from Bridges, Cooper, "Whittaker, etc. 
 
 Dr. William Fulke (Master of Pembroke Hall, 
 Cambridge) published in 1580 his Confutation of 
 the Komanists, Martial and Stapleton. 
 
 Of the value of Apostolical institution he says : 
 
 " That there should be particular flocks and Pastors ; it is of 
 God's ordination, though God, by his Apostles, appointed it to 
 be so. Yet is it of as absolute necessity while the Church is 
 dispersed in divers places of the world, as that there is one flock, 
 and one Shepherd over all, Jesus Christ." 
 
 As to " parity," etc., he speaks thus: 
 
 " He citeth Ambrose to prove that there is a prelacy or pre- 
 ferment in the Church, because he forbiddeth contention there- 
 about; as though there could not be a prelacy * * of every 
 Bishop over his own church ; but there must be one over all 
 the Church."— (P. 258.) 
 
 " If the Apostleship had ceased before Bishops had been or- 
 dained, Bishoplike power would have ceased with it ; but seeing 
 the Apostles ordained Bishops and Elders in every congrega- 
 tion to continue te the world's end, the Bishop's office hath not 
 ceased, though the office of the Apostles is expired." — ( Works, 
 Parker Soc'y Lib., p. 310.) 
 
 On Succession he writes thus soundly : 
 
 "We doubt not, therefore; but determine with Augustin 
 * * * to rest in the bosom of that Church, which, from the 
 seat of the Apostles, by consent of mankind hath continued by 
 succession of Bishops, and hath obtained the height of au- 
 thority, all heretics barking at it * * * But we utterly deny 
 the popish Church to be this Church which hath had no con- 
 tinuance of succession from the Apostles' seat in faith and doc- 
 trine, though it claim never so much the succession of persons 
 and places." 
 
 On the same page he speaks of "the Apostles 
 
 AND THEIR SUCCESSORS, THE BlSHOPS." 
 
308 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 1 Wherefore as the argument of Succession was well used 
 against heretics so long as there was Succession of doctrine 
 with Succession of persons, so now to allege the only Succession 
 of persons, where the doctrine is clean changed, is as foolish and 
 ridiculous as by showing of empty dishes to prove abundance 
 of victuals."— (P. 351.) 
 
 Bishop Thomas Cooper (of Winchester) pub- 
 lished, in 1589, his " Admonition to the Church and 
 people of England to take heed of the contempt of 
 those Bishops and Preachers which God hath sent to 
 them," etc., etc. This reply to the libels of Martin 
 Mar-Prelate, was composed at the desire of the Pri- 
 mate, and sanctioned by him. From it Mr. Goode 
 quotes (page 41) two paragraphs; of the same general 
 character as what we have just disposed of. It would 
 have saved us some trouble if he had printed them 
 as they are in the Bishop's work. 
 
 It is somewhat singular, indeed, that the Eeverend 
 gentleman's sight should so often fail him, just when 
 he comes to a word or sentence that would interfere 
 with his theory. For instance, 
 
 Mr. Goode quotes : Bishop Cooper says : 
 
 "As for this question of " As for this question of 
 church government, I mean church government, I mean 
 not at this time to stand much not at this time to stand much 
 
 on it on it. For let them say what 
 
 they lust, for anything that hath 
 been ivritten hitherto touching 
 it, it is sufficiently answered. 
 Only this I desire, that they Only this I desire, 'that they 
 will lay down out of the word will lay down out of the word 
 of God some just proofs and a of God some just proofs and a 
 direct commandment that there direct commandment that there 
 should be in all ages and states should be in all ages and states 
 of the Church of Christ one of the Church of Christ one 
 only form of outward govern- only form of outward govern- 
 ment." ment.' Secondly, ' That they 
 
 will note and name some par- 
 ticular churches, either in the 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 309 
 
 Apostles' time or afterward, 
 wherein the whole government 
 of the church was practised 
 only by Doctors, Pastors, El- 
 ders, and Deacons, and none 
 other, and that in an equality 
 without superiority in one 
 above another." 
 
 The amiable writer thus warns his readers against 
 the saying that the Bishops, -etc., were not the mes- 
 sengers of God : 
 
 M If they be not the ministers and messengers of God, if they 
 be not sent of Him, then it is not the message of God that they 
 have brought us, it is not His word that they have taught us, 
 they be not God's Sacraments that they have delivered unto us, 
 and so do a great number of us remain as no Christians. — (P. 6.) 
 
 In answer to the objection that it does great " in- 
 jury to the Prophets, Apostles, etc., etc., to compare 
 them with such * * * covetous hypocrites, such 
 Antichristian Prelates, such simoniacal preachers as 
 our clergymen now are," he says : 
 
 " I do not compare them (good reader) in worthiness of grace 
 and virtue, but in likenesse of office and ministry." — (P. 3.) 
 
 Speaking for the Primate (and himself, of course), 
 
 he says : 
 
 " He [Whitgift] is likewise persuaded that there ought to be, 
 by the word of God, a superiority among the ministers of the 
 Church, which is sufficiently proved in his book against T. C, 
 and in Dr. Bridges' book likewise ; and he is at all times ready 
 to justify it by holy Scripture and by the testimony of all an- 
 tiquity. Epiphanius and Augustinus account them heretics that 
 hold the contrary. The arguments to the contrary are vain, their 
 answers absurd, the authorities they use shamefully abused, and 
 the Scriptures wrested." — (P. 34, London edition, 1846.) 
 
 Dr. John Bridges, Dean of Sarum, published, in 
 1587, his " Defence of the Government established in 
 the Church of England for Ecclesiastical Manners." 
 
310 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 As we have not been able to procure a copy of this 
 work, or to find any trustworthy extract of reasonable 
 length, we shall not attempt to give the author's opin- 
 ions, but simply to show, both from friends and foes, 
 what their character was. 
 
 " Dr. Bridges * * had writ against Martin Mar-Prelate's 
 libel, and that very well, but was railed upon for his pains ; 
 and the Archbishop underwent the libeller's censure for allow- 
 ing his book ; to which the Archbishop answered, ' That he did 
 peruse Dr. Bridges' said book before it went to the press, and 
 that he knew that it was the sufficiency thereof that caused these 
 men to storm as they did, as not being able otherwise to answer 
 it, which made them so bitterly to inveigh against his person.' " — 
 (Strype's Whitgift, fol., p. 301.) 
 
 Bishop Cooper, as we have just seen, testifies that 
 in his book it was "sufficiently proved" that "there 
 ought to be, by the word of Grod, a superiority among 
 the ministers of the Church." The Puritan reply to 
 it was entitled, " The Epitome," and had on its title- 
 page, " O read over Dr. John Bridges' book, for it is 
 a worthy work * * * printed over sea in Europe, 
 within two furlongs of a bouncing Priest." This is 
 enough. Our author and his disciples must excuse 
 us if we decline, after this, to believe that the Dean 
 of Sarum held their opinions.* 
 
 Dr. Sutcliffe had the honor of writing the first 
 book published in England expressly against that 
 novel system of Presbyterian polity which many 
 were trying to bring in. We believe that there is 
 not a copy of it in this country, and probably very 
 few in existence. We cannot, therefore, quote from 
 
 * Dr.. Bridges was the first to draw attention to the spurious editions 
 of the Prayer Book got up by the Puritans, and to their other works of 
 the same sort which they modestly proposed as substitutes for the Liturgy 
 of the Church. — (See Lathbury's History of Convocation, p. 192.) 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 311 
 
 it ; yet we can give the reader an idea of its purpose. 
 It moved the wrath, not only of the Puritans, but also 
 of Beza (Calvin's successor at Geneva), who wrote to 
 Whitgift, complaining that in it and the work of Sa- 
 ra via he was misrepresented : 
 
 " That we would wish all Episcopacy to be abolished ; that 
 we would bring back into the Church a democratic ataxy, yea 
 an ochlocracy ; that we would obtrude the Genevan discipline 
 upon all churches, and what not. For these are the contempti- 
 ble trifles [nosculi] with which we are defamed by Sutcliffe* 
 (after Saravia). His book, entitled ' Queremonia Ecclesiae' is 
 written, indeed, with sufficient eloquence, but whether with suf- 
 ficient prudence, I know not." 
 
 To this Whitgift replies 
 
 " That from that very time almost wherein that discipline 
 which they at Geneva espoused first sprang up * * we here 
 saw no stone by them unturned to render it commended to all 
 the rest of the world for the only and genuine government of the 
 Church which Christ had instituted, the Apostles observed, and 
 which all the Churches [if they would set up a solid reforma- 
 tion!) were bound to restore. For much of that sort was dili- 
 gently and everywhere inculcated by Calvin, Danaeus, Sadeel, 
 Ursin, and set forth by him [Beza] in many theses there pro- 
 pounded, in his Annotations also upon the New Testament, in 
 the Book of Confessions, and in his own Epistles." 
 
 Having reminded him of Calvin's unjust and un- 
 called-for attack upon the English Prayer Book, 
 
 * We invite the reader's attention to the following very remarkable 
 specimen of candor, or accuracy, which he will find on page 38 of " Gal- 
 lagher's True Churchmanship :" 
 
 "Dr. Sutcliffe * * * has also been charged with holding the exclusive 
 view, but Whitgift denies that this charge is just." This " vindica- 
 tion" is as follows: "When Dr. Sutcliffe had prepared something in our 
 mother-tongue concerning the Presbytery, that Italian's book (written 
 in Latin, unlearnedly enough, in the midst of England against the Eng- 
 lish) seemed to him worthy to be refuted, and withal to be somewhat more 
 sharply handled, as it deserved. This was the first book among the 
 English in this land set forth, whether in English or Latin, which under- 
 took a dispute against that Presbytery which flourished among them then 
 abroad" 
 
 This is a singular denial of the charge of exclusiveness. 
 
312 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 which he was not able even to read, the Archbishop 
 
 - on to say : 
 
 11 That again, in the year 1572. when the rashness of our men 
 began to ferment, and they were raised to that hope, that in 
 Borne books fairly printed they dared as well to shake this 
 Church's form of eccl< siast government as to obtrude theirs 
 
 I neva] upon the Assembly of the Three Estates, he [Beza] 
 
 studiously commended to a certain honorable councillor of the 
 
 's to promote that cause. And further, that the same year 
 
 he writ to Mr. Knox against the degree of Bishops, however they 
 
 - -pel. that the Bishops brought forth the Papacy 
 
 * * that they were relics of Popery." 
 
 He then Trenton to give an account of some works 
 published in England, breathing the same spirit, and 
 instanced that virulent book of Travers. " Le Disci- 
 plina Ecclesiastica," and says ; that, though it had 
 been very easy to confute that declaimed " they had 
 all imposed SILENCE on themselves far the peace of 
 the Church:" and while they were influenced thus 
 by a kind and Christian spirit. Beza's own book ap- 
 peared, "Of a Threefold Episcopacy." in which he 
 referred to the Order or government of Bishops as 
 '•'not a human power so muck as a Satanical tyranny!" 
 He tken reminds kim that 
 
 " The beginnings of that Episcopacy which he [dike Mr. 
 Goode] made to be only of human institution is referred by the 
 Fathers with one mouth to the Apostles, as the authors thereof, 
 and that the Bishops were appointed as Successors of the Apos- 
 tles, especially in certain points of their functions. And what 
 Aaron was to his sons and to the Levites, this the Bishops were 
 to the Priests and Deacons.' ; 
 
 After all tkis and more of the same kind, ke asks : 
 
 "Do you think it fit. grave sir. that we. so often challer _ I, 
 as it were, to the combat, and by so many books set forth to the 
 disparagement of this Church, after so great silence, should an- 
 swer nothing ? that Dr. Saravia should reply nothing, that Dr. 
 Sutcliffr should reply nothing? as though we acknowledged ail 
 these things for truths, and of that nature that no sufficient an- 
 swer could be given to them." — (Strype's Whitgift, p. 406, 407.) 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 313 
 
 This would be the proper place, as regards time, to 
 treat of Eoger's Exposition of the Articles, but we 
 defer the examination of it a little longer for reasons 
 that will appear. 
 
 Hadrian Sara via, D. D., Prebend of Canterbury, 
 shall be the next to testify. Honest Izaak Walton 
 describes this eminent divine as " German by birth 
 and some time a pastor both in Flanders and Holland, 
 where he had studied and well considered the contro- 
 verted points concerning Episcopacy and Sacrilege." 
 He wrote a tract in Latin on " The Degrees of the 
 Ministry," to which Beza replied in his work on " A 
 Threefold Episcopacy;" and Saravia in turn published 
 a Confutation. From this, or what he represents as a 
 tract in defence of the former work, Mr.Groode quotes 
 considerably more than a page (38), which he trans- 
 lates from the Latin; but we doubt whether the exact 
 sense of the original is given, if we may judge by 
 one sample of his rendering. The word "Commu- 
 nion " has a well-known special or technical sense, 
 and yet our author turns "offerre societatem" into 
 "offer them Communion ! " "Society" or "friendly 
 intercourse" would not suit his purpose quite so well ! 
 Yet, after all, the whole extract amounts to no 
 more than a plea for the Continental Protestants on 
 the score of necessity. 
 
 " Although I am of opinion that ordinations of ministers of 
 the Church properly belong to Bishops, yet necessity causes 
 that when they are wanting and can not be had, orthodox 
 presbyters can in case of necessity ordain a presbyter." 
 
 We take this as Mr. Goode gives it. It is the 
 strongest sentence in the whole passage, and yet it 
 contains no more than what nine-tenths of all Epis- 
 
 27 
 
814 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 copal writers gladly allow, viz. : (to use the words 
 of Archbishop Parker) " Extreme necessity in itself 
 implieth dispensation with all laws.' 7 This is the 
 basis of all that Sara via allows even in Mr. Goode's 
 translation, and yet that gentleman says " here again 
 we have a direct testimony to the validity of the 
 ordination of Foreign Eeformed Churches ! " 
 
 The best reply to this is given by Saravia himself 
 in his letter to the ministers of Guernsey: 
 
 " I must add one word more which will be hard of digestion 
 * * * being not made ministers of the Church by your Bishop, 
 [they were regarded as within the jurisdiction of the Bishop 
 of Winchester, in England] nor by his Dismissories, nor by any 
 other according to the Order of the English Church, you are not 
 true and lawful ministers." — ( On Different Degrees of Priest- 
 hood, Oxford Edition, 1840, p. 20.) 
 
 In his preliminary chapter of the work just named, 
 
 he tells the Prelates and Pastors of the Anglican 
 
 Church that " two Archbishops of excellent memory " 
 
 advised him to write his opinion " concerning the 
 
 pre-eminence of Bishops over Presbyters,' 1 '' and that he 
 
 had done so in three several treatises. 
 
 " How ill they have been received by most ministers of the 
 so-called Reformed Churches of Christ, may be seen from the 
 conduct of Beza alone. " 
 
 He then goes on to speak of what he expects from 
 "some others of the Genevese school:" 
 
 " I allude only to those who being puffed up with I know not 
 what fancies of what they think a purer Reformation, look with 
 supreme contempt on whosoever differs from them, imagining 
 themselves alone to be wise and reformed : these I know will 
 be most bitterly opposed to me." 
 
 He says he is induced to undertake the work, 
 however, 
 
 "On account of the great scandals occasioned by the rejection 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 315 
 
 of Episcopacy and the great advantages thereby given to our 
 adversaries of the Romish Church. " — (Pages 2, 3.) 
 
 Eeferring to those Foreign Eeformed Churches, 
 
 whom Mr. Goode quotes him as endorsing, he says : 
 
 " To overthrow the whole polity of the primitive Church as 
 it existed in the time next to the Apostles, is not so much to 
 reform as to deform." "I would wish them to learn to see 
 wherein they are defective, and cease to glory in the error of 
 which they ought to be ashamed" 
 
 To prevent if possible that misconception or mis- 
 representation from which advocates of a Scriptural 
 Episcopacy have still to suffer, he says : 
 
 " The question which I discuss is not one involving salvation, 
 but a question concerning the best guides and masters by whom 
 we may be led in the way to eternal salvation." — (Page 29.) 
 
 Lest he should be regarded as a novice or change- 
 ling, he says that for twenty-six years past he had 
 over and over again declared his opinion concerning 
 the Episcopate. It was this : 
 
 " I consider Bishops indispensably necessary to the Church ; 
 and I hold that form of Church discipline and government to 
 be the best and to be of divine origin which is conducted by the 
 hands of holy Bisnops and Presbyters truly so called according 
 to the rules of the word of God and of the old Councils." — 
 (Page 32.) 
 
 And as to the system of "Foreign Eeformed 
 Churches," he says: 
 
 " I think the same of this new method of governing the Church 
 as others think of the Episcopal form ; namely, that it is of 
 human invention, and to be tolerated only where no better is to be 
 had; and, contrariwise, that which they reject as human, ap- 
 pears to me divine, as being appointed by God both in the Old 
 Testament and the New."— (Page 44.) 
 
 "We are perfectly satisfied with such testimony as 
 this. 
 
 Eichard Hooker. — Our next witness is one whose 
 right to speak on behalf of the Church will not be 
 
316 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 questioned. We refer to that giant of intellectual 
 and moral power whom we never hear mentioned 
 without some title of honor — "the venerable," "the 
 judicious Hooker." His "Ecclesiastical Polity" is 
 among the very chief of the glories and defences of 
 our Church. It is, like Gibraltar, a rock, a fortress 
 raised far above the common level and proof against 
 every assault. In it there can be found no weakness, 
 no sophistry, no special pleader's trick, no striving 
 after temporary advantage, no anger, no prejudice, no 
 rhetorical arts ; but reasoning the most solid set forth 
 with the calmness of a Christian philosopher, and in 
 words, the simple but majestic eloquence of which 
 make it read like an epic poem. Oh ! that those who 
 profess to quote Hooker and to treat of his subjects, 
 would study his work and imitate his spirit. 
 
 Our author gives two extracts from the " Ecclesi- 
 astical Polity," and in a note on page 44, says they 
 furnish " the true testimony of Hooker." For such 
 a remark as this there could be no necessity if some 
 one had not previously offered "false" witness — a 
 thing hinted at by Mr. Groode on page 36. But hints 
 are not sufficient in such a case. We have not the least 
 idea of what the witness that he regards as spurious 
 can have been ; and therefore we regret the more that 
 he did not show its falseness, and thus bring upon the 
 dishonorable offerer of it the censure he deserved. 
 
 It is somewhat remarkable, however, that while 
 censuring his opponents for not giving "true testi- 
 mony" Mr.Goode should prefer to make his selections 
 from that portion of Hooker's great work which alone 
 is open to suspicion of not being truly his ! 
 
 The first four Books were published by Hooker 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 817 
 
 in 1594, and the fifth Book in 1597. No more was 
 printed in his lifetime ; and, as Walton says, " whether 
 we have the last three Books as finished by himself, 
 is a just and material question." After the death 
 of the great divine, his friend and patron, Archbishop 
 Whit gift, sent to the unworthy widow to get what- 
 ever manuscripts he had left, especially the concluding 
 portion of his great work. She would not give them 
 up nor render any account of them ; but subsequently, 
 moved by fear, she confessed that " one Mr. Charke 
 and another minister that dwelt near Canterbury, 
 came and desired that they might go into her hus- 
 band's study and look upon some of his writings ; 
 and that there they two burnt and tore many of them, 
 assuring her that they were writings not fit to be 
 seen." Search was made for the work, or a copy 
 of it, but in vain ; and so the next best thing was 
 done. Four years after Hooker's death, a certain Dr. 
 Spencer, to whom Whitgifb had entrusted the rough 
 draft or plan of the three missing books, brought 
 them out substantially in the shape in which we have 
 them now. Since then many copies of the sixth, 
 seventh, and eighth books have been extant 
 
 " Much disagreeing, being indeed altered and diminished as 
 men thought fittest to make Mr. Hooker's judgment suit with 
 their fancies, or give authority to their corrupt designs. 77 
 
 Izaak gives evidence of this, and then decides that 
 there are "both omissions and additions in the last 
 three printed books." Yet it is from one of these that 
 Mr. Goode proposes to give the true opinions of the 
 venerable divine. 
 
 We do not reject those books as spurious, but we 
 cannot receive them as wholly and purely the works 
 27* 
 
318 OSINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 of Kichard Hooker; nor can we regard them as 
 worthy of the least attention whereinsoever they may 
 differ from those that are undoubtedly his own. 
 
 We will now present the reader with extracts not 
 only from unquestionable portions of "The Ecclesias- 
 tical Polity," but from those very books and chapters 
 to which our author refers, but which he does not 
 quote. First, then, as to things clamored for by the 
 Puritans and stated to have scriptural authority, 
 Hooker says : 
 
 "Let necessary collection be made requisite, and we may 
 boldly deny that of all those things which at this day are, with 
 so great necessity, urged upon this Church under the name of 
 reformed church discipline, there is any one which their books 
 hitherto have made manifest to be contained in Scripture. Let 
 them, if they can, allege but one properly belonging to their 
 cause and not common to them and us, and show the deduction 
 thereof out of Scripture to be necessary." — (Book i., chap. xiv. 
 sect, 2.) 
 
 Speaking of that which Whitgift, Cooper, and 
 others have called "government," that is "economia 
 Ecclesise," or " discipline/' he says : 
 
 " Neither can I find that men of soundest judgment have 
 any otherwise taught than that articles of belief and things 
 which all men must of necessity do to the end they may be 
 saved, are either expressly set down in Scripture or else plainly 
 thereby to be gathered. But touching things which belong to 
 discipline and outward polity, the Church hath authority to 
 make Canons, laws, and decrees, even as we read in the Apos- 
 tles' times, it did." — (Book iii., chap, x., sect, 7.) 
 
 It is of such laws, or the rites etc. which they de- 
 cree, that Hooker and the others speak when they 
 say that the "government" of a church may be 
 changed. As to the constitution of the Christian 
 ministry, we find no such language. Things indif- 
 ferent may be changed; things divinely instituted 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 319 
 
 and necessary (even in the second kind of necessity) 
 
 may not be changed to suit the pleasure of any man 
 
 or any people. 
 
 But let Hooker explain himself. First, then, as to 
 
 what he means by government or Church polity : 
 
 " The matters wherein Church polity is conversant are the 
 'public religious duties of the Church, as the administration of 
 the word and sacraments, prayer, spiritual censures, and the 
 like." " Laws of polity are laws which appoint in what manner 
 these shall be performed." — (Book iii., xi., 20.) 
 
 But to make and administer such laws there must 
 of necessity be officers : 
 
 " Hereupon we hold that God's clergy are a state, which hath 
 been and will be so long as there is a Church upon earth, ne- 
 cessary by the plain word of God himself; a state whereunto 
 the rest of God's people must be subject as touching things that 
 pertain to their soul's health." 
 
 "Again, forasmuch as where the clergy are any great multi- 
 tude, order doth require that by degrees they be distinguished, 
 we hold that there ever have been and ever ought to be in such 
 a case at leastwise two sorts of ecclesiastical persons, the one 
 subordinate to the other. As to the Apostles in the beginning, 
 and to the Bishops always since, we find plainly, both in Scrip- 
 ture and in all ecclesiastical records, other ministers of the word 
 and sacraments have been."— (Ibid.) 
 
 Then as to admission to this ministry, he says it 
 
 cannot be supposed lawful 
 
 "That every man that listeth, should take upon him charge 
 in the Church ; therefore a solemn admittance is of such neces- 
 sity that without it there can be no Church polity." 
 
 These things, then : (1) worship and discipline, (2) 
 a ministry, (3) degrees in the ministry, (4) ordination 
 thereto, he calls "principal and pekpetual parts in 
 in ecclesiastical polity." Other " particularities," 
 which make for the more convenient being of these, 
 are yet " not of such constant use and necessity in 
 God's Church." These minor regulations are such 
 
320 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 as we acknowledge have been and may be changed 
 from time to time, and when we read that matters of 
 "government" are left in the power of the Church 
 to vary as it may deem best, these are the matters 
 meant. 
 
 We have copied these passages, as already stated, 
 from the very Books and Chapters indicated by our 
 author ; but now we shall take a wider range. 
 
 " The ministry of things divine is a function which as God 
 did himself institute, so neither may men undertake the same 
 but by authority and power given them in lawful manner. 
 * * * Men thereunto assigned do hold their authority from 
 Him, whether they be such as himself immediately, or as the 
 Church in His name investeth." 
 
 " Those that have this ministerial power are "a special 
 Order consecrated unto the service of the most high in things 
 wherewith others may not meddle/' "The clergy are either 
 Presbyters or Deacons," and " of Presbyters some were greater, 
 some less in power, and that by our Saviour's own appointment. 
 The greater, they which received fulness of spiritual power : 
 the less, they to whom less was granted." 
 
 He then speaks of the commissions given to the 
 seventy as Presbyters and the twelve as Apostles. 
 
 " To these two degrees appointed of our Lord and Saviour, 
 Christ, his Apostles soon after added Deacons." "These three 
 degrees of Ecclesiastical Order have continued in the Church 
 of Christ, the highest and largest that which the Apostles ; the 
 next, that which the Presbyters ; the lowest, that which the 
 Deacons had." 
 
 Here, then, we have a ministry divinely instituted, 
 
 and that ministry constituted in three Orders. 
 
 The ancientest, therefore, of the Fathers mention these three 
 degrees of Ecclesiastical Order specified, and no more." 
 
 He quotes Tertullian and Optatus to this effect, 
 
 and proceeds : 
 
 " Heaps of allegations ia a case so evident and plain are 
 needless. I may securely, therefore, conclude that there are 
 at this day in the Church of England no other than the same 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 321 
 
 degrees of Ecclesiastical Order — namely, Bishops, Presbyters, 
 and Deacons — which had their beginning from Christ and his 
 blessed Apostles themselves." — (Book v. passim, or Vol. ii., Ox- 
 ford Ed., pp. 165, 190.) 
 
 Here we might stop and claim that the greatest of 
 our authorities is with us in all that we maintain ; 
 but we wish to place this beyond a peradventure, and 
 therefore to learn what is said about the Episcopal 
 Office we turn to the 7th Book, which is devoted to 
 that subject. We are, however, perfectly willing to 
 give up anything found in that book which is at all 
 inconsistent with what has been previously estab- 
 lished. 
 
 "A thousand five hundred years and upward the Church 
 of Christ hath now continued under the sacred regiment of 
 Bishops/' 
 
 "A Bishop is a minister of God unto whom, with permanent 
 continuance, there is given not only power of administering the 
 word and sacraments, which power other Presbyters have, but 
 also a further power to ordain ecclesiastical persons, and a 
 power of chiefty in government over Presbyters as well as 
 laymen, a power to be, by way of jurisdiction, a pastor even 
 to pastors themselves." — (Vol. ii., p. 334.) 
 
 " This we boldly, therefore, set down as an infallible truth, 
 that the Church of Christ is at this day lawfully, and so hath 
 been sithence the first beginning, governed by Bishops having 
 permanent superiority and ruling power over other ministers 
 of the word and sacraments." 
 
 " The Apostles, therefore, were the first which had such au- 
 thority, and all others who have it after them in orderly sort, 
 are their lawful successors." — (339.) 
 
 " The Apostles have now their successors upon earth, their 
 true successors, if not in the largeness, surely in the kind of 
 that Episcopal function whereby they had power to sit as spir- 
 itual ordinary judges." 
 
 " It was the general received persuasion of the ancient 
 Christian world that ' Ecclesia est in Episcopo ' — the outward 
 being of a Church consisteth in the having of a Bishop." 
 
 " Again, the power of ordaining both Deacons and Presby- 
 ters, the power to give the power of Order unto others, this 
 
 HATH ALWAYS BEEN PECULIAR UNTO BISHOPS. It hath not been 
 
 heard of that inferior Presbyters were ever authorized to ordain. 39 
 
322 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 11 There are some which hold that between a Bishop and a Pres- 
 byter, touching power of Order, there is no difference. The rea- 
 son of which conceit is for that they see Presbyters, no less 
 than Bishops, authorized to offer up the prayers of the Church, 
 to preach the gospel, to baptize, to administer the Holy Eucha- 
 rist : but they consider not withal, as they should, that the 
 Presbyters' authority to do these things is derived from the 
 Bishop which doth ordain him thereunto ; so that even in those 
 things which are common to both the power of the one is, as it 
 were, a certain light borrowed from the other's lamp." — (Ibid 
 352.) 
 
 Thus Mr. Goode's theory is styled a "conceit," and 
 disproved ; but there is much more that bears upon 
 it. Ex. gra. 
 
 " The first whom we read to have bent themselves against 
 the superiority of Bishops were Aerius and his followers." 
 
 Foiled in his expectation of being made a Bishop, 
 this man through malice began to decry the whole 
 Order. 
 
 " His speech was rather furious than convenient for man to 
 use." 
 
 "AVhat (saith he) is a Bishop more than a Presbyter? The 
 one doth differ from the other in nothing: for their Order is 
 one, their honor one, one their dignity, etc., etc. ;; "Are we 
 to think Aerius had wrong in being judged an heretic for 
 ho Id ing ih is opin ion V 1 # 
 
 To this question Hooker intimates that the negative 
 reply would not be wrong, but in charity he prefers 
 the other. 
 
 " Let Aerius find the favor to have his sentence so construed : 
 yet his fault in condemning the order of the Church, his not 
 submitting himself unto that order, the schism which he caused 
 in the Church about it, who can excuse? 
 
 " His conclusion was that there ought to be no difference 
 between a Presbyter and a Bishop. And of the selfsame mind 
 are the enemies of government by Bishops even at this present 
 day. They hold as Aerieus did * * that between a Presbyter 
 and a Bishop the word of God alloweth not any inequality or 
 difference to be made, etc., etc. Which opinion having now so 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 323 
 
 many defenders shall never be able, while the world doth stand, 
 to find in so many of believing antiquity as much as one which 
 hath given it countenance." — (Vol. ii., p. 380.) 
 
 In this same book (at page 402) occurs the passage 
 
 quoted by Mr.Goode, and which we consider different 
 
 in its general doctrine from all that precedes it ; 
 
 whether it be really from the pen of Hooker or not 
 
 it is impossible to say. But yet, after all, it is no 
 
 more than the old plea of necessity. 
 
 "Where the Church must needs have some ordained, and 
 neither hath nor tossibly can have a Bishop to ordain ; in case 
 of such necessity the ordinary institution of God hath given 
 oftentimes, and may give place. And therefore we are not 
 simply or without exception to urge a lineal descent of power 
 from the Apostles by continued Succession of Bjshops in every 
 effectual ordination. These cases of inevitable necessity ex- 
 cepted, none may ordain but only Bishops. By the imposition 
 of their hands it is that the Church giveth power of Order 
 both unto Presbyters and Deacons." 
 
 This is all we claim, and requires of us no more 
 than we are perfectly willing to admit. 
 
 Bishop Thomas Bilson. — Born a. d. 1547, the 
 first year of the Church's freedom. In 1592, while 
 Warden of Winchester College, he wrote the work 
 from which we are about to gather testimony. In 
 1596 he was consecrated to the See of Worcester. 
 Some idea of the -scholarship and eminence of this 
 prelate may be formed from the fact that with Bishop 
 Smith of Gloucester he was appointed to give the 
 final revision to our authorized version of the Bible. 
 He was a prolific author, and some of his works are 
 reprinted still. Although so prominent a divine, he 
 has not been quoted by Mr. Goode ; indeed, the only 
 notice taken of him is in the note on page 44, to 
 which reference has already been made. 
 
 " The only authorities quoted by the Bishop of Exeter as 
 
324 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 holding the doctrine of exclusive validity in the reign of Eliza- 
 beth, are Hooker and Bishop Bilson. The true testimony of 
 Hooker is given above, and it can be shown from Bilson that 
 this particular question was not before his mind at all. He says 
 that Bishops only can ordain in the Church of England/' 
 
 So then Bishop Bilson wrote nothing whatever 
 upon Episcopacy or Apostolical Succession. He 
 discoursed solely of the peculiar privileges of the 
 Order of Bishops [as by State law established] in 
 the English Church! Did the Eeverend gentleman 
 ever see Bilson's book ? Can it be possible that 
 he ventures to write so positively of a work that 
 he has never examined ? or that knowing its charac- 
 ter he has so far forgotten himself as to misrepresent 
 it ? But how could he venture on such a course ? 
 Did he trust to the rarity of the book, or to the hope 
 that all his readers would prove to be " exceedingly 
 ill-informed individuals ;" or did he suppose it safe 
 to make such a statement in an Essay designed for 
 mere American readers ? The very title of the work 
 bears testimony against the statement.* It is " The 
 Perpetual Government of Cheist's Church !" and the 
 first sentence of the Editor's preface reads thus: 
 " The work which is now reprinted is a Defence of 
 Episcopacy!!" 
 
 But let us hear what the Bishop has to say upon 
 " this particular question " which Mr. Goode declares 
 " was not before his mind at all 
 
 * " The Perpetual Government of Christ's Church ; wherein are handled 
 the fatherly superiority which God first established in the Patriarchs for 
 the guiding of His Church, and after confirmed in the Xew Testament to 
 the Apostles and their Successors. As also the points in question at 
 this day touching * * * * the distinction of Bishops from Presbyters, and 
 their succession from the Apostles times and hands, etc., etc." — {London, 
 Fol. 1593.) 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 325 
 
 " Though the Presbyters of each Church had charge of the 
 word and Sacraments even in the Apostles' times, yet might 
 they not impose hands nor use the keys without the Apostles, 
 or such as the Apostles, departing or dying, left to be their 
 substitutes and Successors in the Churches which they had 
 planted."— (Page 13.) 
 
 " Herein who succeeded the Apostles, whether all Presbyters 
 equally or certain chief and chosen men, one in every Church 
 and city trusted with the government both of people and of 
 Presbyters. I have largely debated and made it plain, as well 
 by the Scriptures as by other ancient writers, past all exception, 
 that from the Apostles to the first Nicene Council, and so along 
 to this our age, there have always been selected some of greater 
 gifts than the residue to succeed in the Apostles' places, to whom 
 it belonged both to moderate the Presbyters of each Church 
 and to take the special charge of imposition of hands ; and this 
 their singularity in succeeding, and superiority in ordaining, 
 have been observed from the Apostles' times as the peculiar and 
 substantial marks of Episcopal power and calling." — (Ibid.) 
 
 On our author's theory of parity he has also some- 
 thing to say : 
 
 " I know some late writers vehemently spurn at this [supe- 
 riority], and hardly endure any difference betwixt Bishops and 
 Presbyters, unless it be by custom and consent of men * * * 
 whose opinions, together with the authorities on which they 
 build, I have according to my small skill examined, and find 
 them no ivay able to rebate the full and sound evidence that is for 
 the contrary." — (Pages 13, 14.) 
 
 But further to the same purpose, or as regards the 
 persons to whom the right of Ordination belongs, he 
 writes thus : 
 
 " The things proper to Bishops, which might not be common to 
 Presbyters, were singularity in succeeding and superiority in 
 ordaining. These two the Scriptures and Fathers reserve only 
 to Bishops ; they never communicate them unto Presbyters. In 
 every Church and city there might be many Presbyters ; there 
 could be but one chief to govern the rest: the Presbyters for 
 need might impose hands on penitents and infants [as in Con- 
 firmation or ordinary blessing[; but by no means might they 
 ordain Bishops or ministers of the word and Sacraments." 
 
 This is surely an odd way of saying that "Bishops 
 only can ordain in the Church of England I" 
 28 
 
326 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 So much upon one of our topics. We offer now 
 a word or two upon the other. 
 
 M They can have xo part of the Apostolical commission that 
 have no show of Apostolical Succession." " If they be called 
 by Christ, read their assignation from Christ; if they be not, 
 surcease that presumption I" 
 
 Quotations to the same effect might easily be mul- 
 tiplied ; but these are amply sufficient, and we must 
 hasten on. 
 
 Archbishop Bancroft. — Born 1544, died 1610. 
 
 Our author's reference to this Prelate is as follows : 
 
 " Of Archbishop Bancroft's opinion we may form some judg- 
 ment from the countenance he gave to the work of his chaplain, 
 Rogers, on the XXXIX. Articles, already quoted. But indi- 
 rectly we have a still more express testimony of his judgment 
 on the subject, as well as of several of his brother Bishops, in 
 the following passage in Archbishop Spotiswood's History of 
 Scotland/' — (Goode on Orders, p. 54.) 
 
 We quote this simply to protest against it. "We 
 ask the reader to decide whether it is by such indi- 
 rect methods we are to form our ideas of a man who, 
 for at least twenty years, was among the most promi- 
 nent divines of his day, and who, during several of 
 those years, was in the chief place of authority in 
 the Church ; first while Bishop of London, and then 
 as Archbishop of Canterbury. Did he write nothing 
 for the public? Did he make no mark — did he 
 leave no definite character ? Is history wholly silent 
 about him that we are thus referred to the opinion 
 of one of his chaplains, and to a story in Spotiswood ? 
 
 If a Primate were a man of so little force or indi- 
 viduality that " an opinion of his judgment," upon 
 a matter constantly pressed upon his attention, could 
 only be formed from the fact of his favoring a book 
 written by one of his Clergy, we should not care to 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 327 
 
 give him much of our attention ; but of all the men 
 who have filled the See of Canterbury, Bancroft is 
 probably the last that ought to be so regarded. The 
 Puritan has borne his testimony to this too often and 
 too emphatically to have it all ignored. Church his- 
 torians have described the man and the part he played, 
 but Mr. Groode, disliking what they set forth, prefers 
 inventing a new character for him, and establishing it 
 by inference ! 
 
 Fuller says the enemies of Bancroft charged him 
 with cruelty ; " He was most stern and stiff to press 
 conformity." Neale (the Puritan advocate) says, he 
 was "a divine of rough temper, a perfect creature 
 of the prerogative, and a declared enemy of the civil 
 and religious liberties of the country !" while, in 
 opposition to this, Lawson says, "He was a rigid 
 defender of the Church, a vigilant governor and 
 disciplinarian, learned in controversial theology, an 
 admirable preacher, and a distinguished statesman." — 
 {Life of Laud, Vol. i., page 137.) And Lord Clarendon 
 
 " He understood the Church excellently, and had almost res- 
 cued it from the hands of the Calvinian party, and very much « 
 subdued the unruly spirit of the nonconformists by and after 
 the Conference at Hampton Court. He countenanced men 
 of the greatest parts in learning, and disposod the Clergy to a 
 more solid course of study than they had been accustomed to, 
 and if he had lived would quickly have extinguished all that fire 
 which had been kindled at Geneva!" 
 
 These representations of Bancroft's character and 
 opinions are certainly not in harmony with the in- 
 ference Mr. Groode would like us to draw from his 
 licensing the work of Thomas Rogers. 
 
 During the latter half of Elizabeth's reign the op- 
 
328 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 position to the Apostolical constitution of the Church 
 gained strength. What was at first a protest against 
 the lordly state or civil power of Prelates, or a decla- 
 ration that there was no Scriptural warrant for the 
 office of J.rc/*bishop had come to be a direct assault 
 upon the whole Episcopal Order. At first, as in 
 Cartwright's works, this took the shape of the very 
 argument that Mr. Groode uses, viz., that between 
 Bishops and Priests there is no essential difference, 
 their Order being one and the same. From this the 
 Precisians went on, until Martin Mar-Prelate ad- 
 dressed the chief Pastors of the Church as " Horned 
 masters of the Convocation House — the Conspiration 
 House!" "Enemies of the Gospel; most covetous, 
 wretched, and Popish Priests;" "cursed children of 
 Babylon;" "the Devil's deputies;" a "crew of mon- 
 strous and ungodly wretches!"* — (Strype's Whitgift, 
 pp. 288, 292.) 
 
 Against these, beside the great work of Whitgift, 
 there were several others published, from time to time, 
 calmly and dispassionately setting forth the truth. 
 Two such tracts were published in 1586-7. These 
 milder correctives, however, did not suit men whose 
 minds were made up to extreme measures. Their 
 motto was, "No step backward !" and so they laughed 
 at the gentle remonstrance and fair reasoning of 
 Bishop Cooper and Dr. Bridges.f 
 
 • The chief writer of the Martin libels was Penry, " a hot-headed Welsh 
 fanatic," disclaimed by the moderate Puritans, but represented as a 
 saintly person by modern eulogists of that party. — (See Stoughton's Pu- 
 ritan Heroes.) 
 
 f Cooper's Admonition was replied to in a work called " Have you any 
 work for a Cooper ?" He himself was reviled as an " impudent, wainscot- 
 faced Bishop !" 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 329 
 
 They were met then by a man of sterner mould. 
 On the 12th of January, according to Strype (or the 
 9th of February, according to Lathbury's copy of the 
 original work), Dr. Bancroft, then chaplain to Whit- 
 gift, preached at Paul's Cross, before the Parliament, 
 a memorable sermon, which is described as "a furious 
 invective against the Puritans."* Strype's account 
 of it is, that 
 
 " He was charged to maintain that the Bishops of England 
 had superiority over their inferior brethren, jure divino, and 
 directly from God. For the preaching of this sermon I am apt 
 to believe he had the instructions of the Archbishop to meet 
 with these loud clamors that were now-a-days made against the 
 sacred calling of the English Bishops." 
 
 "We have elsewhere spoken of Knollys's crafty 
 attempt to show that this doctrine of divine-right 
 Episcopacy impugned the royal authority. He 
 quoted Bancroft as " avouching it [the Episcopal 
 Order] to be of God's own ordinance, though not 
 by express words, yet by necessary consequence;" 
 and further, "that he affirmed their opinion to be 
 heresy who impugned that superiority." If the 
 
 * This sermon was reprinted in Hicks's Bibliotheca Scriptorum Eccles. 
 Anglic. We have not been able to find a copy. 
 
 That in this sermon Bancroft took precisely the same ground that all 
 other Episcopalians take is very evident from many portions of it that are 
 quoted in other works. He makes the same confident appeal to " Holy 
 Scripture and ancient authors" that the Church itself makes in the Preface 
 to the Ordinal, and rejects as untrue whatever is not supported by them. 
 For instance, he condemns the peculiarities of Popery because, "as they 
 are not found in the Scriptures, so are they repugnant, as well to the 
 Fathers as to all the aforesaid general councils." On the same principles 
 the peculiarities of Puritanism must be rejected. Unless the advocates 
 of parity can find some better warrant from Christian antiquity than they 
 have ever as yet been able to produce, they are condemned by those who, 
 in addition to Holy Scripture, refer to the Fathers and the first four gen- 
 eral Councils. — (See note in Lathbury's History of Convocation, p. 235.) 
 28* 
 
830 OPINION'S OF DIVINES. 
 
 preacher bad held the doctrine of parity, as Mr. 
 Goode insinuates, or if he did not believe the Order 
 of Bishops necessary in the Church, he would surely 
 have repudiated the meaning placed upon his words, 
 but, instead of doing so, he printed his sermon, and 
 when it was attacked he defended it, and from his 
 "Answer" we take these words: 
 
 "They may well hold in some superiority, both jure divino 
 and jure hvmano. Partly for that in some things, as in supe- 
 riority of ordaining and consecrating ministers, and excommuni- 
 cating, jus humanum, and her Majesty's supremacy do approve, 
 maintain, and corroborate, /m-5 divinum. To which purpose jus 
 Jiumanum doth subservire jure divino, without any abasement 
 at all thereunto."— (Strype's Whitgift, fol., p. 293.) 
 
 Thus, then, in the very first act of his life which 
 made him an historical personage, Bancroft took de- 
 cided ground against the doctrine of parity, and any 
 or all of the notions springing from it. 
 
 In 1593, he published a work, entitled "Dangerous 
 Positions and Proceedings," and in the year following 
 his " Survey of the Pretended Holy Discipline," in 
 both of which the same views were maintained as in 
 his sermon, and the opposers of the peace and order 
 of the Church were ably exposed. Archbishop Whit- 
 gift says both works " were liked and greatly com- 
 mended by the learnedest men in the realm." 
 
 In 1603, he was one of the principal parties at the 
 Hampton Court Conference, and it was under his 
 auspices that the Canons of 1604 were passed. 
 These we have already considered. His first act 
 as Archbishop was to enforce conformity. Calder- 
 wood, the Presbyterian (to substantiate the charge of 
 cruelty), says three hundred ministers were at that 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 331 
 
 time deprived ; but Collier proves from the Eecords 
 that there were only forty-nine.* 
 
 The Archbishop also united zealously in the plan 
 of King James for bringing the Church of Scotland 
 into conformity with that of England. 
 
 With such a history as this to point to, we might 
 pass in silence the unworthy attempt of our author to 
 give to this very decided High Churchman an ultra 
 Low Church character. But we are not willing to 
 leave Mr. Goode a single point of ground to stand on. 
 
 First, then, we take up his quotation from Spotis- 
 
 wood. When, in 1610, a regular Episcopate was about 
 
 to be conferred upon the Church of Scotland, by the 
 
 consecration of three Scottish clergymen (of whom 
 
 Spotiswood himself was one) as Bishops of that 
 
 Church, by the Bishops of London, Ely, and Bath, 
 
 at the chapel of London House : 
 
 "A question in the mean time was moved by Dr. Andrews, 
 Bishop of Ely, touching the consecration of the Scottish Bishops, 
 who, as he said, ' must first be ordained Presbyters as having 
 received no ordination from a Bishop/ The Archbishop of Can- 
 terbury, Dr. Bancroft, who was by, maintained 'that thereof 
 there was no necessity, seeing, where Bishops could not be had, 
 the ordination given by the Presbyters must be esteemed lawful ; 
 otherwise, that it might be doubted if there were any lawful 
 vocation in most of the Reformed Churches/ This applauded 
 to by the other Bishops, Ely acquiesced ; and at the day and in 
 the place appointed the three Scottish Bishops were conse- 
 crated/ 7 — [Goode on Orders, pp. 55, 56.) 
 
 Let this be considered just as it is, and it amounts 
 
 * Fuller tells a story which throws considerable light upon the char- 
 acter of the man of whose " cruelty and covetousness " so much has been 
 said. A minister who would not conform went to him and stated that 
 his conscience would not allow him, but if turned out of his living he 
 must beg or starve. The cruel and covetous Prelate at once said he 
 must be deprived, if he would not obey the laws, but he need neither beg 
 nor starve, for he would maintain him himself! 
 
332 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 to neither more nor less than an acknowledgment 
 that necessity abrogates law. If, where Bishops 
 could not be had, Presbyters should in good faith 
 proceed to guard against the perishing of the Church 
 by ordaining others to their own office, many of the 
 most zealous High Churchmen, even though disap- 
 proving of their course, would not re-ordain the 
 parties ; and so refusal to re-ordain would not at all 
 involve the opinion that the previous act had been 
 lawful and right. But there is another side to this 
 story, as Mr. Goode might well know, seeing that it 
 has been set forth by Collier, Heylin, and others, with 
 whose writings he is familiar. JSx gra. 
 
 " When on this occasion a difficulty was started by the Bishop 
 of Ely, who was of opinion that the titular Bishops should first 
 be ordained deacons and priests, his objection was overruled by 
 Bancroft, who maintained that the Episcopal Authority might 
 be conveyed at once!" — [Lives of Eminent Englishmen, Vol. iii., 
 page 81.) 
 
 The principle of this decision, then, really was 
 the old saying "Presbyter in JEpiscopo continetur" and 
 therefore the Bishop might be ordained per saltern; 
 and the case of Ambrose, and others, was sufficient 
 precedent. This, we think, disposes completely of 
 that matter. For the consideration of the other we 
 must pass on to our next authority, 
 
 Thomas Eogers. — In 1579 this theologian pub- 
 lished "The English Creed," which was the first form 
 of the work issued seven years later as an Exposition 
 of the XXXIX. Articles. This Mr. Goode refers to 
 as an " authentic interpretation ;" but it is not so, as 
 it never received the Church's sanction. He falls into 
 a much more serious error, however, in describing it 
 as so favorable to Non-Episcopalians that Bancroft's 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 333 
 
 patronage of it was enough to prove that he did not 
 consider Episcopal ordination necessary ! 
 
 We have already seen the policy pursued by the 
 Church of England toward the Foreign Eeformed 
 Churches. English divines commended and quoted 
 those of the Continent whenever they could, and kept 
 a charitable silence about their defective polity, ex- 
 cusing them on the ground of necessity. On this 
 principle, Eogers, all through his work, refers to those 
 Continental Churches, and shows their agreement with 
 the English, where they do agree. But very different 
 is the course pursued toward those who were separa- 
 tists and who had no necessity to plead. If he ap- 
 proved of, or would tolerate, Presbyterian ordination, 
 considered on its own merits, he had ample opportu- 
 tunity ; for he wrote at the very time when the battle 
 on account of it was raging most fiercely. What 
 then does he say of those who were the advocates 
 of " parity" or " presbytery" — those called "Puri- 
 tans?" He speaks of the " insolency and boldness 
 of our home faction," who would do no "ecclesiastical 
 duty according to the law ; but after their own de- 
 visings." He describes them as "headstrong in bold- 
 ness and schism." Their "denominational churches" 
 he ■ calls " secret conventicles and unlawful assem- 
 blies." And those that were deprived for noncon- 
 formity he styles " factious spirits and malcontented 
 ministers and preachers " whose " erroneous and 
 schismatical opinions had been brought to light." 
 He says of the parity that they strove "to erect a 
 new (which they term a true) ministry and their dis- 
 cipline among us;" and this he styles "the uncouth 
 
834 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 doctrine of the factious brethren." He describes them 
 as Baying 
 
 M A true ministry they shall never have till Archbishops and 
 Bishops be put down and all ministers be made equal * * * 
 The presbytery is the Church, and every congregation or church 
 should and must have in it a presbytery/' 
 
 This he characterizes as "the light which indeed 
 the martyrs never saw!" He rejoices that under 
 Elizabeth their doctrines and proceedings were de- 
 nounced as " schismatical and seditious." * And he 
 then goes on to speak of an army of valorous cham- 
 pions and challengers ; 
 
 " Among whom, as your grace was the first in time which 
 gave the onset, so are you to be reckoned with the first and 
 best for zeal, wisdom, and learning." These, he says, "de- 
 fended the Prelacy, stood for the prince and state, profligated 
 the Elders, set upon the Presbytery, and so battered the new dis- 
 cipline as hitherto they could never, nor hereafter shall ever 
 fortify and repair the decays thereof." 
 
 Such is Thomas Rogers's approval of " Non-Epis- 
 copal Churches ;" and this is his description of the 
 views and acts of Archbishop Bancroft ! 
 
 This, then, is the man to whom our author so con- 
 fidently refers as holding his opinions, and whose 
 having been favored by Bancroft is sufficient to 
 prove that the latter was not a believer in the divine 
 right of Episcopacy, or in Apostolical Succession! 
 We take it for granted the reader will not very 
 readily acknowledge that either the Primate or the 
 Chaplain repudiated the distinctive principles of the 
 Episcopal Church. 
 
 * These descriptions, and many more of the same kind, are in the 
 Preface to the Edition of 1607, reprinted in Parker Society Library. — 
 (Pages 10, 11, etc.) 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 335 
 
 But let us turn to Rogers' remarks upon the Arti- 
 cles themselves. From the 23rd he deduces six 
 propositions; which Mr. Goode reprints (on page 14), 
 and follows up by the statement that Rogers says of 
 each ; in turn, — it is confessed to by the other Re- 
 formed Churches. This is truth, but not the whole 
 truth. It is brought forward to show that the Church 
 of England holds no opinion upon the subjects we are dis- 
 cussing, different from those professed by Non- Episcopal 
 Churches, or, at least, that Rogers could discover no 
 difference. Let us examine his own work, then. 
 
 The first of his six propositions is " that none may 
 preach publicly but such as thereunto are authorized." 
 With reference to it Mr. Goode quotes the remark, 
 "All this is acknowledged by the Reformed Churches." 
 But Rogers has a little more to say upon the matter. 
 Among the " adversaries to this truth " he names 
 those 
 
 " Who publish how the Word is not taught by the sermons 
 of ministers, but only by the revelation of the Spirit ; so did 
 Muncer, the Anabaptist, and so doth H. N. and his Family of 
 Love." [Those] "who run afore they be sent ; as do many, both 
 Anabaptists and Puritans ; as Penry, Greenwood, Barrow, etc. ; 
 or which hold that they which are able to teach and instruct 
 the people, may and must so do," etc., etc. 
 
 The second proposition is that sacraments may 
 not be administered by any but a lawful minister, 
 and under the head of "errors and adversaries to 
 this truth," he classes the opinions and practices of 
 "the Anabaptists," "the Presbyterians at Geneva," 
 and " the disciplinarians or Puritans." 
 
 The fifth proposition is that they are lawful min- 
 isters who are ordained by men lawfully appointed 
 for that purpose. Under this head he shows that 
 
836 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 appointment to the service of God in the ministry 
 may be (1) special and extraordinary as that of 
 prophets and Apostles and (2) ordinary. With ref- 
 erence to the latter he thus teaches the " theory of 
 Succession." 
 
 " Some * * * are by man sent ; so, in the primitive Church, 
 by the Apostles were pastors and Elders ordained, who, by the 
 same authority, ordained other pastors and teachers, whence it 
 is that the Church as it hath been, so it shall till the end of the 
 world be provided for. * * * The calling of these men is 
 termed a general calling, and it is the ordinary, and in these 
 days, the lawful calling, allowed by the word of God. Con- 
 trasted with these are some who are sent of men not authorized 
 thereunto by the word of God, and that to the disturbance of the 
 power of the Church; such in the Apostles' time were the false 
 Apostles, in our days be the Anabaptists, Family elders, and 
 law-despising Brownists" [or Congregationalists]. 
 
 These few sentences give the reader a somewhat 
 better idea of Eogers's "authentic interpretation of 
 this Article" than he would be likely to gather from 
 Mr. Goode's work. 
 
 But let us turn to his comment on the still more 
 
 important 36th article, and there we shall find matter 
 
 which of course our author did not see, or he would 
 
 not have classed Thomas Eogers among those who 
 
 regard Bishops and Presbyters as all one. From 
 
 that article he deduces two propositions, of which 
 
 the first reads thus : 
 
 " It is agreeable to the word of God, and practice of the prim- 
 itive Church, that there should be Archbishops, Bishops, and 
 such like differences and inequalities of ecclesiastical ministers/' 
 
 The defence of this is so pertinent and valuable 
 
 that we are sorry to omit a single word. 
 
 " The proof from God's word." " Albeit the terms and titles 
 of Archbishop we find not, yet the superiority which they 
 enjoy, and authority which the Bishops and Archbishops do 
 exercise in ordering and consecrating of Bishops and ecclesi- 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 337 
 
 astical ministers, is grounded upon the word of God; for we 
 find that in the Apostles' days how themselves both were in 
 dignity above the evangelists and the seventy disciples, and for 
 authority both in and over the Church as twelve patriarchs, 
 saith Beza, and also established an ecclesiastical hierarchy. 
 Hence came that Bishop was of Jerusalem, James ; of Antioch, 
 Peter ; of the Asian Churches, John ; of Alexandria, Mark ; 
 of Ephesus, yea of all Asia [Minor], Timothy; of all Crete, 
 Titus," etc., etc. 
 
 " In the purer times succeeding the Apostles, so approved 
 was the administration of the Church affairs by these kind of 
 men as [that] they ordained Patriarchs, and Chor-Episcopi. 
 They ratified the decrees of Ecclesiastical supremacy at the first 
 and most eminent Council at Nice." 
 
 " They gloried much and greatly that they bad received the 
 Apostles' doctrine by a succession of Bishops, that they were the 
 successors, in the Apostles 7 doctrine, of the godly Bishops, and 
 that Bishops succeeded in the room of the Apostles." * 
 
 " Their goodly monuments and worthy labors and books yet 
 extant do shew that Bishop was of Lyons, Irenaeus ; of Antioch, 
 Ignatius ; of Carthage, Cyprian ; of Hierusalem, Cyril ; of Alex- 
 andria, Athanasius,"" etc., etc. 
 
 "Finally, from the Apostles' days hitherto, there never 
 wanted a Succession of Bishops, neither in the East or Western 
 Churches, albeit there have been from time both Mar-Prelates 
 and Mock-Prelates, and Ill-Prelates abusing their function and . 
 places to the discredit of their calling and profession. So prov- 
 ident hath the Almighty been for the augmentation of his glory 
 and people by this kind and calling of men" 
 
 Among the " errors and adversaries unto this 
 
 truth" he names 
 
 ..." The Anabaptists, who condemn all superiority among men," 
 also four classes of "old heretics," viz. : (1) "the Contobap- 
 tites, who allowed of no Bishops ; (2) the Acephalians, who 
 would not * * yield obedience unto Bishops ; (3) the Aerians, 
 that equalled Bishops and Priests, making them all one ; (4) the 
 Apostolics, which condemned prelacy." And in addition to 
 these "the late schismatics, namely : (1) the Jesuits, who cannot 
 brook Episcopal pre-eminence, and in their high court of reform- 
 ation have made a law for the utter abrogation of all Episcopal 
 
 * Rogers's note upon this is an extract, from Augustine's comment on 
 44th Psalm. "Patres missi sunt Apostoli, pro Apostolis filii nati sunt 
 tibi constituti sunt Episcopi hodie enim Episcopi, qui per totum mundum 
 unde nati sunt? Ipsa ecclesia patres illos apellate ipsa illos genuit, et 
 ipsa illos constituit in sedibus patrum." 
 
 29 
 
33S OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 jurisdiction ; (2) The Disciplinarians or Puritans among our- 
 selves ; for they abhor, and altogether do loathe the callings of 
 Archbishops, Bishops, etc. * * * and say that by the prelatical 
 discipline the liberty of the Church is taken away, and that 
 instead of Archbishops and Bishops an equality must be made 
 of ministers." 
 
 Respecting the second proposition from the same 
 article, he says 
 
 " That Archbishops, Bishops, and ministers consecrated ac- 
 cording to the ordinal, are rightly, orderly and lawfully ordained 
 or consecrated; because afore their consecration and ordination, 
 they be rightly tried or examined. By imposition of hands 
 [and] needful and seasonable prayers, they be consecrated and 
 ordained, and all this is performed by those persons, that is by 
 Bishops to whom the ordination and consecration of Bishops 
 and ministers was always principally committed" 
 
 Among the adversaries unto this truth he counts 
 " The Family of Love, the Papists, and the Puritans." 
 
 Dr. Eichaed Cosin — This is the last divine of 
 Elizabeth's reign to whom our author refers as favor- 
 ing his theory of "parity," but he has not brought 
 forward a word of his to that effect. Cosin (on Mr. 
 Goode's own showing — we have not been able to pro- 
 cure his work) was not writing about Church Gov- 
 ernment as we understand it. He was simply op- 
 posing the notion that any one set form of " external 
 policy of discipline and ceremonies is set down in 
 Scriptures ;" and everything he says upon that topic 
 is quite correct, but it has no bearing, whatever, upon 
 our present subject. 
 
 Having with Cosin completed his catena of Divines 
 
 in the Elizabethan period, Mr. Goode writes as follows : 
 
 " Such are the statements of some of the best authorities for 
 the doctrine of our Church in the time of Queen Elizabeth, in 
 whose reign our Articles and Formularies were settled (with 
 slight exceptions) in their present form. And we now challenge 
 the Archbishop' s assailants to produce their authorities for the 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 339 
 
 same period. Can they bring even one for their doctrine? We 
 do not believe it." 
 
 We have accepted the challenge. The reader has 
 now before him abundant material from which to 
 judge (1) whether Mr. Goode's own authorities held 
 the opinions he attributes to them, and (2) whether, 
 beside those whom he has quoted, there were not 
 several others of equal eminence whose voice was 
 too unmistakably against him to allow of their being 
 summoned as witnesses. We would be perfectly 
 willing to leave the whole question here, to add not 
 even one other opinion, if our author had done so ; 
 but as he has gone forward, we must follow. 
 
 Supposing that by his carefully prepared series of 
 extracts he had already gained a verdict, he says : 
 
 " That there was a declension from that doctrine afterwards, 
 in many of our divines, is freely confessed. But that proves 
 nothing. It can neither alter nor add to the doctrine of our 
 Church as laid down in her Formularies/' 
 
 The fact, then, is " freely confessed," that since this 
 period the common testimony of our English divines 
 has been wholly opposed to Mr. Goode's theory. The 
 Eeverend gentleman, while making this acknowledg- 
 ment, tries to destroy its value, by representing the 
 decided opinions of modern divines as different from 
 those of their predecessors. He says there was " a 
 declension " from the doctrine of earlier times. This 
 we deny. The reader will find no difference what- 
 ever, except in this respect, that the injuries done to 
 the peace of the Church by her Puritan disturbers, 
 prior to their gaining the upper hand, and the unmit- 
 igated severity with which she was persecuted by 
 them as soon as they obtained the power, removed 
 from many persons that lingering regard for them, 
 
340 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 that hope of conciliating them, which had been enter- 
 tained before. And therefore the doctrines always 
 held and avowed in the Church were set forth with 
 less reserve or regard for their feelings. The princi- 
 ples were precisely the same, but the mode of presenting 
 them was a little more positive or forcible. This is the 
 only change in that direction that the reader will 
 discover. 
 
 Mr. Goode, and of course his followers, represent 
 the change they speak of as the work of Land, and a 
 party that grew up under his influence. It will be 
 remembered that our author says of those "Laudeans," 
 it is certain that they "did personally entertain those 
 exclusive views" against which he argues. We be- 
 lieve they did, though not such views as he attributes 
 to them. Yet we assert most positively that those very 
 persons wrote more liberally upon the topics we are dis- 
 cussing than many professed "Low Churchmen" They 
 wrote quite as charitably as any of those to whom 
 the Eeverend gentleman points as proper exponents 
 of Church doctrine. So much so, indeed, that we 
 believe the the extreme High Church partisan of the 
 present day would be very unwilling to adopt all their 
 sentiments. But to proceed. 
 
 Bishop Launcelot Andeews. — Inasmuch as this 
 truly great and learned man was the model upon 
 w f hich, so far as he followed any, Laud formed his 
 style and policy, he might be classed among those 
 called "Laudean" divines, as belonging to the same 
 school He was an able maintainer of Episcopacy by 
 divine right, and is so acknowledged by Mr. Goode.* 
 
 * We trust that in giving him credit for making this acknowledgment 
 of a thing which is beyond all denial, we do the Reverend gentleman no 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 341 
 
 His very strong language upon the grace of ordi- 
 nation and the power of the keys, would certainly 
 not be sanctioned by our author. It belongs deci- 
 dedly to the school which that gentleman relishes 
 least ; it involves principles utterly subversive of the 
 theory we are opposing. 
 
 " None is either the holier or the learneder by his ordination. 
 Yet a grace it is ; for the very office itself is a grace, mihi data 
 est htiec gratia, saith the Apostle in more places than one, and 
 speaks of his office and nothing else. The Apostleship was a 
 grace, yet no saving grace. Else should Judas have been saved. 
 Clearly, then, it is the grace of their calling whereby they were 
 sacred and made persons public, and their acts authentical, and 
 they enabled to do somewhat about the remission of sins that 
 is not [of like avail] done by others, in that they have not the 
 like ' mitto vos,' nor the same ' accipite,' that these have." — 
 (Sermons on Whit- Sunday.) 
 
 The doctrine of this passage is more fully carried 
 out in his sermon on Absolution, wherein he shows 
 that the power of forgiving sins is originally in God, 
 and in God alone — in Christ, of course, as God ; that 
 the Lord Jesus did out of his commission grant a 
 commission, and thereby associate others with him- 
 self to make them fellow-workers with and under 
 him. 
 
 " From God, then, it [remission] is derived ; from God and 
 to man. Now, if we ask to what men ? the text is plain. They 
 to whom Christ said this remiseritis were the Apostles." 
 
 He then goes on to show that the power was not 
 given to the Apostles personally, and comes to this 
 conclusion : 
 
 wrong. It is true that he does not make it very candidly. He says (pre- 
 suming that previous writers had taken his own side), "Bishop Andrews 
 might, 2 )e) 'h n p8, have felt a difficulty with respect to much that our earlier 
 divines had written upon the subject." This, however, is quite an ac- 
 knowledgment for Mr. Goode. But, besides it, he quotes Andrews' own 
 statement, that our government is of divine right. 
 29* 
 
3-±2 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 " It being then neither personal nor peculiar to them as Apos- 
 tles, nor again common to all Christians, it must needs be com- 
 mitted to them as Ministers, Priests, or preachers ; and conse- 
 quently to those that in that office and function do succeed them, 
 to -whom this commission is still continued. Neither are they 
 that are instituted to that calling ordained or instituted by any 
 other words or verse than this. (John xx. 23.) "Yet not so 
 that absolutely without them God cannot bestow it on whom or 
 when He pleaseth ; or that He is bound to this means only, and 
 cannot work without it." **-..» 
 
 "And if at any time He vouchsafe by others that are not such 
 [ecclesiastical persons], they be in that case Ministri necessitatis 
 non officii, in case o/*necessity Ministers, but by office not so." — 
 (Appendix, p. 90.*) 
 
 This is sufficiently clear and positive; yet mark 
 how reasonably and charitably the same Prelate could 
 speak of those who are not of us : 
 
 " Though our government be by divine right, it follows not 
 either that there is ' no salvation/ or that ' a Church cannot 
 stand without it/ He must needs be stone blind that sees not 
 Churches standing without it ; he must needs be made of iron, 
 and hard-hearted, that denies them salvation. We are not made 
 of that metal ; we are none of those ironsides ; we put a wide 
 difference betwixt them. Somewhat may be wanting that is of 
 divine right (at least in the external government), and yet sal- 
 vation may be had This is not to damn anything, 
 
 to prefer a better thing before it; this is not to damn your 
 Church, to recall it to another form, that all antiquity was better 
 pleased with, that is, to ours ; and this when God shall grant 
 the opportunity, and your estate may bear it." — [Second Letter 
 to Du Moulin. See Wordsw. Christ. Instit., Vol. iii., p. 239.) 
 
 No man having the least claim to be called an 
 Episcopalian ever wrote more tenderly and judi- 
 ciously than he has done here, and still the reader 
 will observe that he has not a word of approval for 
 Presbyterian ordination "in the abstract;" he ex- 
 cuses the Foreign Churches purely on the ground 
 
 of NECESSITY. 
 
 * Quoted in Tracts for the Times, Amer. ed., Vol. i., pp. 133, 135. 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 343 
 
 Lord Bacon. — This great man is one of those 
 whom Mr. Goode quotes as favoring his doctrine. 
 His first extract reads thus : 
 
 " Some indiscreet persons have been bold in open preaching 
 to use dishonorable and derogatory speech and censure of the 
 Churches abroad ; and that so far as some of our men, as I have 
 heard, ordained in foreign parts, have been pronounced to be 
 no lawful ministers// — (Advertisement touch, the Controv. of the 
 Church of Eng.) 
 
 We are by no means disposed to grant that Bacon 
 was a good authority. Neither the nature of his 
 mind nor the course of his studies fitted him for 
 such work as explaining disputed points of ecclesi- 
 astical polity, or accurately stating details of Church 
 arrangement. He would be much more likely to 
 consider what the arrangement ought to be than what 
 it really was, and this tendency is clearly observable 
 in the passage above. He evidently thought it wrong 
 that persons "ordained in foreign parts" should be 
 pronounced "no -lawful ministers;" but he did not 
 say that such a decision was contrary to the law of 
 the Church ; neither did he say that any and every 
 person " ordained in foreign parts " was properly and 
 legally ordained. He referred to the case of those 
 whose ministerial character had been denied, such as 
 Whittingham, etc., for whom special pleas might be 
 advanced. It is remarkable, too, that the " indiscreet 
 persons " whom he condemns were Whitgift, Ban- 
 croft, and others, whose judgment on such matters 
 would outweigh his a thousand-fold. 
 
 On pages 58-9, Mr. Goode quotes Bacon again, to 
 the effect that God had left ecclesiastical government 
 as free as civil. The passage is indeed a strong one, 
 and yet it means no more than this, that " one form 
 
344 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 of discipline" and one uniform arrangement of offi- 
 cers, etc., are not " imposed by necessity of a com- 
 mandment" upon the Church. Lord Bacon says 
 that monarchies and republics are both lawful ; but 
 he does not say that Presbyterianism is as lawful as 
 Episcopacy. His argument is, that whereinsoever 
 rules are laid down they must be observed, and 
 where there are none, freedom must be allowed. 
 
 As to civil government, nothing has been ordered 
 in Scripture respecting its precise form, nothing 
 set forth but " general grounds of justice and man- 
 ners." This, however (our enemies themselves being 
 judges), is not the case with the subject we are dis- 
 cussing. The Bible does teach something about the 
 form of Ecclesiastical government. On that subject 
 Presbyterians and Churchmen are agreed, and they 
 also agree in the belief that that one which has scrip- 
 tural sanction ought to be everywhere followed, as 
 far as possible. But we presume that at this day nei- 
 ther one party nor the other will argue that there must 
 be definite warrant for every point of discipline, and 
 every officer in the Church. That was the doctrine of 
 Cartwright and the Puritans of his time. Bacon says : 
 
 "In Church matters the substance of doctrine is immutable, 
 2lyi<± so are the general rules of government ; but for rites and 
 ceremonies, and for the particular hierarchies, policies, and 
 discipline of Churches, they be left at large."— ( Cert. Consid. 
 touching Pacif. of Church,) 
 
 We have no objection to this statement ; we en- 
 dorse every word of it. But the great philosopher 
 has more to say that interests us. If we are invited 
 by Mr. Groode to " hear the impartial testimony of 
 such a mind as his," we ought to take care that the 
 testimony is impartially given. 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 345 
 
 In the same paragraph from which our author 
 
 takes the extract above, the reader will find the 
 
 following : 
 
 "In these things, so the general rules be observed, that 
 Christ's flock be fed, that there be a Succession in Bishops and 
 Ministers, which are the prophets of the New Testament, 
 that there be a due and reverent power of the keys, that those 
 that preach the gospel live of the gospel, that all things tend 
 to edification, that all things be done in order and with decency, 
 and the like, the rest is left to the holy wisdom and spiritual 
 discretion of the master builders, and inferior builders in 
 Christ's Church, as it is excellently alluded by that Father 
 that noted that Christ's garment was without seam ; and yet 
 the Church's garment was of divers colors, and therefore setteth 
 down for a rule in veste varietas sit, scissura non sit." — (Works, 
 Phil. Ed., Vol. ii., page 422.) 
 
 The modesty and charity of the Puritans are thus 
 described : 
 
 "They have impropriated unto themselves the names of zeal- 
 ous, sincere, and reformed, as if all others were cold minglers 
 of holy things, and profane, and friends of abuses. Yea, be a 
 man endued with great virtues and fruitful in good works, yet 
 if he concur not with them, they term him, in derogation, a civil 
 or moral man, and compare him to Socrates or some heathen 
 philosopher." — (Page 418.) 
 
 " They say the Church of England in King Edward's time, 
 and in the beginning of her majesty's reign, was but in the cra- 
 dle, and the Bishops in those times did somewhat grope for day- 
 break, but that maturity and fulness of light proceedeth from 
 
 THEMSELVES." (Ibid.) 
 
 As to their progressive demands and changing 
 doctrine, he bears this testimony : 
 
 " They first propounded some dislike of certain ceremonies 
 supposed to be superstitious, some complaints of dumb minis- 
 ters who possess rich benefices, and some invectives against the 
 idle and monastical continuance within the universities by those 
 who had livings to be resident upon, and such like abuses. 
 Thence they went on to condemn the government of Bishops as 
 a hierarchy remaining to us of the corruptions of the Roman 
 Church. * * * And lastly they are come to define of an only 
 and perpetual form of policy in the Church, which, without con- 
 
OPINION'S OF DIVINES. 
 
 ition of possibility, and foresight of peril and perpetuation 
 o( Church and State, must be erected and planted by the niag- 
 llere they stay. Others not aide to keep foothold in 
 - steep ground, descend farther." — (Page 417.) 
 
 Archbishop Bramhall of Armagh was one of 
 the most learned and energetic writers of the age of 
 James I. and Charles I. Mr. Goode says, that after 
 Andrews, he "took the highest ground among the 
 eminent divines of that day in favor of Episcopacy." 
 This is a well-known fact ; yet, notwithstanding he 
 confesses it. our author tries to wring from Bramhall 
 some evidence against the Church's doctrine of Epis- 
 copacy and Succession. We give his own quotation; 
 not the whole of it, for we must pay some regard to 
 brevity, but enough to show its purpose fairly: 
 
 " And seeing there is required to the essence of a Church — 
 first, a pastor ; secondly, a flock ; thirdly, a subordination of 
 this flock to this pastor. Where ice are not sure that there is 
 right ordination, what assurance have ice that there is a Church? 
 [But then he immediately adds] I write not this to prejudge our 
 neighbor Churches. I dare not limit the extraordinary operation 
 of God's spirit, where ordinary means are wanting without the 
 default of the persons. He gave his people manna for food 
 whilst they were in the wilderness. Necessity is a strong plea. 
 Many Protestant Churches lived under kings and bishops of 
 another communion ; others had particular reasons why they 
 could not continue or introduce Bishops ; but it is not so with us." 
 
 So then, after all, we have here no more than the 
 
 old plea on which, and on which alone, Churchmen 
 
 have ever granted that there could be any measure 
 
 of allowance for the course pursued by the foreign 
 
 Reformers and their successors. As to the status of 
 
 the Xon-Episcopal bodies on the Continent, he writes 
 
 thus, as quoted by Mr. Goode : 
 
 u 1 cannot a<sent to his minor proposition, that either all or 
 any considerable part of the Episcopal divines in England 
 do unchurch either all or the most part of the Protestant 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 347 
 
 Churches. No man is hurt but by himself. They unchurch 
 none at all, but leave them to stand or fall to their own master/' 
 * # * * " If one secluded out of them all those who want an ordi- 
 nary succession without their own faults, out of invincible igno- 
 rance of necessity ; and all those who desire to have an ordinary 
 succession, either explicitly or implicitly, they will be reduced 
 to a little flock indeed." * * * " This mistake proceedeth from not 
 distinguishing between the true nature and essence of a Church, 
 ivhich we do readily grant them, and the integrity and perfec- 
 tion of a Church, which we cannot grant them without swerv- 
 ing from the judgment of the Catholic Church." — (Quoted in 
 Goode on Orders, p. 53.) 
 
 This surely is as much of an acknowledgment as 
 any true member of the Church of England ever did 
 or could make. But does it involve the surrender 
 of divine right, Episcopacy, or Apostolical Succes- 
 sion ? By no means. On the contrary it takes those 
 doctrines for granted. Is this doubted? Then let 
 us hear the Archbishop again. Speaking of the 
 results that would follow from measures then pro- 
 posed, he says, in his Fair Warning, part ii. : 
 
 " The poor Orthodox Clergy, in the mean time, shall be un- 
 done. Their straw shall be taken from them, and the number 
 of their bricks be doubled : they shall lose the comfortable assu- 
 rance of an UND0U3TED succession by Episcopal ordination, 
 and put it to a dangerous question whether they be within the 
 pale of the Church."— ( Works, Vol. iii., p. 280.) 
 
 Of the nature and consequence of Puritan policy 
 
 he speaks thus : 
 
 •'If it were not for this disciplinarian humor, which will 
 admit no latitude in religion, but makes each nicety a funda- 
 mental, and every private opinion an article of faith * * * I 
 doubt not but all Reformed Churches might easily be recon- 
 ciled."— ( Works, Vol. iii., 243.) 
 
 The reason he assigned for not arguing against 
 those Churches is not that they are complete and 
 Scriptural, that their ministry is valid, and that Suc- 
 cession is of no importance, but simply that their 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 ssity will justify or excuse their defect, and that 
 
 we have no right to interfere with them. 
 
 •* What have I t" do with the regulation of Foreign Churches. 
 rn mine own fingers in snuffing other men's candles? Let 
 
 them stand or fall to their own ma-' 
 
 M If the disciplinarians in Scotland could rest contented 
 
 to dote upon their own inventions, and magnify at home that 
 
 . which themselves have canonized. I should leave them to 
 
 the best schoolmistress, that is experience, to feel where their 
 
 rings them, and to purchase repentance." etc.. etc. 
 
 On the 86th page of our author's book we find an 
 
 extract from the Letters of Orders given by Bram- 
 
 ball, when ordaining a Presbyterian minister. On 
 
 such occasions he used a hypothetical form ; and 
 
 adopted such language as in the following extract, to 
 
 satisfy the feelings of the candidate : 
 
 " Xot annihilating your former Orders, if too have axy. 
 much, less condemning all the sacred Orders of Foreign 
 Churches, whom we leave to the proper Judge, bat only sup- 
 plying whatever (required by the canons of the English Church] 
 
 was before deficient.'* etc.. etc. 
 
 The Reverend gentleman thinks that this is favor- 
 able to his theory. But how so ? If Bra;: 
 posed those held by Presbyterian ministers to have 
 been valid, he could not, without great irregularity^ 
 and offence against conscience re-ordain them. They 
 might have had some idea that their former commis- 
 sion was sufficient, but his estimate of it, and not : 
 is what concerns us;* and what it was is shown by the 
 emphatic parenthesis [si quos habuit), "IF he hath 
 any !" The Archbishop says also, that by ordai 
 the parties he did not " annihilate former Orders.'' 
 True Orders could not be destroyed by any repetition 
 of such serv: 
 
 * Mr. Goode quotes Leightorrs opinion of fa .nation. The opin- 
 
 *.hose who performed the act would have been mure to the purpose. 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 349 
 
 Akchbishop Usher was probably the most deeply 
 and variously learned man of his day. If any one 
 was his equal in this respect it was Andrews, who 
 would be well content to rank next to this other great 
 Primate of Ireland. 
 
 It is well known that, in 1641, Usher proposed his 
 " Eeduction of Episcopacy unto the Form of Synod- 
 ical Government," as a means of preventing further 
 contention about Episcopal authority. From this 
 fact many suppose that he was willing to yield up 
 the distinctive principles of his Church; but this 
 was very far from being the case. His "Eeduction 7 ' 
 consisted in uniting the Presbyters with the Bishops 
 in ordinary Synods for regulating Church matters ; 
 it did not differ essentially from that which now exists 
 among us of the American Church. 
 
 Mr. Groode quotes his " Judgment of Presbyterian 
 Ordination," as given after his death by his friend, 
 Dr. Bernard : 
 
 " I have ever declared my opinion to be, that Episcopus et 
 Presbyter gradu tantum differunt no a or dine, and consequently 
 that in places where Bishops cannot be had the ordination by 
 Presbyters standeth valid, ; yet, on the other side, holding as I 
 do that a Bishop hath superiority in degree above a Presbyter, 
 you may easily judge that the ordination made by such Pres- 
 byters as have severed themselves from those Bishops unto whom 
 they had sworn canonical obedience, 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 under a Popish power, cannot 
 do what they would, are more excusable in this defect than the 
 Low Countries, that live under a free State; yet, for the testify- 
 ing my communion with these Churches (which I do love and 
 honor as true members of the Church universal), I do profess 
 that, with like affection, I should receive the blessed Sacrament 
 at the hands of the Dutch ministers, if I were in Holland, as I 
 should do at the hands of the French ministers if I were in 
 30 
 
350 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 Charentone. — [Judgment of the late Archbishop of Armagh, etc., 
 by N. Bernard ; Lond., 1057. 
 
 The last sentence of this is frequently cited alone 
 (as, for instance, by the Eev. Dr. J. C. Smith, etc., etc.), 
 which makes it appear as if the Church at Charentone 
 were Episcopal, and that the Bishop said he would as 
 readily commune in a Presbyterian Church as in it ; 
 whereas he says no more than that he would as soon 
 partake in one Presbyterian Church as in another ! 
 The reader will observe, also, that he does not 
 scruple to regard those as schismatical who sever 
 themselves from Bishops, or 'pretend to act without 
 them, where they may be had. And this censure has 
 a very wide application. 
 
 So much, then, for one of the Lowest Churchmen 
 that either the English or Irish Church ever pro- 
 duced. He says, indeed, that he regards the Bishop 
 and the Presbyter as differing not in Order, but in 
 degree ; and this may seem to be all that our author 
 claims. But let us see the explanation of this remark 
 given on the very next page of Bernard's work, and 
 for the express purpose of avoiding any misrepre- 
 sentation : 
 
 "That superiority only in degree which he saith a Bishop 
 hath over a Presbyter is Not to be understood as an arbitrary 
 matter, at the pleasure of men." " He held it to be of Apostol- 
 ical institution, and no more a diminution of the pre-emi- 
 nence and authority of Episcopacy than the denomination of 
 lights given in common by Moses to all them in the firmament 
 detracts from the sun and moon, whom he calls the greater, and 
 were assigned of God to have the rule of the rest." 
 
 Dr. Bernard goes on to show that in this [the old 
 Romish] notion, Epriscopus et Presbyter gradu tantum 
 differunt, non or dine, Usher had Davenant to agree 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 351 
 
 with him, "BOTH OF THEM BEING FAK FROM A 
 PARITY !" 
 
 At an earlier period he had written a " Tractate 
 
 upon the Original of Bishops," which, says Bernard, 
 
 "he hath deduced from the Apostolical times;" and 
 
 so in his essay, entitled "Ordination a Fundamental," 
 
 he says : 
 
 " That it was a principle of the Catechism taught to Chris- 
 tians at their first reception, that there was to be a successive 
 ordination or setting apart of persons for the ministry, for an 
 authoritative preaching of faith and repentance, and adminis- 
 tration of Sacraments." 
 
 He also points out 
 
 " What a dangerous thing it is — no less than the hazard of 
 their own salvation — to lay aside an ordained ministry, or to 
 deny the doctrine of it." — (Pp. 180, 181.) 
 
 In the same treatise he argues against the idea that 
 
 any who are not in the successive ministry can give 
 
 to others the right to minister, and he quotes the 
 
 words of our Lord to the Apostles : 
 
 " As my Father hath sent, so send I you. Lo I am with you, 
 and so with your successors, unto the end of the world." 
 
 He also meets the argument usually advanced 
 
 against the doctrine of Succession, that Eome being 
 
 corrupt she could not give anythiag worth receiving: 
 
 " Is their ordination good? I answer, yes; for it is not a 
 'personal act, but an act of office ; as 'tis not the learning of the 
 judge that makes any decree valid, but his authority and com- 
 mission for it." — (Page 217.) 
 
 Speaking of the Jewish Priests and Levites who 
 
 were at times very wicked, and even defiled with 
 
 idolatry in the days of Ahaz, Manasses and others : 
 
 " As bad or worse than the See of Rome ; yet, after a refor- 
 mation, the Succession, which was by their hands, was not ques- 
 tioned. Though the Priesthood ran through much filth, yet re- 
 
352 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 iaining the essentials of the Jewish religion, as circumcision, 
 etc., they were owned of God again in a successive ministra- 
 Han."— (228.) 
 
 "In a word, we do affirm that neither their corruption in opin- 
 ion nor ritiosify of life do or did void it to the party ordained. 
 None doubts of the baptism of our forefathers administered * * * 
 in the Church of Rome, as if there needed any reiteration by 
 them who survived our reformation ; neither do we renew the Orders 
 received in thai Church, when any Priest is converted and betakes 
 himself to our communion', and why should it be questioned 
 here V 
 
 Bishop Downham of Derry in Ireland was another 
 strenuous defender of Episcopacy. He preached in 
 in 1608, at the consecration of the Bishop of Bath 
 and Wells, a sermon in which, of course, he main- 
 tained Episcopacy jure divino. It was attacked, and 
 Downham published a defence, from which our Au- 
 thor quotes. We regret that we have not been able 
 to get this work, and can only judge of it by its 
 acknowledged character, the extracts we find in the 
 Essay before us, and one or two publications on the 
 same side. It appears, that though affirming the 
 exclusive scriptural warrant of the ministry in three 
 Orders, and government hj Bishops, he makes every 
 allowance for those whose circumstances obliged them 
 to adopt a different polity. But he has not a word 
 to say in favor of Presbyterian ordination, except in 
 case of such necessity : 
 
 "For suppose a Church (the state of some Reformed Churches) 
 either altogether destitute of a Bishop, or pestered with such as 
 the popish prelates are, heretical and idolatrous, by whom no 
 orthodoxal ministers might hope to be ordained, we need not 
 doubt but that the ancient Fathers would, in such a case of ne- 
 cessity, have allowed ordination without a Bishop, though not 
 as regular, according to the rules of ordinary Church govern- 
 ment, yet as effectual and as justifiable in the want of a Bishop." 
 —(Serm. pp. 42, 43.) 
 
 This opinion is also freely expressed by Bishop 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 353 
 
 Morton and some others of that day. They grant 
 that M necessity excuseth that which it doth cause." 
 But we find, in such a statement, no very distinct 
 "recognition of the validity of Non-Episcopal or- 
 dination." 
 
 Bishop Moeton (1564-1659), "the learned, pious, 
 
 and painful " Bishop of Durham, was one of the 
 
 Lowest Churchmen of his day. In his " Profession 
 
 of Faith," he writes: 
 
 "As for our brethren, the Protestants of foreign Reformed 
 Churches, the most learned and judicious of themselves have be- 
 wailed their misery for want of Bishops. And, therefore, God 
 forbid that I should be so uncharitable as to censure them for no 
 Churches, for that which is their infelicity, and not their fault. ,,¥: 
 
 We find the following extracts from his "Last 
 Will," in the Christian Bemembrancer, of Novem- 
 ber, 1823: 
 
 "I do, therefore, here solemnly profess in the presence of 
 Almighty God that, by his grace preventing and assisting me, 
 I have always lived, and purpose to die in the true Catholic 
 faith wherein I was baptized," * * * " As for Councils that are 
 free, and generally consisting of competent persons, lawfully 
 summoned, and proceeding according to the word of God, such 
 as were the four first, viz. : those of Nice, Constantinople, 
 Ephesus, and Chalcedon ; I do reverence them as the supreme 
 tribunals of the Church of Christ upon Earth, for judging of 
 heresies, aud composing differences in the Church. And as I 
 utterly condemn all heresies that have been condemned by any of 
 them, so I heartily icish that all the present differences, in the 
 Church of God, might be determined by a free General Council, 
 as any of those four were. 11 
 
 Dean Field (1561-1616) was a man of great eru- 
 dition, and his Book on the Church is an almost 
 exhaustive treatise. He appears to have fallen into 
 the error of Jerome and the Eomanists, as to the 
 
 * Quoted in Gallagher's True Churchmanship, page 56. 
 30* 
 
854 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 equality in Order of Bishop and Presbyter ; but, like 
 all Episcopalians who have been so misled, he makes 
 the difference in degree or office marked and essential. 
 He does not venture to say that Presbyters ought to 
 ordain, as if they had the right, or that the commis- 
 sion given by them would be valid, but only that 
 they might ordain when there appeared no other way 
 of preserving the Church of Christ. 
 
 Here is part of a long extract given by our author . 
 
 " Surely the best learned in the Church of Rome, in former 
 times, durst not pronounce all ordinations of this nature to be 
 void. For not only Armachanus, a very learned and worthy 
 Bishop, but, as it appeareth by Alexander of Hales, many 
 learned men in his time, and before, were of opinion that, in 
 some cases and at some times, Presbyters may give orders, and 
 that their ordinations are of force ; though to do so, not being 
 urged by extreme necessity, cannot be excused from over-great 
 boldness and presumption, 9 ' — ( Of the Church, ed. 1628, pp. 
 155-157.) 
 
 This, though quite as strong as any authority to 
 which Mr. Groode can point, is yet simply the same 
 plea of necessity so often referred to. 
 
 But let lis hear what Field has to say upon the 
 rights of Bishops : 
 
 " The best learned men in our age that affect Presbyterial 
 Government ingenously confess it to be an essential and perpet- 
 ual part of God's ordinance for each Presbytery to have a chief 
 among them." — (Vol. iii., p. 212.) 
 
 And inasmuch as such a chief or Bishop was by 
 some regarded merely in the light of an exalted 
 Presbyter [primus inter pares, as Mr. Groode makes 
 him], he says : 
 
 " This new conceit we cannot approve of, because we find no 
 pattern of any such Bishop or president in all antiquity. But 
 the Fathers describe unto us such a Bishop as hath eminent and 
 peerless power, without whose consent the Presbyters can do 
 
 NOTHING." 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 355 
 
 He supports this statement by reference to Igna- 
 tius, Cyprian, Tertullian, and Jerome, and then adds : 
 
 " So that it is most clear and evident that the Bishop in each 
 Church is above and before the rest of the Presbyters of the 
 same, not in Order only, but in degree also, and power of juris- 
 diction" — (Ibid.) 
 
 " Bishops alone have the power of ordination, and no man 
 may regularly do it without them. Whereupon, ordinarily and 
 according to the strictness of the old Canons, all ordinations 
 made otherwise are pronounced void; as we read of one Colu- 
 thus whose ordinations were therefore voided, because he took upon 
 him to ordain, being no Bishop, but a Presbyter only." — (Vol. 
 iv., p. 150, Camb. Eccles. Soc'y ed.) 
 
 Dk. Eichaed Stewaed, was clerk of the closet to 
 the unfortunate King Charles I., and one of the 
 divines whose opinions had most weight in those 
 troublous times. His "Discourse of Episcopacy and 
 Sacrilege" was written about a year before Laud's 
 murder, in reply to some unfaithful member of the 
 Church who had denied the divine right of Episco- 
 pacy.* He refers to Whitgift, Bilson, etc., and quotes 
 Hooker, to show that it was always held in the Eng- 
 lish Church: 
 
 " I may add Bucer, too * * * who, though he was not Eng- 
 lish born, yet he was a professor here in King Edward's time, 
 and wrote and died in this kingdom. Bishops, saith he, are ex 
 perpetua Ecclesiarum ordinatione ab ipsis jam Apostolis; and 
 more, ' visum est Spiritui Sancto ;' and surely, if Bishops be 
 from the Apostles and from the Holy Spirit himself, they are 
 
 by DIVINE ORDINATION." — (P. 4.) 
 
 " We affirm, then, Episcopacy to be of divine right, i. e. of 
 divine institution." "Episcopacy was instituted in the Apos- 
 tles, who were Bishops, and something more, and distinguished 
 by Christ himself from the Seventy who were the Presbyters. 
 
 * Of this person, who might possibly have a parallel or successor at the 
 present day, Steward says : " This revolted divine would pass for a true 
 son of the Church of England, though he renounces her doctrine and 
 practice." " He lies in his mother's bosom only to betray her, and stays 
 in the vineyard for the same reason the boar does, that he may have the 
 better conveniency of rooting it up." 
 
356 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 So the most ancient Fathers generally [do testify.] Or if you 
 will take St. Jerome's opinion (who neither was a Bishop, nor, 
 in his angry mood, any good friend to that Order), they were 
 instituted by the Apostles, who, being Episcopi et amplius, did 
 in the latter time formalize and bound out that power which we 
 do still call Episcopacy."— (Pp. 8, 9.) 
 
 M Call the Episcopal Order either of divine right or of Apos- 
 tolical institution, and I shall not quarrel with it; for Apostol- 
 ical, I hope, will seem divine enough to Christians. I am sure 
 Claudius Salmasius (a sharp enemy to the Episcopal Order) 
 thinks so. ' If,' saith he, ; it be from the Apostles, it is of divine 
 right/ "—(P. 9.) 
 
 " Thus we find the power of ordination and jurisdiction to be 
 given to those men alone; for then that power is properly Epis- 
 copal, when one man alone may execute it. So St. Paul to Tim- 
 othy, ' Lay hands/ etc., etc., in the singular number * * * and 
 then the text is plain ; he, and he alone, might do it. So to 
 Titus : ' For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou (and thou 
 alone) shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and 
 ordain Elders in every city ;' where plainly these two powers 
 of government and ordination are given to one man." 
 
 " This truth appears not only from clear texts, but from the 
 universal consent and practice of more than one thousand five 
 hundred years space of all the Christian Churches. So that 
 neither St. Jerome nor any other ancient did either hold Orders 
 [to be] lawfully given which were not given by a Bishop, nor 
 any Church jurisdiction to be lawfully administered which was 
 not either done by their hands, or at least by their deputa- 
 tion."— (P. 10) 
 
 Now let us see what this "Laudean" divine has to 
 
 say in the way of charity : 
 
 " Though we do maintain that Episcopacy is of divine right 
 * * * does it then follow that [those in] Germany and the Low 
 Countries are no part of the Catholic Church ? I could almost 
 believe that the author of this letter wrote from London indeed, 
 for sure Oxford makes no such arguments. No, it must be a 
 crime of most horrid nature that makes a Church run in non 
 Ecclesiam. For though that of the Jews was bad, idolatrically 
 bad, yet God seriously professes He had sent her no bill of 
 divorce. Nay, no learned man of judgment durst ever yet 
 affirm that the Pvoman Church herself was become no true part 
 of the Church catholic, and yet she breaks a flat precept of 
 Christ's, ' Drink ye all of this/ And shall we be thought to 
 deny the same right unto Christians without Bishops, when 
 they break but Christ's institutions ? No. Churches they are — 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 357 
 
 true parts of the catholic Church — but in point of ordination 
 and Apostolical government they are not/' — (P. 6.) 
 
 That is to say, in one sense they are Churches, in 
 another not. If by Church is meant that which has 
 the true constitution, and unquestionable ministerial 
 authority, they do not belong to it ; but if no more 
 is meant by that word, than a body of persons pro- 
 fessing faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, worshipping 
 the Triune God, they are Churches; which is exactly 
 the distinction we have made. 
 
 Akchbishop Laud (1573-1645) ought, of course, 
 to be the chief of the Laudeans, but we may examine 
 his works in vain for evidence of the heretical opin- 
 ions and intolerant spirit attributed to him. We 
 should be very unwilling to accept as our own every- 
 thing he advances, but we see nothing at all to justify 
 the rancor with which he is still pursued. Men who 
 have never read a page of his writings are ready to 
 join in the hue and cry against him as a Papist and 
 a tyrant. With such a spirit we have no sympathy. 
 
 In a former chapter, something was said in arrest 
 of such judgment, as regards his supposed tyranny. 
 It is enough to say here, that Tie could have been but 
 little of a Papist, who converted from Eomanism and 
 established in the doctrines of the English Church 
 more persons than any one of his day, and who was 
 able to out-reason such a man as Chillingworth, and 
 win him over to the truth. Laud's own " Conference" 
 with Fisher, the Jesuit, and Chillingworth's "Keligion 
 of Protestants," have done more injury to Eomanism 
 than any ten or twenty works that Non-Episcopal 
 writers have produced since the days of Calvin ; and 
 
OO^ OPINIONS OF DIVINES 
 
 yet. forsooth, Laud was u a Papist f* But let us 
 hear him speak for himself: 
 
 "The Church may import in our language the only true 
 Church, and perhaps, as some of you seem to make it, the root 
 and ground of the Catholic; and this I never did grant of the 
 Roman Church, nor ever mean to do. But a Church can imply 
 no more than that it is a member of the whole ; and this I never 
 did and never will deny, if it fall not absolutely away from 
 Christ. That it [the Romish] is a true Church, I granted also, 
 but not a right [Church], as you impose upon me." * * * " A 
 man that is dishonest and unworthy the name, a very thief if 
 you will, is a true man in the verity of his essence * * but he 
 is not therefore a right or upright man. And a Church that is 
 exceeding corrupt, both in manners and doctrine, and so a dis- 
 honor to the name, is yet a true Church in the verity of essence 
 (as a Church is a company of men which profess the faith of 
 Christ and are baptized into his name), but yet it is not there- 
 fore a right Church either in doctrine or manners." — "Confer- 
 ence" Works, Yol. ii., p. 143.) 
 
 "You make them 'no Church' (as Bellarmine doth), and so 
 deny them salvation, which cannot be had out of the true 
 Church ; but I, for my part, dare not do so." " It ought to be 
 no easy thing to condemn a man of heresy in foundation of 
 faith, much less a Church, least of all so ample and large a 
 Church as the Greek, especially so as to make them no Church. 
 Heaven's gates were not so easily shut against multitudes when 
 St. Peter wore the keys at his own girdle. And it is good coun- 
 sel which Alphonsus a Castro, one of your own gives, ' Let them 
 consider, that pronounce easily of heresy, how easy it is for 
 themselves to err." — [Conference, p. 29.) 
 
 "Christ promised the keys to St. Peter (St. Matt., xvi). 
 
 * Lord Macaulay hated Laud even more than he did Cranmer, but he 
 overshot the mark when he represented him as a shallow-brained crea- 
 ture, whose only power was in a sort of malignant spirit of intolerance. 
 His lordship had probably not read the " Conference/' nor heard that the 
 ever-memorable Hales, of Eaton, was worsted in discussion with this 
 weak-minded man, and brought over completely to his opinion. Ma- 
 caulay himself made few such converts as Chillingworth and Hales. 
 
 Dr. J. Cotton Smith has permitted the following unworthy paragraph 
 to appear from his pen : 
 
 "A man who, notwithstanding his admitted piety and devotion, could 
 contemplate the acknowledgment of the supremacy of the Pope by the 
 Chorcfa of England, it-ho actually hesitated lohether he should accept a Car- 
 dinal's hat from Rome, and who was executed as a traitor to the liberties 
 of hi* country " etc. 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 359 
 
 True, but so did he to all the rest of the Apostles (St. Matt., 
 xviii., St. John, xx.), and to their Successors, as much as to his. 
 * * * * St. Augustine is plain, ' If this were said only of St. 
 Peter, then the Church hath no power to do it/ which God for- 
 bid. The Keys, therefore, were given to St. Peter, and the 
 rest in a figure of the Church, to whose power and for whose 
 use they were given. But there's not one key in that whole, that 
 can let in St. Peter's successor to ' a more powerful principality ' 
 universal, than the successors of the other Apostles had." 
 
 And this is popery ! ! 
 
 Bishop Joseph Hall of Norwich (1574-1656) 
 was one of the noblest men that ever our Church pro- 
 duced, and among the foremost of those who, in his 
 day, could be called "Low Churchmen." He was 
 one of the English divines sent by King James to the 
 Synod of Dort, and from this fact, he is commonly 
 regarded as having been very loose in his attachment 
 to his own Church and its avowed principles. The 
 quotations from his works which we find in publica- 
 tions like those of Mr. Groode, are almost never taken 
 from those treatises that he wrote expressly upon 
 the subjects we are now considering. Passages from 
 other portions of his works in which more suo he 
 speaks with charity of those who differ from us, are 
 set forward as if they properly represented the posi- 
 tion he occupies in relation to the important question 
 before us. 
 
 His chief work on the subject is titled "Episcopacy 
 by Divine Eight Asserted." This very name speaks 
 for itself. The principles avowed in the treatise may 
 be inferred from the following extracts taken almost 
 at haphazard. Of Rome he says : 
 
 " She is a truly visible Church, but an unsound one." " That 
 which Rome holds in common with us, makes it a Church ; that 
 which it obtrudes upon us makes it heretical. The truth of 
 
860 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 principle makes it one [with us] ; the error and impiety of ad- 
 ditions make it irreconcilable. " — (Works, Vol. ix., p. 390.) 
 
 '• That the Latin or Western Church, subject to the Romish 
 tvranny unto the very time of Luther, was a true Church, in 
 which a Baying profession of the truth of Christ was found, and 
 in Luther himself received his Christianity, ordination, 
 and power of ministry, our learned Dr. Field hath saved me the 
 labor to prove."— (Ibid 391.) 
 
 As regards others, lie says : 
 
 11 We abhor new Churches and new truths!" 
 
 *• When Petrus Balma, the last Bishop of Geneva, was by his 
 mutinying citizens frighted and driven out of his place, and 
 that Church was now left headless, Farel and Yiret, two zealous 
 preachers, there devised and set up a new platform of Church 
 Government never before heard of in the Christian world. Them- 
 selves would supply [the place of] the Bishop, and certain bur- 
 gesses of the city should supply [that of] his assistant clergy, 
 and both of these together would make up the body of an eccle- 
 siastical senate or consistory. This strange bird, thus hatched 
 by Farel and Yiret, was afterwards brooded by two more famous 
 successors [Calvin and Beza], and all this within the compass 
 of this present age. Now had this form, being at first devised only 
 out of need for a present shift, contained itself within the com- 
 pass of Leman Lake, it might have been retained either with the 
 connivance or the pity of the rest of the Christian world ; but, 
 now finding itself to grow in some places through the fame of 
 the abettors into request and good success, it hath taken the bold- 
 ness to put itself forth to the notice and approbation of some neigh- 
 bor Churches." — (Vol. x., p. 143.) 
 
 Addressing M. G. Grahame, Bishop of Orkney in 
 Scotland, who had renounced his Episcopate, and 
 united himself with the General Assembly of Pres- 
 byters, he says : 
 
 " To repent you of a most lawful, honorable, holy, divine, 
 vocation, and thereby cast mire in the face of the blessed Apos- 
 tles, who received it from their God and Saviour, and, [who] by 
 the guidance of his spirit, ordained it, is such an act as can 
 scarce be expiated with floods of overlatest tears/'' 
 
 " Let me advise you, and your now master, the faction, not to 
 deceive yourselves vainly with the hope of hiding your heads 
 under the skirts of the authority of those divines, and Churches 
 abroad, which retain that form of government to which you 
 have submitted ; for know their case and yours is far enough 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 361 
 
 different. They plead to be by a kind of necessity cast upon 
 that condition which you have willingly chosen. They were not, 
 they could not be what you were, and might still have been/' 
 
 We may convey some idea of his special treatise 
 on Episcopacy by giving a few of the "grounds," or 
 propositions, maintained in it : 
 
 1st. " That government whose foundation is laid by Christ, 
 and whose fabric is raised by the Apostles, is of divine insti- 
 tution." 
 
 2d. " The practice and recommendation of the Apostles is 
 sufficient warrant for an Apostolical institution." 
 
 3d. " The forms ordained for the Church's administration by 
 the Apostles were for universal and perpetual use." 
 
 4th. "The universal practice of the times immediately suc- 
 ceeding the Apostolic times is a sure commentary upon the 
 practice of the Apostles, and our best direction." 
 
 12th. " If this which is challenged be the kingdom of Christ, 
 then those Churches which want any essential part of it are 
 mainly defective" 
 
 15th. " To depart from the judgment and practice of the 
 universal Church of Christ, ever since the Apostles' time, and 
 betake ourselves to a new invention, cannot but be, besides 
 the danger, vehemently scandalous ," and ' savour too much of 
 schism/ " 
 
 Such are some of the principal grounds, and we 
 
 think the reader could from them alone form a fair 
 
 idea of how the good Bishop regarded Episcopacy 
 
 and Succession. But his judgment is too important 
 
 to be left open to question, so we add a few more 
 
 sentences from his pen : 
 
 "It is usually upbraided to us out of our Eeverend Whitgift 
 that there may be some appendances and formalities of govern- 
 ment alterable by the wisdom and discretion of the Church ; 
 yet, for the main substance, it is now utterly indispensible, and 
 so must continue to the world's end — indispensible by any vol- 
 untary act. What inevitable necessity may do in such a case, 
 we dispute. Necessity hath dispensed with some immediately 
 divine laws ; where, then, that may be justly pleaded we shall 
 not be wanting both in our pity and our prayers." 
 
 The good Bishop gives full proof of the assertion, 
 31 
 
3t)2 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 that even the founders and greatest men of the conti- 
 nental Churches sanctioned Episcopacy. He quotes 
 Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Beza, Zanchius, Mo- 
 linauis, and others. Among the rest he gives the 
 "judgment" of the learned Dr. Abraham Scultetus, 
 which (being completely in harmony with Hall's 
 own opinion, and in itself so valuable) we cannot 
 help inserting. The question proposed was to this 
 effect, whether Episcopacy be of divine right ; whether 
 the Apostles gave to ministers of one class or grade 
 the right to exercise jurisdiction, etc., over the rest? 
 The answer was in the affirmative. It contained the 
 following sentences : 
 
 "That Episcopacy had two things peculiar to it, the privilege 
 of succeeding and the prerogative o/*ordaining ; all other things 
 were common to them with the Presbyters." "Episcopacy, 
 therefore, is of divine right." 
 
 We offer one more extract from the same work 
 (Section iii., part 2) : 
 
 " The Apostles were Church governors appointed by Christ 
 to order and settle the affairs of his spiritual kingdom, and 
 therein (beside the preaching of the gospel and baptizing, com- 
 mon to them with other ministers) to ordain a succession of the 
 meet administrators of his Church. Thus they were, would be, 
 must be succeeded, neither could the Church otherwise have sub- 
 sisted. No Christian can deny this, all binding upon a neces- 
 sity of Apostolical Succession though differing in the quality 
 and degree of their succession" 
 
 The Bishop then quotes the Epistle of Ignatius to 
 
 the Trallians : 
 
 " Without these [Bishops, Priests, and Deacons] there is no 
 elect Church; without these no holy congregation, no assembly of 
 saints." [And adds] " Lo! here are words which no Videlius 
 can carp at as interpolated, imposing such a necessity of the 
 being of these three several orders in God's Church that it 
 cannot be right without them" 
 
 Such were the views of this evangelical Bishop. 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 363 
 
 Bishop Davenant of Salisbury (born 1572, con- 
 secrated, 1621; died, 1641). This able and accom- 
 plished divine was also one of those sent by the 
 English king to the Synod of Dort; and as he volun- 
 tarily took part in its proceedings and sanctioned its 
 decrees, he will not be suspected of the least sympa- 
 thy with High Church doctrines. In his series of 
 very valuable " Determinations," we find one (the 
 42nd) wholly devoted to our present subject. We 
 wish we could afford room for every word of it ; but 
 a few paragraphs must suffice. 
 
 "Hither tends the argument of the Schoolmen,* that the 
 Episcopate, as distinguished from simple priesthood, is not an- 
 other Order, but a more eminent power and dignity of certain 
 that are in the same sacerdotal Order. " " It is sufficient for 
 us [laying aside this verbal contention) to show that those who 
 are called peculiarly ' Bishops ' have a higher dignity, greater 
 power, and more excellent offices annexed to them than other 
 Presbyters have, and that this is not repugnant to the word of 
 God. But it were trivial to say i not repugnant/ for it is easy 
 to demonstrate that in the divine word this eminence of Bishops 
 above Presbyters is shadowed out, delineated, and by the Apostles 
 themselves established." 
 
 "It is evident that Christ himself, for the edification of his 
 Church, constituted ministers, not endued with equal authority, 
 but distinct in degree of dignity and power ; for the twelve 
 Apostles were superior to the seventy disciples. * * * More- 
 over, it is the constant doctrine of nearly all the Fathers that 
 the Bishops succeeded the Apostles in the ordinary government, 
 as the Presbyters also succeeded the seventy disciples." Je- 
 rome, Ambrose, and Theodoret "all agree in acknowledging 
 Bishops to be the successors of the Apostles." 
 
 Having referred to the appointment of James, Tim- 
 othy, Titus, etc., to their respective charges, he adds : 
 
 "It is also certain that, throughout the universal Church of 
 Christ, the successors of these also held a certain eminent au- 
 thority over their own flock, and over inferior ministers ; and 
 
 * And also of the Puritans and Mr. Groode. 
 
36-i OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 it it equally certain that there was a perpetual succession of the 
 some. ■ 
 
 He instances as the second mark of Episcopal dig- 
 nity: 
 
 " The right and power of ordination, which was transmitted 
 by the Apostles themselves to Bishops, but denied to inferior 
 Presbyters." 
 
 "Jerome (whom some suppose to have agreed with ^Erius) 
 yet admits that ordination is so peculiar to Bishops, that it is 
 not lawful for Presbyters to exercise it. ' What does a Bishop 
 do which a Presbyter does not, ordination excepted?' " 
 
 " In this Apostolical institution the Catholic Church always 
 acquiesced, and did not acknowledge any other ordination lawful 
 than that ichich was solemnized by a lawful Bishop. We find a 
 remarkable example of this in the works of Athanasius. One 
 Colythus, a Presbyter in the Church of Alexandria, presumed 
 to ordain other Presbyters. But what was afterward done? This 
 ordination of his was rescinded, and all the [quasi] Presbyters 
 made by him were reduced to the rank of laymen. It is there- 
 fore certain that the power of ordaining belongs to Bishops 
 only, and does not belong to inferior Presbyters " 
 
 Such, then, is "his determination as to the rule ; and 
 
 now for the exception : 
 
 "In a disordered Church, where all the Bishops are fallen 
 into heresy or idolatry, where they have refused to ordain ortho- 
 dox ministers * * * if orthodox Presbyters (for the preservation 
 of the Church) are compelled to ordain other Presbyters, I 
 could not venture to pronounce such ordinations useless and 
 invalid." — (See Works, edited by Allport, Vol. ii., Determ. 42; 
 also, Vol. i, p. 53 of Life, etc.) 
 
 This statement of an exceptional case is the only 
 part of the whole Determination which our author 
 thinks it prudent to print. But it contains little that 
 will help his cause. It shows what might be done, 
 not ordinarily, but when dire necessity compelled a 
 departure from the Scriptural and proper course ; and 
 it does not state that Orders given by Presbyters, 
 even under such circumstances, would be valid, but 
 only that he " could not venture to pronounce them 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 365 
 
 useless and invalid." In this, then, "our learned 
 Bishop Davenant" does not go even as far as some of 
 the so-called Laudean divines, and his not declaring 
 plainly the lawfulness and validity of such Presbyte- 
 rian ordination as he describes, we regard as proof 
 positive that the Church had never recognized it as 
 valid or lawful. 
 
 Bishop Francis White, of Ely, is sometimes 
 quoted on the side which our author maintains; and, 
 singularly enough, the following is looked upon as 
 showing that he was not a believer in Apostolical 
 Succession : 
 
 " The true visible Church is named Apostolical, not because 
 of local and personal succession of Bishops (only or principally), 
 but because it retaineth the faith and doctrine of the Apostles."* 
 
 This is the same Bishop of whom Bastwick testi- 
 fies that, at his trial, 
 
 " He sayd, in the face of the Court, that, if he could not mayn- 
 tayne his Episcopal authoritie to be jure divino, he wouJd fling 
 away his rotchet." 
 
 Of course Bastwick reviles him for such a decla- 
 ration. In his eyes he was only one of those Prelates 
 who are "vermin" or " frogs out of stinking gutters."f 
 
 Dr. Mason. — We will allow Mr. Goode to intro- 
 duce this well-known author : 
 
 "Another most important witness on this subject is Arch- 
 deacon Francis Mason, the eminent defender of the Episcopate 
 of the English Church against the Romanists. "J 
 
 The reader will be surprised to hear that, after such 
 a preface, our author does not give a single extract 
 
 * Gallagher's True Churchmanship, page 56*. 
 f Trial of Br. John Bastwick, A. D. 1637. 
 
 J The Reverend gentleman alludes here to what Bastwick called 
 " Mason's Booke concerning the Succession of Bishops." 
 31* 
 
3ti6 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 from this "most important witness;' 7 but, instead 
 
 thereof, he prints several passages from a gross and 
 
 palpable forgery. For this vile imposture Mr. Goode 
 
 pleads thus : 
 
 " In 1641, a tract written by him was published, vindicating 
 4 the validity of the ordination of the ministers of the Reformed 
 Churches beyond the seas ;' being some papers originally in- 
 tended by him to form part of his celebrated Vindication of the 
 Church of England, but for some reason omitted. Its publica- 
 tion in this way has caused some (especially Mason's translator, 
 Lindsay) to cast a suspicion upon its genuineness." 
 
 And the arguments in defence of it which our 
 author advances are (1st), that "his contemporary, 
 Dr. Bernard, Usher's chaplain," speaks of it as his ; 
 and (2nd), that Dr. Ward wrote a letter to Archbishop 
 Usher, in which he asked what "specialties" were 
 omitted in Mason's book, and how also Mr. Mason 
 did "warrant the vocation and ordination of the min- 
 isters of the Eeformed Churches !" And this, for- 
 sooth, is the proof that the tract which he quotes was 
 written by Mason! We need not trouble ourselves 
 about Dr. Ward's queries, as they show that he knew 
 nothing about the " Vindicise;" and Dr. Bernard was 
 simply deceived by the impostor who published the 
 work in Mason's name. 
 
 Our author takes good care not to give the dates, 
 etc., in full, for even they would have effectually neu- 
 tralized his special pleading. We will supply what 
 he has omitted : 
 
 Mason's Vindicise Ecclesiae Anglicanse was pub- 
 lished in 1613. The author died in 1621, and in 
 1641 a tract was published, said to have been written by 
 him. Thirteen years after this, Dr. Bernard, who 
 had not been informed of the facts, mentions it as 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 367 
 
 Mason's, just as, more recently, several eminent lite- 
 rary men were deceived by Chatterton, and talked 
 of the productions of Eowley the monk. Mr. Lind- 
 say, the translator and editor of Mason's work, ut- 
 terly denounced the cheat, for the following reasons : 
 (1) It appeared twenty years after the death of the re- 
 puted author. (2) It was set forth by John Duree (the 
 same person mentioned by Mr. Groode on page 56), a 
 Scotch Presbyterian, "a man of no consistency, or even 
 of no character," "who would not strain much for 
 such a gnat as imposing a piece of his own upon the 
 world (to serve the good old cause), in the name of an 
 author of reputation, who was not alive to do himself 
 justice." (3) It purports to be an addition to the ori- 
 ginal work ; but Dr. Mason never intimated any pur- 
 pose to make an addition, and Dr. Brent (his first 
 editor), who was his intimate friend, " Warden of the 
 College where Mason was Fellow," and who had the 
 originals, in the author's own handwriting, " put into 
 his hands for the public benefit," had never seen this 
 production, nor heard that such a thing was in existence. 
 (4) That the adventurer Duree " does not tell us how 
 he came by his pretended addition. (5) That the prin- 
 ciples set forth in it are utterly inconsistent with those 
 in the genuine writings of the Archdeacon. Of this 
 Lindsay gives proof by setting extracts from each 
 source side by side, thus : 
 
 Duree says: Mason": 
 
 "A Presbyter is equal to a "Plainly distinguished them 
 Bishop in the power of Order, in this respect * * * he says : 
 and therefore hath equal intrin- " In preaching the word and 
 sic power to give Orders." ministering the sacraments, 
 
 every Priest succeed eth the 
 Apostles; and besides these, 
 
363 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 in ordaining ministers and ex- 
 ercising the censures of bind- 
 ing and loosing, every Bishop 
 succeeds the Apostles." 
 
 Duree says necessity Even this Mason does 
 gives validity: not seem to have granted, 
 
 for he 
 
 "The ministerial power may " expressly affirms that no or- 
 be derived from a Presbyter in dination whatever can be valid 
 case of necessity" without one Bishop" 
 
 After all this, then, we are fully prepared to accept 
 the conclusion passed by Mason's translator, on this 
 wretched imposture : 
 
 " It is none of his, but published * * * to serve the turn of a 
 faction after his death." 
 
 This is what Mr. Goode describes as "casting a 
 suspicion upon its genuineness ! ! " With all these 
 facts under his eye, the Eeverend gentleman does 
 not hesitate to accept the forgery, and quote it as 
 Mason's work ! ! * He had a folio volume of about 
 600 pages before him when he wrote, that contains 
 the unquestionable writings of the eminent Arch- 
 deacon ; but he does not give five lines of it. He 
 resorts exclusively for Mason's opinion to a work that 
 never saw the light until Mason had been twenty 
 years in his grave ! 
 
 The Eeverend Mr. Powell is more frank than his 
 Episcopalian brother. He confesses freely that Mason 
 advocated " the exclusive scheme of Episcopacy, jure 
 
 * Mr. Goode is described by his friends, far in advance of all living 
 writers of controversy, and remarkable for his "candor, impartiality, 
 and profound regard for the whole truth." It is well that we are 
 informed of this, else circumstances like those above might seem to 
 " c&it a suspicion " upon his character for honesty. 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 369 
 
 divino" and that he acknowledged the acts of Eomish 
 Bishops " merely to keep up the figment of Episcopal 
 Ordination and Succession." — (See his Essay, Amer- 
 ican Edition, p. 17.) 
 
 After what has been shown of the real nature of 
 Mason's doctrine, we might omit direct quotations 
 from his works ; but it is always best to let a writer 
 speak for himself. His book is written in the form 
 of a dialogue between Orthodox (a Protestant) and 
 Philodox (a Eomanist). The former says that Fulke 
 had denounced Eomish Orders as Anti- Christian. 
 Orthodox replies: 
 
 " We do not detest them absolutely, but in so far as they are 
 yours. That which is Christ's we receive; but that which is 
 yours only, we leave to you. For example : we receive the 
 Order of Priesthood with all our hearts, so far as it is used in 
 the administration of the Word and Sacraments according to 
 the Word of God ; but so far as it is yours, that is to say, 
 ordained to sacrifice, we do abominate, detest, and reject the 
 same as Anti-Christian. So likewise we pay all due love and 
 honor to Deacons and Bishops, " etc., etc., etc. — [Folio Edition, 
 1728, p. 344.) 
 
 Philodox. — " You esteem the Priesthood of the Roman Church 
 sacrilegious and idolatrous ; what then do you make your own, 
 which is derived from it V 
 
 Orthodox. — "Pure and holy! For though our ministry be 
 derived from your sacrilegious and idolatrous Bishops, yet it 
 was not derived from them when and as they were such.* * * 
 What was evil in them was wiped out, and then what was good 
 was derived down to us. Wherefore we do not receive the fol- 
 lowers of Antichrist while they continue such, but then only when 
 they renounce Antichrist and turn to Christ. But if our fore- 
 fathers had derived their Orders from such Bishops as had 
 formerly been Popish Priests, what inconvenience, I pray you, 
 would that be to usP 1 — (Page 565.) 
 
 "From what has been received, it sufficiently appears that 
 though we receive our calling through Popish channels, it did 
 not come to us muddy, but clear and lawful." — (Page 578.) 
 
 " Because I have nothing more at heart than to give to every 
 one of you abundant satisfaction, I think it proper to lay before 
 
370 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 you (as it were a golden chain) the successive ordinations of the 
 most Reverend Father in God, George Lord, Archbishop of 
 Canterbury." — (Page 337.) 
 
 11 These alone are the Ministers of Christ whose ordination 
 is received from Christ Himself, either immediately or by His 
 Apostles."— (Page 344.) 
 
 The foot-note to this, in the edition from which we 
 quote, reads thus : 
 
 " Then let those look to it, who derive their authority through 
 any other channel on plea of necessity l" 
 
 To these we add an extract from his sermon 
 on the text, "Let all things be done decently and 
 in order." Addressing those who in that day fol- 
 lowed a " higher law," or boasted of more " charita- 
 ble n feelings than were possessed by their brethren, 
 he says : 
 
 " Have you not at your Ordination made a promise, and at 
 your institution taken a reverend oath of Canonical obedience ? 
 Wherefore let me exhort you who have taken this oath, and being 
 admonished by your Bishop, oppose yourselves notwithstanding 
 against the laudable discipline of our Church* to enter into 
 your own souls, and uprightly to consider whether, while you 
 pretend conscience, you do not that which is uncomely for con- 
 science ? And for our Bishops, oh ! what anguish will it be 
 to their souls if those voices which ordained you be constrained 
 to deprive you ! And what a comfort would it be, both to 
 them and to all your brethren of the ministry, if we might 
 join together against the common enemy, and be linked in ever- 
 lasting chains of love, one with another." — (Page 622.) 
 
 Dr. John Gauden. — This divine (afterwards 
 Bishop of Worcester) is supposed to have been the 
 author of the celebrated Eikon Basilike. Of course, 
 he was one of those whom Mr. Goode characterizes 
 
 * We beg to assure the reader that this paragraph has not been pro- 
 duced by some modern Duree to suit the case of any parties in New York 
 or elsewhere. It is really from Mason's pen. 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 371 
 
 as " Laudean." He wrote a work called "Hiera- 
 spistes — A Defence for the Ministry and Ministers 
 of the Church of England." We have not been able 
 to procure a copy of it, and presume it is no longer 
 extant. There is now before us his essay or letter, 
 called "Analysis — The Loosing of St. Peter's Bands," 
 setting forth the true sense and solution of the Cove- 
 nant, etc., etc.* This cannot give us his views upon 
 the subject here discussed, except incidentally ; but 
 no one who reads the letter can be in any doubt as 
 to the doctrine he held : 
 
 "If the Covenant were designed as wilfully exclusive, and 
 totally abjuring of all Episcopal Order, it must needs run us 
 upon a great rock, not only of novelty, but of Schism, and dash 
 us, both in opinion and practice, against the judgment and 
 custom of the Catholic Church, in all places and ages (till of 
 late years), from the Apostolic days." Be speaks of 
 
 " A few Reformed Churches of latter days, whose want (but 
 not contempt) of Bishops, also the necessity of the times and dis- 
 tress of affairs * * * may excuse, while they approve and ven- 
 erate Episcopacy in others." 
 
 " Yet with these we must not so comply as to put a reproach, 
 scandal, scruple, or affront on all other Christian Churches at 
 this day in all the world ; among whom not one ever was of 
 old, or is to this day, in any kingdom, to be found without 
 their Bishops as derived by the Succession of all times, from the 
 Apostles. 
 
 "As for my brethren of the Church of Scotland, I confess that 
 I understand not their motions or mutations, because I think 
 they once enjoyed the best constitutions of Episcopacy in the 
 world. / have a Christian pity and charity for them." — 
 (Quarto, London, 1660.) 
 
 Bishop Overall of Norwich. — This distinguished 
 prelate was Prolocutor of the lower house of Convo- 
 
 * "It must be owned that he was one of the Assembly of Divines in 
 1643, and that he took the Covenant ; to which, however, he made some 
 scruples and objections, so that his name was soon struck out of the 
 list. He abandoned the cause of the Parliament, as soon as they relin- 
 quished their first avowed principles of reforming only, instead of extir- 
 pating, Episcopacy and monarchy." — (Bowling's Edition of Walton's 
 Lives, p. xlviii.) 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 cation when the book of Canons was passed, to which 
 reference was made in a previous chapter. But he 
 was also the writer of the Book, and his opinions upon 
 the distinctive principles of the Church may there- 
 fore be learned from it. The Canons received formal 
 sanction; but that cannot prevent their being used 
 here to show how, as an individual, the framer of them 
 stood in relation to the question before us. 
 
 The whole work is an elaborate justification of the 
 scriptural constitution of our Church. It is not easy 
 to select from it brief passages that will give a pro- 
 per idea of its spirit, or bear separating from the con- 
 text. But here are a few. He says that we find in 
 scripture 
 
 " Two complete degrees of ecclesiastical ministers ordained 
 by Christ himself immediately, viz. : his twelve Apostles and 
 his seventy disciples ; the one, in dignity and authority, above 
 the other/' 
 
 The Apostles were " to provide for a Succession in their min- 
 istry of fit persons sufficiently authorized by them to undertake 
 that charge, as well as to yield some further assistance unto 
 them whilst they themselves lived, as afterwards, also, both to 
 continue the same in their own persons unto their lives' end ; 
 and in like manner to ordain by the authority of the Apostles 
 given unto them, other ministers to succeed themselves" — (Convo- 
 cation Book, pp. 132, 133.) 
 
 " In every city and Episcopal See where there were divers 
 priests and minsters of the word and sacraments, and but one 
 Bishop only, the catalogues of the names, not of their Priests, 
 but of their Bishops, were very carefully kept from time to 
 time, together with the names of the Apostles or Apostolical 
 persons, the Bishops, their predecessors, from whom they de- 
 rived their Succession. Of which Succession of Bishops, 
 whilst the succession of truth continued with it, the ancient 
 Fathers made great account and use when any false teachers 
 did broach new doctrine * * * choking them with this, that 
 they were not able to show any Apostolical Church that ever 
 taught as they did."— (Page 148.) 
 
 As to the perpetual obligation of Episcopacy, he 
 says: 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 373 
 
 " Whereupon it followeth of necessity that if the said form of 
 government in the Apostles' days was then necessary for the 
 planting and ordering of Churches, that the same did continue 
 to be as necessary afterwards" '—(Page 149.) 
 
 And now let us hear what he says of those to 
 whom exclusively the power of ordination was com- 
 mitted : 
 
 " The primitive Churches, presently after the Apostles' times, 
 finding in the New Testament no one person to have been or- 
 dained a Priest or Minister of the Gospel mediately by men, 
 but either by imposition of the Apostles' hands, or of their hands 
 to whom they gave authority in that behalf as unto Timothy and 
 Titus and such other Bishops as they were ; and knowing that the 
 Church of Christ should never be left destitute of Priests and 
 Bishops for the work of the ministry, they durst not presume 
 upon their own heads to devise a new form of making ministers, 
 * * * but held it their bounden duty to leave the same where 
 they found it, viz. : in the hands of Timothy and Titus, and 
 consequently of other Bishops, their Successors." * * " It was 
 held by them altogether unlawful for any to ordain a Priest or 
 minister of the Word except he were himself a Bishop." 
 
 "It is true that one Coluthos, being himself but a Priest, 
 would needs take upon him to make Priests * * * and the like 
 attempt was made by one Maxim us * * * Howbeit such ordina- 
 tions were accounted void and utterly condemned as unlawful ; 
 they themselves not escaping such just reproof as so great a 
 novelty and presumption did deserve." — (Page 150.) 
 
 Bishop Bull was one of the most profound theo- 
 logians the Reformed Church has ever produced. 
 Even those who do not accept his doctrine of justifi- 
 cation, bear willing testimony to his great ability and 
 scholarship, and to the holy blamelessness of his life. 
 He was one of the divines persecuted by the Puritans 
 under Cromwell. His controversial works against 
 Roman error are unanswerable. We need not give 
 many extracts to show what his views were on the 
 topics we are considering : 
 
 " We proceed in the next place to the constant visibility and 
 Succession of pastors in our Church. * * * * Our records faith- 
 32 
 
3 A OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 fully kept and preserved, do evidence to all the world an ijnin- 
 rsRRUPTBD Succession of Bishops in our Church, canonically 
 ordained, derived from such persons in whom a lawful power 
 ot^ ordination was seated by the confession of the papists them- 
 selves." — ( Vindication of the English Church, Sect. 24.) 
 
 Bishop Cosin (1594-1672).*— In the case of this 
 eminent theologian we find another instance of that 
 willingness to use questionable evidence, or that prefer- 
 ence for what is indirect and liable to objection, which 
 we have found manifested by Mr. Goode in his treat- 
 ment of Hooker, Bancroft, and Mason. 
 
 The acknowledged works of Bishop Cosin have 
 been before the public for over two hundred years, 
 and are well known to-day. It is not a little remark- 
 able, then, that our author should allow them to pass 
 unnoticed, and should make his quotations from a 
 letter said to have been written by Cosin to some 
 M. Cordel. 
 
 This letter was first printed in Basire's account of 
 the Bishop, published after his death. We do not deny 
 its genuineness, but we have never seen it established. 
 In any case, however, it is wrong to resort to such 
 sources of evidence while there are extant unques- 
 tionable writings of the same author from which his 
 opinions can be ascertained.f 
 
 Waiving further question as to the authority of 
 
 # Dr. J. C. Smith quotes this divine as Dean Cosin. We cannot help 
 being surprised at this from the editor of the Church Monthly. Cosin 
 was, indeed, a Dean at one time, so was Laud. It is not usual, however, 
 to style the latter Dean Laud. Dr. Smith evidently confounds the Bishop 
 with Dean Richard Cosin, who wrote nearly seventy years before. — (See 
 p. S38.) 
 
 I The editor of the last edition of Cosin's works has admitted this letter 
 among them, not because it has been proved genuine and uninterpolated, 
 but because another communication, which we quote, shows that some 
 such letter had been written. 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 375 
 
 this document, we proceed to examine it. Mr. Goode 
 begins his extract with this paragraph : 
 
 " Though we may safely say and maintain it, that their min- 
 isters are not so duly and rightly ordained as they shotdd be by 
 those Prelates and Bishops of the Church who, since the Apostles 7 
 time, have only had the ordinary power and authority to make and 
 constitute a Priest, yet that, by reason of this defect, there is a 
 total nullity in their ordination, or that they be therefore no 
 Priests or ministers of the Church at all, because they are or- 
 dained by those only who are no more but Priests among them. 
 For my part I would be loath to affirm and determine it against 
 them." 
 
 If the Church had always recognized the validity 
 of Presbyterian ordination, as Mr. Goode maintains, 
 the writer of this letter need not have scrupled to 
 affirm it; but it will be observed that he does nothing 
 of the kind. He only expressed his unwillingness 
 to pronounce that ordination wholly null and void. 
 He speaks of persons commissioned by Presbyters, 
 as "not so duly and rightly ordained" as the Epis- 
 copal clergy were ; thus introducing the singular 
 idea of there being degrees of lawfulness in such 
 matters. Either a man has a true and sufficient 
 authority to minister in holy things, or he has none ; 
 a sliding scale cannot well be used in measuring the 
 divine commission. 
 
 The writer proceeds to assign his reasons for 
 acknowledging a possible validity in Presbyterian 
 Orders. Thus, the power of ordination was confined 
 to Bishops by Apostolical practice and the customs 
 and canons of the Church ;* from which custom and 
 laws of the Universal Church, he reckons it a great 
 presumption and fault to depart ; yet when parties 
 
 * But not, as the writer supposes, " by any absolute precept that either 
 Christ or His Apostles gave about it." 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 have so departed, and done that which ought not to 
 be done [fieri non oportuit], he could not perempt- 
 orily say factum non valet — the ordination is utterly 
 void : 
 
 " For as in the case of baptism, we take just exception against 
 a layman or a woman that presumes to give it, and may as justly 
 punish them by the censures of the Church wherein they live, 
 for taking upon them to do thai office, which was never com- 
 mitted unto them ; yet, if once they have done it, we make not 
 their act and administration of baptism void; nor presume we 
 to iterate the sacrament after them; so may it well be in the case 
 of ordination and the ministers of the Reformed Congregations 
 in France, who are liable to give an account both to God and 
 His Church in general, for taking upon them to exercise that 
 power which by the perpetual practice and laivs of His Church, 
 they were never permitted to exercise." 
 
 Such, then, are the grounds upon which the writer 
 of the letter to Cordel basis his unwillingness to 
 affirm the nullity of Non - Episcopal ordination. 
 Presbyters have no more right to ordain, than lay- 
 men or women have to baptize ; yet if they do it, 
 we ought not to say that nothing has been done ! If 
 Mr. Goode's Non-Episcopal friends are satisfied with 
 such a view of the case, they are welcome to it. 
 
 But touching such "inorderly ordination/' the 
 writer says : 
 
 " Their boldness, presumption, and novelty, in setting up 
 themselves (without any invincible necessity that they had so 
 to do) against the Apostolical practice and perpetual order of 
 God's Church [till their days], was always faulted and reserved 
 for further censure in due time, which they have justly merited. " 
 
 He refers to the views of parity in Order, pro- 
 pounded, as was supposed, by Jerome, and certainly 
 by many Eomanists, among whom he mentions the 
 Schoolmen : Armachanus (Fitz Ealph, Archbishop of 
 Armagh), Alphonsus a Castro, and Michael Medina ; 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 377 
 
 and certain Continental and English Protestant di- 
 vines, whom lie supposes to have agreed with them, 
 and then says : 
 
 " 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." 
 
 So then the writer of the letter to Cordel did not 
 agree with those who believed in parity ; he was 
 only unwilling to contradict them. He would ac- 
 knowledge a possible validity rather than to appear 
 to condemn a judgment which yet he did not approve. 
 
 But let us now attend to what Bishop Cosin did 
 certainly write. It appears that copies of the letter 
 just referred to were in circulation, and a friend wrote 
 to inquire about it. To him Cosin replied : 
 
 " What paper that is which is read and talked of among you 
 as mine, concerning the French Ordinations, I know not ; but 
 some discourse I made upon that subject and their Church and 
 Sacraments here, about seven years since. If a perfect copy 
 of my writing (which is long) be among you, I fear not the 
 censure of any moderate and learned man whatsoever; and if 
 the Presbyterians think to get any advantage by it, they will 
 much deceive themselves. 
 
 "You shall not find [if the copy of the letter be true and 
 entire) that I ever said Presbyters had any power of rightful 
 ordination in the judgment of antiquity ; nay, you shall find 
 the contrary, and that I greatly blame them, saying, that they 
 will never be able to answer it for presuming to take a power 
 upon them which was never given nor committed unto them; and 
 that nothing but a case of necessity reserving their wonted 
 desire of Bishops where they are by no means to be had or 
 permitted, can excuse them. 
 
 " I know it is the interest of the Pope and of the Jesuits, with 
 others of the like faction, to cry down the jus divinum of Epis- 
 copacy ; and as I never was so, by the grace of God, I never 
 shall be of that faction. 
 32* 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVIXES. 
 
 '• But the question only is, whether there be such an absolute 
 
 38 ity and precept in that jus divinutn, in all places and at 
 
 all times, as [that] where if cannot be put in practice, there, in 
 
 tuck 3ITT, the ordination of a Presbyter by a 
 
 College of Presbyters (though altogether against the ancient 
 and Apostolical Canons, for which they are to answer), shall 
 be utterly void and invalid to all effects whatsoever." — [Works, 
 Vol. iv„ p. 421.) 
 
 Speaking of another divine " who was as great a 
 
 patron of antiquity and the Church of England as 
 
 any Bishop or Priest that ever lived in it." he quotes 
 
 him as follows : 
 
 " Though we are not to lessen the jus divinum of Episcopacy 
 where it is established and may be had. yet we must take heed 
 that we do not. for want of Episcopacy where it cannot be had, 
 cry down and destroy all the Reformed Churches abroad, both 
 in Germany, France, and other places, and say they have neither 
 ministers nor sacraments, but all is null and void they do. 
 
 •''This is all the letter drives at, and nothing else, which truly 
 I cannot apprehend how it either hurts the jus divinum of 
 Episcopacy, or excuseth their voluntary and transcendent im- 
 piety, that have endeavored to destroy it in the Church of 
 England. M 
 
 In his controversy with Father Robinson, when 
 the latter objected that the English Church had only 
 ordination imperfect, both in matter and form, Cosin 
 replied saying that it " had retained all things neces- 
 sary to ordination/' including, of course, "a lawful 
 succession." And as to the matter and form referred 
 to by Robinson, he shows that they were not used by 
 the Greek Church nor the Armenian : 
 
 " Whose orders were acknowledged as valid because they had 
 all things necessary to full ordination.'' 
 
 It would have served his purpose still better to 
 have pointed to the Reformed Xon-Episcopal Churches 
 which totally rejected the ceremonies in question ; 
 but he did not name them, simply because he could 
 not defend the validity of their Orders. 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 379 
 
 In the same work he enumerates among the doc- 
 trines and practices of the Church of England : 
 
 11 The consecrations of Bishops and the ordaining of Priests 
 and Deacons for the service of God, in His Church, by a lawful 
 succession." — ( Works, Vol. iv., p. 336.) 
 
 In his letter to Dr. Watson, A.D, 1657, he says 
 expressly : 
 
 " They of Geneva are to blame in many things, and defective 
 in some. They shall never have my approbation of their doings, 
 nor let them have yours." 
 
 His "Last Will" [a.d. 1672], contains the following 
 paragraph : 
 
 " The heresies and schisms, I say, of all these, I also as most 
 addicted to the symbols and confessions of the Church of Eng- 
 land (or rather the Catholic Chnrch), do constantly renounce, 
 condemn, and reject. Among whom I rank not only the Sepa- 
 ratists, the Anabaptists and their followers (alas ! too many), 
 but also new Independents and Presbyterians of our own country." 
 
 Mr. Groode has referred to the Bishop's Will, but 
 he did not venture to lay before his readers this 
 " recognition of JSTon-Episcopal Churches." 
 
 During the supremacy of the Presbyterian party, 
 they published a work called Jus Divinum Ministerii 
 Anglicani, in which they claimed exclusive scriptural 
 warrant for their own irregular and defective minis- 
 try. This work met with bitter opposition from the 
 Congregationalists; and it was also replied to by sev- 
 eral Episcopal writers, among whom, probably, the 
 greatest in erudition, as well as one of the very first 
 in ability, was 
 
 Dr. Henry Hammond. This divine was born in 
 1605, and educated at Eton and Oxford. He was one 
 of King Charles' Chaplains. As a matter of course, 
 he was deprived under the Puritan government, and 
 
880 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 suffered greatly. At the Eestoration he was designed 
 for the Bishopric of Worcester, but died before con- 
 secration, April 25, 1660. His works have been 
 often re-printed, and for variety of learning and full 
 treatment of their subjects, they remain still unsur- 
 passed. 
 
 His decision as to the parties who, in the authority 
 to ordain and to govern the Church, succeed the 
 Apostles, is as follows : 
 
 " I answer that it being a matter of fact or story later than 
 that the Scriptures can universally reach to, it cannot be fully 
 satisfied or answered from thence, but will, in the full latitude 
 through the universal Church in these times, be made clear from 
 the recent evidences we have, viz. : from the consent of the Greek 
 and Latin Fathers, who generally resolve that Bishops were 
 those successors." — {On the Keys, preface.) 
 
 In his " Practical Catechism," he thus defines the 
 term " Holy Catholic Church :" 
 
 " This Church is a society of believers, ruled and continued 
 according to those ordinances, with the use of the Sacraments, 
 preaching of the word, censures, etc., under Bishops, or pas- 
 tors, succeeding those on whom the Holy Ghost came down, and 
 (by receiving ordination of those that had that power before 
 them, i. e., of the Bishops of the Church, the continued Success- 
 ors of the Apostles), lawfully called to those offices." 
 
 William Chillingwokth (1602-1644). The un- 
 equalled defender of Protestantism concludes thus his 
 Demonstration of the Apostolical institution of Epis- 
 copacy : 
 
 " Episcopal Government is acknowledged to have been uni- 
 versally received in the Church presently after the Apostles' 
 times. Between the Apostles' times and this ' presently after/ 
 there was not time enough for, nor possibility of so great an 
 alteration, and therefore there was no such alteration as is pre- 
 tended [by Presbyterians] ; and therefore Episcopacy, being con- 
 fessed to be so ancient and catholic, must be granted also to be 
 Apostolic, ' quod erat demonstrandum/ n 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 381 
 
 Bishop Jeremy Taylor (died 1667). Our next 
 authority shall be the English Chrysostom. He was 
 one of those whose merit was discovered by Laud, 
 who made him his Chaplain. He was also Chaplain 
 in ordinary to Charles I. After the Church and 
 State were overthrown, being deprived of his living, 
 he retired to Wales, and. there in privacy exercised 
 his ministry, and taught a school for his support. 
 He was twice imprisoned by the Puritan govern- 
 ment ; but at the Eestoration his faithfulness was re- 
 warded. He was advanced to the Episcopate, being 
 made Bishop of Down, Connor, and Dromore. From 
 his glorious pen have come some of the most power- 
 ful defences of the Church that it has ever had, and 
 to him belongs what many w r ill regard as the still 
 higher glory of having written the first and best 
 argument for Toleration that ever appeared; we 
 refer to the "Liberty of Prophesying." There can 
 be no doubt as to the side on which he stands in the 
 present discussion. Probably a fair idea of his opin- 
 ions may be gathered from this just and charitable 
 reference to him in Powell's Essay on Apostolical 
 Succession : 
 
 " The reader may be surprised to find the celebrated Bishop 
 Taylor represented as a Semi-Papist ; let him read his ' Cle- 
 rus Domini ' and his ' Episcopacy Asserted/ and he will see 
 the evidence of the statement. Bishop Taylor's splendid talents 
 have imposed on many, and have gained him more credit than 
 he deserved. Like many pious Papists, he could write well 
 upon devotional subjects." 
 
 But hearken to what is said on the other side by 
 
 an " Evangelical" Clergyman writing against Tract- 
 
 arianism : 
 
 " Taylor, I need hardly say, is one of these sound divines of 
 the 17th century, as they have been called, who have been sup- 
 
382 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 posed, but most erroneously supposed, to lend their sanction to 
 the Traotarian opinions. Could I but hope to influence any of 
 the Tractarians by the authority of this great divine * * * how 
 happy should I be/' — (Bird's Defence of the Reformation, p. 40.) 
 
 But now let us attend to the Bishop himself. His 
 " Episcopacy Asserted " begins with chapters or sec- 
 tions on the following propositions : 
 
 (1.) " Christ did institute a government in his Church." (2.) 
 "This government was first committed to the Apostles by 
 Christ." (3.) " With the power of joining others, and appoint- 
 ing successors in the Apostolate." (4.) "The Succession into 
 the ordinary office of the Apostolate is made by Bishops." 
 
 The opening sentence of the 4th section reads thus : 
 
 "For although Deacons and Priests have part of these, and 
 therefore, though in a very limited sense, may be called Sue- 
 cessores Apostolorum, to wit : in the power of baptizing, conse- 
 crating the Eucharist, and preaching * * * yet the Apostolate 
 and Episcopacy, which did communicate in all the power and 
 offices which are ordinary and perpetual, are in Scripture clearly 
 all one in ordinary ministrations, and their names are often 
 used in common to signify exactly the same ordinary function." 
 (Amer. Ed. 1844, p. 36-7.) 
 
 The Bishop then proceeds to show, in other sec- 
 tions, that Christ himself made the Episcopal or 
 Apostolic Office distinct from that of the Presbyters, 
 attaching to it certain powers which were not given 
 to the other : 
 
 u Therefore this office and ministry of the Apostolate is dis- 
 tinct from and superior to that of Presbyters, and this dis- 
 tinction must be so continued to all ages of the Church ; for the 
 thing was not temporary, but productive of issue and succession, 
 and therefore as perpetual as the clergy, as the Church itself." 
 —(Page 45.) 
 
 And as to the ordaining power, he says (P. 144) : 
 
 " Bishops had a power of imposing hands for collating of 
 Orders which Presbyters have not. What was done in this 
 affair in the times of the Apostles, I have already explicated ; 
 but now the inquiry is what the Church did in pursuance of the 
 practice and the tradition Apostolical. The first and second 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 383 
 
 Canons of the Apostles command that two or three Bishops 
 should ordain a Bishop, and one Bishop should ordain a Priest 
 and a Deacon. A Presbyter is not authorized to ordain — 
 a Bishop is. 
 
 " To say that Bishops are not a distinct Order from Presby- 
 ters, was a heresy first broached by iErius, and hath lately 
 been * * countenanced by many of the Church of Rome." — 
 {Ibid.) 
 
 And as to schism, we have this very decided testi- 
 mony : 
 
 " No separation from a Bishop, as such, can be lawful ; and 
 yet, if there were a thousand cases in which it were lawful to 
 separate from a Bishop, yet in no case is it lawful to separate 
 from Episcopacy ; that is the quintessence and spirit of Schism, 
 a direct overthrow to Christianity, and a confronting of a divine 
 institution." — (Page 246.) 
 
 Bishop Eobert Sanderson. — This illustrious 
 theologian and casuist was born in 1587, and edu- 
 cated at Oxford. The following passage from Izaak 
 Walton's charming sketch of his life will be a good 
 introduction to what we shall quote from his works : 
 
 " In this contented obscurity he continued, until the learned 
 and good Archbishop Laud, who knew him well at Oxford, for 
 he was his contemporary there, told the King * * * that there 
 was one Mr. Sanderson, an obscure country minister, that was 
 of such sincerity, and so excellent in all casuistical learning, 
 that he desired his majesty would make him his Chaplain. The 
 King granted it most willingly, and gave the Bishop charge to 
 hasten it ; for he longed to discourse with a man that had dedi- 
 cated his studies to that useful part of learning." * * * San- 
 derson was made his chaplain in ordinary in November follow- 
 ing, a. d. 1631. " The good King was never absent from his 
 sermons, and would usually say, ' I carry my ears to hear other 
 preachers, but I carry my conscience to hear Mr. Sanderson, 
 and to act accordingly/ Soon after this he was made Regius 
 Professor of Divinity at Oxford, where," says Walton, "he did, 
 for about a year's time, continue to read his matchless lectures, 
 which were at first de Jurameuto, a point very difficult, and at 
 that time very dangerous to be handled as it ought to be.* How 
 much the learned world stands obliged to him for these and for 
 his following lectures, de Conscientia, I shall not attempt to 
 
8S± OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 declare, being very sensible that the best pens must needs fall 
 far short in the commendation of them." 
 
 When the Puritan party was in the ascendant, the 
 the King being prisoner in the Isle of Wight, 
 
 "The Parliament sent the Covenant, the Negative Oath, and 
 I know not what more, to be taken by the Doctor of the Chair 
 and all Heads of Houses : and all other inferior scholars, of 
 what degree soever, were to take these oaths by a fixed day ; 
 and those that did not, to abandon their College, and the Uni- 
 versity too, within twenty-four hours after the beating of a drum; 
 for if they remained longer they were to be treated as spies/ 7 
 
 The University then came to a decision, and ap- 
 pointed certain delegates to draw up a remonstrance. 
 Among these was Dr. Sheldon (afterwards Arch- 
 bishop), Dr. Morley (afterwards Bishop of Winches- 
 ter), Dr. Zouch, the eminent jurist, Dr. Hammond, 
 and Dr. Sanderson. They refused to consent to the 
 abolition of Episcopacy, for the following reasons : 
 
 " Videtur nobis esse regimen Episcopale si non juris divini 
 sensu strictiore at Apostolicae saltern institutionis, hoc est 
 etiamsi nullibi a Deo explicate preceptum, ab Apostolis tamen 
 in ecclesiis institutum ad mentem et exemplum preceptoris sui 
 Jesu Christi." 
 
 This was written by Sanderson, who, with the rest, 
 
 " Was, in June, 1648, forced to pack up and be gone, and 
 thank God he was not imprisoned, as Dr. Sheldon and Dr. Ham- 
 mond and others then were." 
 
 For twelve years after this, he was deprived of all 
 income as a minister, and often reduced to great dis- 
 tress ; but at the Eestoration he was made Bishop of 
 Lincoln. He was moderator at the Savoy Conference, 
 in 1662, and the chief author or moulder of the changes 
 then made in the Liturgy. The admirable preface be- 
 ginning "It hath been the wisdom of the Church," 
 etc., and also the "Prayer for all conditions of men/ 7 
 were drawn up by him. 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 385 
 
 This brief sketch is sufficient to show that the good 
 Bishop was a thorough Episcopalian, willing to suffer 
 rather than yield up the distinctive principles of his 
 Church. But we are proceeding on the principle 
 that every man, as far as possible, should be allowed 
 to speak for himself; therefore we give the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 "My opinion is that Episcopal government is not to be de- 
 rived merely from Apostolical practice or institution, but that 
 it is originally founded in the person and office of the Messias, 
 our blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, who, being sent by our heavenly 
 Father to be Great Apostle, Bishop and Pastor of the Church 
 * * did afterwards, before his ascension into heaven, send and 
 empower His Holy Spirit, in like manner as His Father had 
 before sent Him to execute the same Apostolical, Episcopal, and 
 Pastoral office, for the Ordering and governing of his Church 
 until his coming again ; and so the same office to continue in 
 them and their successors unto the end of the world" — (Divine 
 Bight of Episcopacy.) 
 
 Mr. Goode quote's Sanderson's exposition of Di- 
 vine Eight, and tries to turn it to his own use (see 
 his Appendix D, page 92).* The Bishop says the 
 term has two significations : (1) " A clear, express, 
 and peremptory command of God in his word," that 
 the thing so enjoined " should be perpetually and 
 universally observed." Very few things possess 
 divine right in this stricter sense. He considers 
 that it belongs only to the preaching of the Gospel 
 and the administration of the Sacraments. (2) "Au- 
 thority and warrant from the institution, example, 
 and approbation either of Christ himself or his Apos- 
 tles ;" the thing possessing this warrant being " held, 
 by the consentient judgment of all the Churches of 
 
 * We cannot spare room for the entire passage. The reader will please 
 turn to Mr. Goode' s Essay, and observe whether we represent him fairly. 
 33 
 
386 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 Christ in the primitive and succeeding ages, needful 
 to be continued :" 
 
 "Of which sort I take the observation of the Lord's day, the 
 ordering of the keys, the distinction of Presbyters and Deacons, 
 and some other things (not all perhaps of equal consequence) to 
 be. Unto jus divinum, in that former acceptation, is required 
 a divine precept; in this latter, it sufficeth thereunto that a 
 thing be of Apostolical institution or practice/' 
 
 Having drawn this distinction, he determines as 
 
 follows, regarding its application to Episcopacy : 
 
 "Now that the government of the Churches of Christ by 
 Bishops is of divine right, in that first and stricter sense, is an 
 opinion at least, of great probability, and such as may more 
 easily, and upon better grounds, be defended than confuted. . . . 
 Yet, because it is both inexpedient to maintain a dispute where 
 it needs not, and needless to contend for more, where less will 
 serve the turn, I find that our divines that have travailed most 
 in this argument, where they purposely treat of it, do rather 
 choose to stand to the tenure of Episcopacy ex Apostolica desig- 
 nation, than to hold a contest upon the title of jus divinum, no 
 necessity requiring the same to be done. * * * Sufficient it is 
 for the justification of the Church of England in the constitu- 
 tion and government thereof, that it is (as certainly it is) of 
 divine right in the latter and larger signification : that is to say, 
 of Apostolical institution and approbation ; exercised' by the Apos- 
 tles themselves, and by other persons in their times, appointed 
 and enabled thereunto by them, according to the will of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the commission they had received 
 from him." 
 
 We have given this extract, chiefly for the purpose 
 of appending to it Mr. Groode's most uncandid com- 
 ment: 
 
 " So that all he ventures to say in favor of Episcopacy being 
 jure divino in the strict sense of the phrase — which alone would 
 make it of absolute necessity — is that it appears to him to be 
 * an opinion at least of great probability ;' and he admits that 
 our divines for the most part only contend for the Apostolical 
 institution of Episcopacy." 
 
 We have seldom seen a more deliberate attempt 
 to make an author oppose himself. Sanderson says 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 387 
 
 there are two kinds of divine right — (1) that arising 
 from an express command ; (2) that arising from 
 the institution or example of Christ or His Apos- 
 tles. But jus divinum, no matter how derived, makes 
 a thing obligatory. Mr. Groode, with amazing cool- 
 ness, says it does not: the command alone can do so; 
 and this is so said that it might seem, to be Sanderson's 
 own view of the matter, whereas he has stated plainly, 
 that things having the divine right, in the second 
 sense, possess both " authority and warrant," and 
 by the judgment of the Church, have been esteemed 
 "needful to be continued 1" The Bishop calls his 
 first sense of jus divinum the " stricter one." Mr. 
 Groode tries, by a very slight change in the word, to 
 make a great one in sense. He calls it the " strict 
 sense," thus insinuating that to the other the title of 
 divine right cannot be strictly applied ! 
 
 The object being to show that Episcopacy has 
 Scriptural authority, Sanderson says that most Eng- 
 lish divines have not cared to discuss whether, it is 
 based upon an express command, since the proof of 
 appointment by Christ, or His Apostles, would "serve 
 the turn ;"* and this the candid Mr. Goode represents 
 as a virtual abandonment of the divine right of 
 Episcopacy ! He says our divines " only " contend 
 for the Apostolical institution of Episcopacy ! This 
 "only" being foisted in to convey a meaning as far 
 as possible from that of the original writer. 
 
 If Mr. Goode had commenced his quotation where 
 Sanderson begins his paragraph, the reader would 
 
 * Sanderson declined disputing about the "stricter sense." "Such 
 determination being clearly of no moment at all to my purpose." 
 
388 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 hardly have needed our correction. Immediately 
 preceding the words quoted from him, he says : 
 
 11 The truth is, all this ado about jus divinum, is, in the last 
 result, no more than a mere verbal nicety ; the term being not 
 always taken in one and the same latitude of signification." 
 
 His judgment of " divine right/' however, is not 
 at all doubtful. He speaks of it thus : 
 
 11 Which, besides that it is clear, from evident texts of Scrip- 
 ture, and from the testimony of as ancient and authentic records 
 as the world has any to show, for the attesting of any other 
 part of Ecclesiastical story ; it is also, in truth, a part of the 
 established docrine of the Church of England, evidently de- 
 duced out of sundry passages in the Book of Consecration, etc., 
 (which Book is approved in the Articles of Keligion, and sub- 
 scribed unto by all persons that have heretofore taken Orders 
 in the Church, or Degrees in the University), and has been 
 constantly and uniformly maintained by our best writers, 
 and by all the orderly, sober, and orthodox sons of this 
 Church."— -(Pages 17, 20.) 
 
 Bishop Pearson, of Chester, (born 1612 — died 
 1686,) author of the elaborate exposition of the 
 Creed, which is still, and likely ever to be, the 
 text book upon that subject. On the ninth article 
 of the Creed he says : 
 
 " All the Churches of God are united into one by the unity 
 of discipline and government, by virtue whereof the same Christ 
 ruleth in them all. For they all have the same pastoral guides 
 appointed, authorized, sanctified, and set apart by the appoint- 
 ment of God." 
 
 But he speaks still more strongly in his " Minor 
 Works:" 
 
 " That the Order of the Ministry is necessary to the counte- 
 nance of the gospel, according to the promise of Christ, as it 
 was to the first plantation of it * * * is a doctrine indubitable. 
 That this ministry is derived by Succession * * and that the 
 unity and peace of the Church of Christ are to be conserved by 
 a due and legitimate ordination, no man who considereth the 
 practice of the Apostles and ecclesiastical history, can ever 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 389 
 
 doubt" " We can boldly and truly affirm that we are the same 
 with the primitive Christians. 
 
 " But if we once admit a diversity in our ordinations, we 
 have lost the honor of Succession; we have cast away our weapon 
 of defence ; we have betrayed our own cause, and laid ourselves 
 open to the common enemy of all Protestants, and we shall at 
 last inevitably fall into the Socinian doctrine to deny all neces- 
 sity or use of any mission or ordination. " — ( Works, edited by 
 Churton, Vol. ii.,' p. 232.) 
 
 To one who asks him, as a " moderate divine," to 
 resolve certain doubts about receiving Sacraments, 
 etc., from one who in the Puritan times had been 
 appointed to the ministry, he replies : 
 
 " If you doubt whether his ordination be valid, or conclude it 
 to be null, / confess I know no argument to convince you or 
 incline you to another persuasion." " If you be resolved that 
 your pastor established is not a Priest or Presbyter, and conse- 
 quently hath no power to consecrate the elements * * * / cannot 
 see how you can follow him to the Holy Table, or with what com- 
 fort or conscience you can bring your family, or concur with 
 your neighbors to receive the elements at his hands." — (Page 
 236.) 
 
 With Pearson, we end our series from men of that 
 age in which those flourished who might be called 
 Laudean. Some of those from whom we have quoted, 
 have been strongly opposed to the course of Laud 
 in several respects ; but it would puzzle the reader 
 to discover who they were, by their judgments upon 
 the subjects we are considering. We find that Tay- 
 lor, Cosin and Sanderson are not a whit less liberal, 
 or more exclusive than Hall, Davenant, or Pearson. 
 They all agree with the divines of the previous cen- 
 tury ; and so what has been said of Laudeans causing 
 a change in the opinions prevalent in the Church, is 
 just as incorrect as what was said of their changing 
 its laws. 
 
 33* 
 
890 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 From this point we must cease giving notices of 
 the authors, and be sparing with explanations. 
 
 Joseph Medb, (1586-1638) : 
 
 " Our Church, you know, goes upon differing principles from 
 the rest of the Reformed, and so steers her course by another 
 rule than they do. We look after the form, rites, and discipline 
 of antiquity, and endeavor to bring our own, as near as we can, 
 to that pattern. We suppose the Reformed Churches have de- 
 parted farther therefrom than needed, and so we are not very 
 solicitous to comply with them ; yea, we are jealous of such of 
 our own as we see over-zealously addicted to them, lest it be a sign 
 they prefer them before their Mother" — [Letter to Mr. Hartlibb.) * 
 
 Dr. Peter Heylin (1600-1662). Speaking of the 
 perpetual oversight of the Church, he says : 
 
 " This, since they could not do in person, they were to do it 
 by Successors ; who, by their office, were to be the ordinary 
 Pastors of the Church, and vicars of Christ. Now, if you ask 
 the Fathers who they were, that were accounted, in their times 
 and ages, the Successors of the Apostles, they will, with one 
 accord, make answer, that the Bishops were" — ( On Episcopacy, 
 Vol. i., p. 16.) 
 
 Dr. Eobert South (1633-1716): 
 
 " I must confess that I cannot look upon Titus as so far un- 
 bishoped, yet but that he still exhibits to us all the essentials 
 of that jurisdiction, which to this day is claimed for Episcopal/' 
 —(Phila. Edition, 1845, Vol. i., p. 75.) 
 
 "The Church of England being once suppressed, no other 
 sect or Church among us * * has any bottom or foundation, or, 
 indeed, any tolerable pretence to set up and settle itself upon." 
 —(Vol. ii., p. 489.) 
 
 " It was an observation and saying of a judicious prelate, that 
 of all the sorts of enemies which our Church had, there was 
 none so deadly, so pernicious, and likely to prove so fatal to it, 
 as the conforming Puritan." u He is one who lives by the Altar, 
 and turns his back upon it ; one who catches at the preferments 
 of the Church, but hates the discipline and Orders of it; one 
 who practices conformity as papists take oaths and tests, that 
 is, with an inward abhorrence of what he does for the present, 
 
 * Quoted in " Tracts for the Times" Vol. ii., p. 440. 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 391 
 
 and a resolution to act quite contrary when occasion serves ; 
 one who, during his conformity, will be sure to be known by 
 such a distinguished badge as shall point him out to, and secure 
 his credit with the dissenting brotherhood," etc., etc. — (Ibid, 
 493.) 
 
 Bishop Stillingfleet (1635— 1699)-wliile not yet 
 of age to enter the priesthood, wrote a work called 
 the " Irenicum/' in which he argued against Episco- 
 pacy by divine right. He afterwards disclaimed the 
 doctrine thus advanced, and protested against being 
 judged by that work of his youth.* Yet, notwith- 
 standing this, it is still reprinted, and constantly 
 quoted by writers on the Presbyterian side, as con- 
 veying Bishop Stillingfleet's opinion : 
 
 " That our Church did believe our Bishops to succeed the 
 Apostles in those [the ordinary] parts of their office, I shall 
 make appear by these things: (1) In the preface before the 
 Book of Ordinations, it is said that, ' it is evident unto all men/ 
 etc., etc. What is the reason that they express it thus: 'from 
 the Apostles' time/ but that they believed, while the Apostles 
 [lived], they managed the affairs of government themselves: 
 but as they withdrew, they did, in some Churches sooner, and 
 in some later, * * commit the care and government to such per- 
 sons whom they appointed thereto. Of which we have an 
 uncontrollable evidence in the case of Timothy and Titus * * * 
 So that we may allow for the community of names between 
 Bishop and Presbyter, for a while in the Church ; that is, while 
 the Apostles governed the Churches themselves. But afterward, 
 that which was then part of the Apostolical office, became 
 Episcopal ; which hath continued from that time to this, by 
 constant Succession in the Church." — ( Unreasonableness of 
 Separation, Part iii., Sect. 13.) 
 
 Bishop Griffith Williams, of Ossory. 
 
 "We have now two sorts of lay preachers, (1) one without 
 any ordination, (2) the other with & false ordination ; and this 
 
 * "Will you not allow one single person who happened to write about 
 these matters when he was very young, in twenty years' time of the 
 most busy and thoughtful part of his life, to see reason to alter his 
 judgment V — (Preface to Unreasonableness.) 
 
892 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 false ordination, that is done by other Presbyters, without the 
 Bishop, is no ordination at all; no otherwise than whe/i my 
 Lord Chancellor makes one a justice of the peace, and that jus- 
 tice o( the peace will presently take upon him to mako other 
 justices of the peace like himself. And you know the authority 
 of such second justices is of no validity, because the one had no 
 power to give it> nor the other any right to use it. And so is 
 it with these Presbyters that are made only by Presbyters; they 
 art none other than mere laics. " — ( Great Antichrist, small folio, 
 1661, pp. 22, 23.) 
 
 Bishop Ed. Keynolds, of Norwich (1595-1676), 
 formerly a Puritan : 
 
 " Christ was called of God our High Priest after the Order 
 of Melchisedec, even so were his Apostles sent by Him ; and by 
 authority from Him they did ordain others unto the same service, 
 and direct the same course to be pursued afterwards. From Him, 
 therefore, and those whom he hath appointed, must we receive 
 both our mission and our message." 
 
 The call is twofold, internal and external * * * "The ex- 
 ternal call, instituted by Christ in his Apostles, is managed by 
 their successors, the Bishops and Pastors of the Church." * * 
 " Separation and solemn consecration were done in the Church 
 assembly," "with the rite of imposition of hands, importing 
 (1) a dedicating and devoting the person to the office, and (2) 
 deriving authority to minister office" — ( Works, in folio, 1678, 
 p. 1038.) 
 
 Bishop Samuel Pakkek, of Oxford (1640-1687): 
 
 " It is an undeniable truth that the Apostolical office was 
 Episcopal, and the Episcopal Apostolical, both of them consist- 
 ing in the supreme government of the Church ; so that an 
 Apostle was a moving Bishop, to found Churches, and a Bishop 
 a settled Apostle, to govern them." — {Account of Government 
 of Christian Church, 12mo., London, 1683.) 
 
 " The Bishop of that Church in Tertullian's time was known 
 to have succeeded the Apostle in that See, as now one Bishop 
 doth another ; and what Tertullian means by that is evident, in 
 that he reckons up three orders of the Clergy, — Bishop, Priest, 
 and Deacon ; and gives such a supremacy to the Bishop as to 
 allow nothing to be done in the Church by Presbyters or Dea- 
 cons, without his authority." — (P. 17.) 
 
 " This one would think more than enough to satisfy the ut- 
 most demands that any ingenuous man could make for the 
 Apostolical Succession of Episcopacy. — (P. 23.) 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 393 
 
 Speaking of the common use in the New Testa- 
 ment of the same word for different offices, and dif- 
 ferent words for the same office, he says : 
 
 "And yet what volumes hath this one lean and forced con- 
 clusion brought forth against the Apostolical Succession of 
 Bishops ! Nay, it is the only thing, besides St. Jerome's rash 
 expressions, that supports the controversies — (P. 26.) 
 
 Herbert Thorndike died 1672. He quotes ap- 
 provingly from Salmasius : 
 
 "Bishops are set over their Churches plenissime in the fullest 
 right, and that therefore ordination was reserved to them; 
 which is to say, that in all things they have a special interest, 
 but especially ordination is their peculiar ." — {Review of Right 
 of the Church, p. 77.) 
 
 Archbishop Spotiswood (1565-1639): 
 
 " As touching the government of the Church, I am verily 
 persuaded that the government Episcopal is the only right and 
 Apostolical form" — {Last Will and Testament.) 
 
 Dr. Thomas Jackson (1579-1640) was another of 
 those intellectual giants of whom our Church can 
 boast. So thorough and profound were his usual 
 discourses, that clergymen resorted to his Church 
 whenever it was possible ; and the saying was com- 
 mon that, "his pulpit was like a Professor's chair." 
 About twenty-five years ago, his Treatise on the 
 Church was reprinted by Mr. Goode; from it we 
 make the following extracts. The reader will bear in 
 mind that this Treatise, being written against Eo- 
 manists, with whom, as to the theory of Succession, 
 etc., we have no debate, there is in it no defence of 
 that theory ; it and Episcopacy are taken for granted. 
 
 " It is, then, profession of the same faith, participation of 
 the Sacraments, and subjection to the same laws and ordinances 
 ecclesiastic, which makes the visible Church to be one." — {Two 
 Treatises, etc., etc., Phil, edit., p. 59.) 
 
304 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 11 The more spiritual pawer with which alone the Apostles 
 and their immediate Successors were endued, was of greater 
 efficacy than both the remainder of the like spiritual power in 
 later Bishops and pastors, and all the strength of secular or 
 civil power wherewith princes, states, or kingdoms * * * have, 
 as they were in conscience and de jure div ino bound, assisted 
 Prelates and Church governors." — (P. 61.) 
 
 "Prelates" "are always to remember that this power is 
 given them, not for destruction, or to show their own greatness, 
 and therefore never to be used but upon special and weighty 
 occasions."— (P. 116.) 
 
 " Though no heretic be a true member of the Church, and 
 therefore no true Priest, yet, so long as he is in the Priest's 
 place (in Sacerdotio), the acts of his ministry or priesthood be 
 good. Now, though the Pope or Bishop of Rome be more than 
 a heretic, even the Antichrist or man of sin * * * nevertheless, 
 seeing (as the Apostle saith) he sits in the temple of God, even 
 the acts of his ministration or priesthood are good ; nor are the 
 Bishops consecrated by him so polluted by communion with him 
 in their consecration but their Episcopal acts, as the ordina- 
 tion of ministers, the administration of Sacraments prescribed 
 by Christ and his Apostles," etc., etc. — (P. 167.) 
 
 Dr. Isaac Barrow (1630-1677). This une- 
 qualled divine, who has never been accused of nar- 
 rowness, bears the following testimony in his sermon 
 on Hebrews xiii., 17 : 
 
 " The Church is acies ordinata, a well-marshalled army, 
 wherein, under the Captain-General of our faith and salva- 
 tion, * * * there are divers Captains serving in fit degrees of 
 subordination : Bishops commanding larger regiments, Presby- 
 ters ordering less numerous companies." 
 
 "Of this distinction there never was, in ancient times, made 
 any question, nor did it seem disputable in the Church, except 
 by one malcontent (Aerius), who did, indeed, get a name in 
 story, but never made much noise or obtained any vogue in the 
 world. Very few followers he found in his heterodoxy ; no 
 great body, even of heretics, could find cause to dissent from the 
 Church on this point; but all, Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, 
 Donatists, etc., maintained the distinction of Ecclesiastical Or- 
 ders among themselves, and. acknowledged the duty of the in- 
 ferior clergy to their Bishops." 
 
 He then goes on to show that such subordination 
 is required by reason : 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 395 
 
 " An army cannot be without a general, a senate without a 
 president, a corporation without a chief magistrate ; this, all 
 experience attesteth ; this, even the chief impugners of Episco- 
 pal presidency do by their practice confess, who, for the preven- 
 tion of disorder, have been fain of their own heads to devise 
 Ecclesiastical subordinations, * * * and to appoint moderators 
 (or temporary Bishops) in their assemblies ; so that reason hath 
 forced the dissenters from the Church to imitate it/' 
 
 " The Holy Scripture also doth plainly enough countenance 
 this distinction ; for therein we have represented one ' Angel ' 
 presiding over principal Churches which contained several 
 Presbyters ; therein we find Episcopal ordination and jurisdic- 
 tion exercised. " 
 
 "I shall only farther add that if any man be so dully or so 
 affectedly ignorant as not to see the reason of the case, and the 
 dangerous consequences ,of rejecting this ancient form of disci- 
 pline ; if any be so overweeningly presumptuous as to question 
 the faith of all history, or to disavow those monuments, arid that 
 tradition, upon the testimony whereof even the truth and certainty 
 of our religion and all its sacred oracles do rely ; if any be so 
 perversely contentious as to oppose the custom and current 
 practice of the Churches through all ages down to the last age. 
 * * * * * jjp 0n such a person we may look as one utterly invinci- 
 ble and intractable. So weak a judgment and so strong a will 
 who can hope by reason to convert P y 
 
 Speaking of the " false Apostles" who resisted 
 the " true Apostles/' and "intruded themselves into 
 that high office," he says : 
 
 " No wonder, then, it may be that now in these dregs of time 
 there should be many who disavow and desert their true guides, 
 transferring the observance due to them upon bold pretenders, 
 who are not, indeed, guides, but seducers ; not governors, but 
 usurpers and sacrilegious invaders of this holy office." 
 
 He then goes to give the marks by which genuine 
 guides may be known. They are those who preach 
 the gospel faithfully, administer the Sacraments grave- 
 ly and duly, etc., and 
 
 " Those who derive their authority by a continued Suc- 
 cession from the Apostles, who are called unto and constituted 
 in their office in a regular and peaceable way agreeable to the 
 institution of God, and the constant practice of his Church/-' 
 
 " As they [the Apostles] did challenge to themselves an au- 
 
S96 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 thority from Christ to exercise these and the like acts of spirit- 
 ual dominion and jurisdiction, as we do also see the like acts 
 exorcised by Bishops whom they did constitute to feed and rule 
 the Church, so we may reasonably conceive all governors of the 
 Church [the heirs of their office J invested with like authority in 
 order to the same purpose, and that correspondent obedience is 
 due to them." — ( Works, 8vo. ed., London, Vol. iii., pp. 109-130.) 
 
 Dr. Rich'd. Allestree (1619-1680). Eegius pro- 
 fessor of theology at Oxford : 
 
 11 Thf separateness of the functions of the Clergy, the incom- 
 municableness of their office to persons not separated for them, 
 is so express a doctrine, both of the letter of the text and of 
 the Holy Ghost, that sure I need not to say more." * * * " And 
 here I might tell you of * bearing rule/ of ' thrones/ of ' stars/ 
 and * angels/ and other words of a high sense, and yet not 
 go out of the scripture bounds, although the dignity did not 
 die with the scripture age, nor expire with the Apostles. The 
 age as low as Photius words it thus: 'that Apostolical and 
 divine dignity which the chief priests are acknowledged to be 
 possessed of by right of Succession/" — (Sermon xvi., fol. ed., 
 1684; also quoted in Tracts for Times, Amer. Ed., vol. ii., 
 page 146.) 
 
 Henry Dodwell (1641-1711), although a layman 
 was a profoundly learned theologian and teacher of 
 divinity. His opinions were very decided indeed^ 
 and would come nearer to Mr. Goode's representation 
 of exclusiveism than any we know of. He wrote a 
 thick quarto volume on the Sinfulness of Schism, 
 in which he maintained at length that " Separation 
 of Churches from Episcopal Government is Schismati- 
 cal." He shows the superiority of Episcopal Churches 
 to all others in this way : salvation is offered to man 
 through a Covenant of mercy, but a right to the 
 promises or benefits of that covenant cannot ordina- 
 rily be possessed except by entering into it and par- 
 taking of the ordinances which are its tokens and 
 pledges ; and that these, with any certainty of validity, 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 397 
 
 can only be "bad in a rightly and perfectly constituted 
 branch of the Church Catholic ; and that this Church 
 has ever been and must ever be Episcopal in its con- 
 stitution, because so instituted by divine direction : 
 
 " The visible Church wherein they may expect to find these 
 ordinary means, is the Episcopal in opposition to all other so- 
 cieties not Episcopally governed." — ( On Schism, London, 1679, 
 p. 166.) 
 
 " The validity of the Sacraments depends upon the authority 
 of the persons by whom they are administered." " No other 
 ministers have this lawful authority but only they of the Epis- 
 copal communion." — (Page 168.) 
 
 Of this work the 24th and 25th chapters are ex- 
 pressly devoted to proving the " Nullity of Ordina- 
 tions among the Non-Conformists." 
 
 Of this same date we have an anonymous work, 
 which, from its exactness and fulness of learning, 
 might pass for Dodwell's, but yet is not. It is called 
 a " Brief Account of the Ancient Church Govern- 
 ment," and is an elaborate reply to the Presbyterian 
 plea — their Jus Divinum Ministerii, and to Blondel's 
 Apology. The writer divides his work into four 
 parts. In the first he shows that the Apostles were 
 the Successors of Christ ; in the second that Bishops 
 are the Successors of the Apostles ; in the third he 
 presents the Presbyterian plea against Bishops ; and 
 in the fourth he replies to it : 
 
 " All parts of Apostolical authority were not given to all 
 whom the Apostles ordained, with an exact equality amongst 
 them ; but some authority (as that of ordaining * * * * ) 
 given to some particular persons, with a subordination to them 
 of the rest,"— (Page 40.) 
 
 " It is needless to show any further out of later Fathers, the 
 authority of Bishops to have been superior to Presbyters in 
 their own times ; for who with any face can deny this. But this 
 may be to purpose to show you out of them this authority of 
 Bishops (superior to Presbyters), which was practised in their 
 times to have been held by them as of Apostolical, or yet 
 34 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 higher, of our Lord's institution', and so of Apostolical Suc- 
 cession." — (Page 62.) 
 
 As to whether Bishops and Presbyters be of to- 
 tally different Orders, or only of different degrees in 
 the same Order, this author says, the possession of 
 higher authority and special powers should show 
 superiority of Order ; yet 
 
 "If different functions may not distinguish these higher 
 Orders * * * let this controversy be stated as any one pleaseth, 
 only so that the Bishops be still acknowledged to have been 
 admitted to this superior gracilis by a new ordination or conse- 
 cration (call it as you please), even in the most ancient records 
 of the Church, and by this to have committed to them those 
 special acts or Acts Ecclesiastical, which, if the inferior gradu s 
 sacerdotal did assume, it teas always accounted by the Church 
 
 INVALID, NULL, AND EFFECTLESS. " 
 
 Bishop Lloyd of St. Asaph (1627-1717) pub- 
 lished in 168-1 his " Historical Account of Church 
 Government in Great Britain," etc., which he dedi- 
 cated to the " Eev. Dr. Stillingfleet, Dean of St. Paul's, 
 and the pious and learned Mr. Henry Dodwell/' in 
 acknowledgment to "them in particular of the debt 
 that is owing from the whole Church to all that have 
 stood up in the breach against her enemies." He thus 
 shows the Universality of Episcopacy : 
 
 " In that laborious collection of Blondel's, which was made 
 for the service of our Presbyterians, he, with all his vast read- 
 ing, could not find one undoubted example of a Church of their 
 way in the ancient times, but only that of the ScotsV (Preface.) 
 
 And in respect to this, the Bishop proceeds to 
 show that Blondel was entirely wrong: 
 
 "But (as it hath pleased God) there is no want of instance 
 to prove that Episcopacy was settled here as it was in other 
 countries. First we find at the Council of Aries (which was 
 called by Constantine the Great in the year 314) * * * there 
 were out of Britain three Bishops, one Priest, and one Deacon. " 
 
OPINION'S OF DIVINES. 399 
 
 From the Canons of this Council he quotes a pas- 
 sage ending thus : 
 
 " And that the Presbyters do nothing without leave of the 
 Bishop." 
 
 " The last words which set forth the Episcopal power are the 
 same in effect with those of the epistles of Ignatius, Bishop of 
 Antioch, which have been often produced in defence of Episco- 
 pal authority. No man that considers the antiquity of that 
 Eather who died within ten years after St. John the Apostle, 
 can doubt whether his kind of Episcopacy were the govern- 
 ment the Apostles left in the Church." — (Pp. 73-4.) 
 
 Dr. John Scott (1638-1694) in his Christian Life: 
 
 " We read of the Church of Jerusalem * * of Antioch, Ephe- 
 sus, etc. ; which Churches, doubtless, consisted of several con- 
 gregations in and about those populous cities, which were all 
 united into one body under the care and inspection of one 
 Bishop or Governor." — (Page 294.) 
 
 " No congregation can lawfully communicate in the public 
 offices of divine worship without a lawful pastor to adminis- 
 ter it ; no collection of congregations can lawfully exert an Act 
 of Church government without having an authorized governor to 
 exercise it" — (Page 296.) 
 
 " There is a standing form of government and discipline in 
 the Church, instituted by our Saviour himself which, as I shall 
 show hereafter, is this, that there should be an Episcopacy, 
 or Order of men authorized in a continued Succession from 
 the Apostles (who were authorized by Himself), to oversee and 
 govern all those particular Churches into which the Church 
 Catholic should be hereafter distributed ; to ordain inferior 
 Ministers to teach, and instruct, and administer the holy offices 
 to particular congregations." — (Page 310.) 
 
 " These things, therefore, being all of divine institution, are 
 the essentials of Christian government and discipline, in which 
 all Christian Churches are obliged to communicate with each 
 other. And this being the standing form and discipline of the 
 Catholic Churches, no particular Church or community of Christ- 
 ians can refuse to communicate in it without dividing itself from 
 the communion of the Church Catholic. I say refuse to communi- 
 cate in it, because it is possible for a Church to be without this 
 government, which yet doth neither refuse it, nor the commu- 
 nion of any other Church for the sake of it. A Church may 
 be debarred of it by unavoidable necessity in despite of its power, 
 and against its consent, and under this circumstance I can by 
 no means think such a Church to be separated from the Church 
 
400 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 Catholic. It is, indeed, an imperfect and defective part of the 
 Catholic Church, and if this defect of it be any way owing to its 
 own negligence, it is a very great fault in it, as well as an un- 
 happiness. But though this instituted government is necessary 
 t-> the perfection of a Church, it does not necessarily follow that 
 it is necessary to the being of it." — (Page 312.) 
 
 " But though a community of Christians may be a true part 
 of the Catholic Church and in communion with it, though it 
 hath no Episcopacy, yet it is a plain case that if it rejects the 
 Episcopacy and separates from the communion of it, it thereby 
 wholly divides itself from the communion of the Catholic 
 ChurcV'— - (p. 313, 4th Ed., 12mo., London, 1697, Vol. iii.) 
 
 Dr. George Hickes (1642-1715) was ordained to 
 
 the Episcopate by the non-jurors, but never held 
 
 jurisdiction as a Bishop : 
 
 •'May not God set apart a perpetual Order and Succession of 
 public officers and ministers in his Church forever to attend to 
 those things?" — [Christian Priesthood, Oxford Ed. 1847, Vol. 
 i., p. 258.) 
 
 Speaking of what is given under the name of The 
 Holy Ghost in ordination, he says : 
 
 " Most certainly the Gifts, which, by a metonymy in Script- 
 ure, are often called the Spirit, and which, in consecration and 
 ordination, they give to the persons consecrated or ordained. 
 But how? Not in their own name ; but as Peter gave sound- 
 ness to the lame man when he said, ' silver and gold have I 
 none, but such as I have, give I thee -in the name of Jesus 
 Christ of Nazareth ; rise up and walk/ " — (Page 261.) 
 
 On page 267 he quotes the following from the 
 
 infidel Tindal : 
 
 " It is the prevailing opinion that the Bishops are by divine 
 appointment governors of the Christian Church, and that no one 
 is capable of being of that number who derives not his right by an 
 uninterrupted Succession of Bishops in the Catholic Church. I 
 will now show some of the numerous absurdities of this hy- 
 pothesis." 
 
 So, then, the first direct opponent of Apostolical 
 Succession that we meet with is this unbeliever. In 
 reply to him, Hickes proceeds : 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 401 
 
 " That Bishops are by divine appointment, and derive their 
 right by uninterrupted succession, is no hypothesis, as he calls 
 it, but matter of fact, believed and practised for fifteen hun- 
 dred years in the Christian Church." 
 
 " The next argument he brings against this Episcopal form 
 of government, hath been brought and answered many times. 
 It consists in nothing but spiteful and invidious clamor against 
 the divine right of Episcopacy for ' weakening the Protest- 
 ant cause ;' ' for unchurching the Reformed Churches in other 
 countries, particularly that in Scotland/' To which I answer, 
 first, that no strict doctrines are to be rejected for the severity 
 of their consequences upon men who will not believe them, or, if 
 they believe, will not practice them." " But, as our author truly 
 speaks, it is they, themselves, that 'unchurch themselves' * * * 
 by throwing off a government which was instituted by God for 
 the perpetual and unalterable polity of the Church." 
 
 "I speak this with reluctance, though with freedom and plain- 
 ness. I call God to witness, not to reproach the Protestants of 
 other Churches, who have advocated Episcopacy, but in great 
 charity and pity to them, beseeching them to consider if, indeed 
 they can justify themselves to Christ and the Christian world 
 for abdicating it, and departing from the constitution and mis- 
 sion of the Catholic Church. They all, except in one place 
 [Scotland], plead necessity for departing from it, and I would 
 to God their plea were good. But the necessities they plead are 
 necessities of their own making and continuing ; chosen and 
 wilful necessities ; and, I am forced to say by consequences, 
 unjustifiable necessities, out of which they may, and I think 
 therefore ought to extricate themselves as soon as they can." 
 —(Pp. 269-271.) 
 
 Dr. Hickes edited and published, in 1708, a work 
 entitled " The Divine Eight of Episcopacy Asserted, 
 by a Presbyter of the Church of England." From 
 this we quote a single passage : 
 
 " Episcopacy is of divine institution in these three senses/' 
 "For if Jesus Christ has appointed it in his Gospel to be the 
 government of His Church, as I doubt not to make it appear, it 
 is past controversy that it is of divine institution ; since it is the 
 Son of God Himself that is the author of it. But, admitting 
 that we should not meet with the formal and positive establish- 
 ment of it by Him * * * if the Apostles have set it forth as 
 men divinely inspired, it must be confessed that it is of divine 
 institution. * * * And, lastly, if the Apostles, by virtue of their 
 commission from Jesus Christ, have founded such a form of 
 34* 
 
402 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 Church government in the Christian Church, it must be like- 
 wise, if not immediately, yet mediately, as being grounded upon 
 a divine authority." — [P. 12.) 
 
 Bishop Samuel Bradfokd, of Bochester (1652- 
 1731): 
 
 " The plain and certain account which we have of the dis- 
 tinction of Bishop and Presbyters, as superior and inferior 
 officer, in the several Churches planted by the Apostles of which 
 we have any history, even down successively from their times, 
 is of itself a testimony so very clear, that it is hard to conceive 
 how any that are not slaves to an hypothesis should withstand 
 the force of it." — ( Consecration Sermon at Lambeth Chapel, p. 7.) 
 
 Bishop Burnet (1643-1715), the well-known writer 
 
 of the History of Keformation, and expounder of the 
 
 Thirty-Nine Articles. Part of his comment upon the 
 
 23d is quoted by Mr. Groode as follows : 
 
 "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 functions, should submit 
 itself entirely to their conduct, or, finding none of those, should 
 by a common consent desire some of their own number to min- 
 ister 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 ; for when this grows to a constitu- 
 tion, and when it was begun by the consent of a Body, who are 
 supposed to have an authority in such an extraordinary case, 
 whatever some hotter spirits have thought of this since that time, 
 yet we are very sure that not only those who penned the Articles, 
 but the body of this Church for above half an age after did, 
 notwithstanding those irregularities, acknowledge the Foreign 
 Churches, so constituted, to be true Churches, as to all the essen- 
 tials of a Church, though they had been at first irregularly formed, 
 and continued still to be in an imperfect state. ,y 
 
 We might allow this to pass, as correct enough, but 
 for that part of it that involves the idea that laymen 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 403 
 
 can originate a ministry and a Church; which idea 
 was never tolerated by the Church of England for a 
 moment. Burnet was one of the most determined 
 Low Church partisans of his day (and, indeed, more 
 of a politician than a divine), yet his Exposition con- 
 tains abundant proof that he held to the divine right 
 of Episcopacy, and Mr. Goode's own quotation im- 
 plies it. Our space will not allow us to give more 
 than a sentence or two in addition : 
 
 " In the New Testament our Lord called the twelve Apostles 
 and sent them out. He also sent out upon another occasion 
 seventy disciples ; and before He left His Apostles he told them, 
 that as His Father had sent him, so He sent them ; which 
 seems to import, that as He was sent into the world with this 
 amoug other powers, that He might send others in His name, 
 so He likewise empowered them to do the same * * so they 
 appointed others over the particular Churches in which they 
 fixed them : such were Epaphras or Epaphroditus at Colosse, 
 Timothy at Ephesus, and Titus in Crete. To them the Apostles 
 gave authority; otherwise it was a needless thing to write so 
 many directions to them in order to their conduct." " These 
 rules given to Timothy and Titus do plainly import that there 
 was to be an authority in the Church, and that no man was to 
 assume this authority to himself/' 
 
 " The Apostles settled order and government in the Church, 
 not so much for the age in which they themselves lived, as once 
 to establish and give credit to constitutions that they foresaw 
 would be yet more necessary to the succeeding ages." 
 
 But the reader ought to know that the comment 
 on the 23d Article, which is so triumphantly brought 
 forward by Mr. Groode and his followers, was especially 
 censured by the Convocation. The Lower House com- 
 plained, 
 
 (1) " That the said book tends to introduce such a latitude 
 and diversity of opinions as the Articles were framed to avoid, 
 (2) That there are many passages in the exposition of the sev- 
 eral Articles which appear to us to be contrary to the true mean- 
 ing of them and to other received doctrines of our Church." — 
 (Lathbury's History, p. 355.) 
 
40-i OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 The Bishops, who were nearly all of the Govern- 
 ment party, refused to entertain the complaint ; but 
 it remains on the record. 
 
 Bishop Beveridge (1636-1707). — We turn now 
 to another Prelate, who was vastly more learned than 
 Burnet, and at least as able. He also was a Low 
 Churchman, but in the best (that is, the non-polit- 
 ical) sense of the term. Few better men have ever 
 lived. He too wrote a commentary on the Articles, 
 from which we print a few extracts : 
 
 " Though there be but one God men are called to this [the 
 ministerial] office by, yet there be two ways which He is pleased 
 to call them in. Some he calls immediately, from Himself with- 
 out men ; others mediately from Himself by men. The first 
 manner of calling the Prophets and Apostles had." * * * 
 
 " Christ called the Apostles; the Apostles, by the appointment 
 of the same Christ, called others to succeed them ; they again 
 others ; and so hath there been a succession of lawful ministers 
 ever since." " So that none are now lawful ministers but such 
 as are thus called by Him, and all that are thus called by Him 
 are lawful ministers. I mean all such as are called by such as 
 succeed them in the ministry who were called immediately from 
 Christ himself; for these are they which certainly we are to 
 understand by those mentioned in this Article, ' who have 
 public authority given unto them in the Congregation or Church 
 to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard/ " — ( On 22>d 
 Article.) 
 
 " If we once suppose that the primitive Church generally 
 erred in their ordination of ministers, then we must grant also 
 that there hath never been a lawful ministry since ; the lawful- 
 ness of their ministry depending chiefly, yea only, on the lawful- 
 ness of their ordination * * * and if there be no lawful ministry, 
 there can be no true Church, because the word is not lawfully 
 preached^ nor the Sacraments lawfully administered in it." — ( On 
 36th Article.) 
 
 He then goes on to show that the power of ordi- 
 nation was always confessed to be the property of 
 Bishops, and of them alone : 
 
 " And thus we see how in the primitive Church it was Bishops 
 only that ordained Priests, and they were no Priests who were 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 405 
 
 not ordained by Bishops ; insomuch that St. Chrysostom, and 
 yea, and St. Jerome himself too, could not bat say that Ordina- 
 tion * * was peculiar to Bishops. So that though Presbyters 
 should be thought to be equal to Bishops in other things, yet in 
 this business of Ordination Bishops must needs be acknowledged 
 to be above them." — {Ibid., Oxford ed., p. 554.) 
 
 Against such exposition as this the Church never 
 
 objected. 
 
 From his sermons we print a single sentence : 
 
 "As for schism, they certainly hazard their salvation at a 
 strange rate, who separate from such a Church as ours is, 
 wherein the Apostolical Succession, the root of all Christian 
 communion, hath been so entirely preserved, and the word and 
 sacraments are so effectually administered ; and all to go unto 
 such assemblies and meetings as can have no pretence to the 
 'promise in my text J" — (Sermon on " Lo I am with you always ," 
 etc., etc.) 
 
 Matthew Scrivener published his "Course of 
 Divinity" in 1674. Of Succession he speaks thus: 
 
 " How is it possible to distinguish them whom Christ hath 
 appointed to constitute others in the Church, from them to whom 
 He hath given no such order, but by this Succession we now 
 speak of, namely, a traduction of that faculty which is in one 
 (deriving it originally, though by many intermediate hands, 
 from Christ himself), to another succeeding him." — (Fol., Lon- 
 don, p. 130.) 
 
 Speaking of persons taking the ministry upon them 
 " without ordinary grant," he says : 
 
 " This evil is only remedied by a successive and ordinary trans- 
 mission of that power which Christ left with certain peculiar per- 
 sons he called Apostles, with authority to communicate the same 
 to others to the world's end, according to the several ranks and 
 orders of Ministers of which his Church consisteth." — (Ibid..) 
 
 James Boys, Vicar of Coggeshall in Essex, was 
 
 also author of an exposition of the Articles. His 
 
 opinions are very decidedly given : 
 
 "After the decease of the Apostles, the Bishops ordained by 
 them set apart others to succeed themselves ; and thus the min- 
 istry lawfully called hath continued in the Church to this day." 
 
406 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 11 It can be no other than a violation of God's order, and an 
 unlawful intrusion into His sanctuary, when men take this office 
 upon them in a way different from the practice of the Apostol- 
 ical age and primitive times." 
 
 "Are they true ministers that plead they receive their com- 
 mission from the Spirit only, and are moved by the Holy Ghost? 
 Our Church says they are not." * * * 
 
 " Are (hose, then, true ministers which own they receive it from 
 men, from the Presbyters of the Church by the imposition of 
 hands and prayer? Our Church declares against these; for 
 the Article says they must be called to the work by men who 
 have public authority given them in the Congregation to call 
 and send ministers. This congregation can be reputed no other 
 than the Catholic Church ; and that has never given or allowed 
 unto Presbyters alone power or authority to send laborers into 
 God's vineyard." — (Second edition, London, 1717, pp. 152, 155.) 
 
 Dr. Richard Fiddes (1671-1725), in his Body of 
 Divinity, published in 1717, says : 
 
 " If ordinations to the sacred offices had been unlawful or in- 
 valid, either without the authority of the Apostles or in oppo- 
 sition to it, they must be equally unlawful or invalid when they 
 are performed either without or against the authority of their Suc- 
 cessors." * * * Ancient writers " all unanimously agree in this 
 conclusion, that Bishops are an Order superior to Presbyters, 
 to whom the supreme power of jurisdiction in the several 
 Churches belonged, and who had the sole power of ordaining 
 others ; and that they did accordingly, in fact, succeed in the 
 Episcopate, and alone exercise that power." — (Book iv., chap. 
 uL, fol., Dublin, 1718, Vol. L, p. 290.) 
 
 And again he speaks thus decidedly : 
 
 " The Succession in each of the three orders was always de- 
 rived from Episcopal hands; and as Bishops only had the 
 power to ordain, no ordination by other hands could be or ever 
 was admitted as having any force or validity." 
 
 " Whether the necessity pleaded for at the Reformation, for 
 abolishing the Episcopal office, was real or only pretended, or 
 however God, in cases of necessity, may excuse honest and well- 
 meaning persons in the breach of his own constitutions, yet 
 neither in the reason of the thing, nor from any facts recorded 
 in the Holy Scriptures, can it be proved that facts done by a 
 mere human or other incompetent authority, towards conveying 
 any divine powers, can be in themselves of the least force or 
 validity." — (Vol. ii., p. 117.) 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 407 
 
 The London Cases were a set of very moderate 
 expostulations and reasons, presented in the hope of 
 recovering Dissenters to the Church of England. 
 They were published in 1698. Among the writers 
 were Archbishops Tillotson, Sharpe, and Tenison, 
 Bishops Grove, Sherlock, Williams, Fowler, and Pat- 
 rick, Dr. Cave, Dr. Hooper, etc., etc. Owing to their 
 special purpose the Cases are rather apologetic in 
 tone, and indeed some of the writers, being almost as 
 latitudinarian as they could be with honesty, would 
 not, under any ordinary circumstances have written 
 differently. Notwithstanding this, however, the vol- 
 ume contains much that is worth considering, much 
 that our extreme Low Churchman of the present 
 times would hardly accept. Ex. Gra. : 
 
 " Some who communicate ordinarily with the Church of Eng- 
 land make no scruple to communicate, in prayers and Sacra- 
 ments, with Presbyterian and Independent [or Congregational] 
 Churches ; * * * * and some think it very indifferent ivhom they 
 communicate with, and therefore take their turns in all. But 
 this is as contrary to all the principles of Church communion 
 as anything can possibly be." 
 
 " To be in communion with the Church is to be a member of 
 it ; and to be a member of two separate and opposite Churches 
 is to be as contrary to ourselves as those separate Churches are 
 to each other. Christ hath but one Church and one body, and 
 therefore where there are two Churches, divided from each other 
 by separate communions, there is a schism and rent in the body ; 
 and whoever communicates with both these Churches, on one side 
 or the other, communicates in a Schism. ,y 
 
 " That the Presbyterian and Independent Churches have 
 made an actual separation from the Church of England, I have 
 evidently proved already ; and therefore, if the communion of 
 the Church of England be lawful * * * then they are schis- 
 matics, and to communicate with them is to partake in their 
 schism."— (Small Fol., London, 1698, p. 35.) 
 
 Archbishop Sharpe, of York (1644-1713). — Ee- 
 ferring to our Lord's command (Matt, xxviii., 19, 20), 
 he says : 
 
408 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 " This commission of our Saviour we may properly style the 
 charter of the Church ; and mind, I pray, what is contained in 
 it. Our Saviour here declares the extent of his Church, and of 
 what persons he would have it constituted. It was to extend 
 throughout all the world, and to be made up of all nations. He 
 here declares upon what grounds He would have it constituted. 
 * * * * Lastly, He here promises the perpetual presence of 
 His Holy Spirit, both to assist the Apostles and their Successors 
 in the building and governing this Church, and to actuate and 
 enliven all the members of it." — (Sermon on 1 Cor. xii., 13, in 
 Vol. vii., pp. 87, 88.) 
 
 Chaeles Leslie (1650-1732). — This almost un- 
 equalled reasoner and very zealous defender of the 
 Church, speaking of proposed surrender of Church 
 privileges, says, in his "Eegale and Pontificat " :* 
 
 "How can rights that are divine be given up? If they are 
 divine no human authority can either supersede or limit them. If 
 they are divine, it is sacrilege to invade them or give them up." 
 
 * * * "Assert your divine rights in full tail; leave not a 
 hoof of them behind. Who dare oppose what they acknowledge 
 to be divine?" — (Preface.) 
 
 On page 32, he quotes approvingly the following 
 
 from Sherlock : 
 
 "If Bishops will not exercise that power which Christ has 
 given them, they are accountable to their Lord for it ; but they 
 cannot give it away, neither from themselves nor from their 
 Successors, for it is theirs only to use, not to part with it." — 
 (Ibid.) 
 
 At page 167 we find him replying to the question, 
 " What is the proper office of the priesthood, and for 
 what was it ordained ?" We believe that Mr. Goode 
 would be very unwilling to reprint his treatment of 
 this subject. He says the proper notion of the Chris- 
 tian ministry had been quite taken away, " in our late 
 times of schism and rebellion :" 
 
 " To make way for those who had no commission to show for 
 
 * Second edition, 12mo., London, 1701. 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 4.0.) 
 
 their usurping that sacred office. Therefore they reduced it all 
 to preaching, and loved the name of Preachers better than that 
 of Priests."— (P. 173.) 
 
 " They said that other men [without deriving any Succession 
 from the Apostles] could read the Gospel and the Absolution or 
 Eetaining of sins therein contained, as well as any Bishop, or 
 [any | Priest ordained by him. So they might [read] a patent, 
 a pardon, or a declaration of war, as well as any judge or 
 herald ; but with this difference, that their doing of it, who are 
 not legally empowered, signifies just nothing." — (P. 174.) 
 
 From his tract on the " Qualifications Kequisite to 
 Administer the Sacraments/' we will give a single 
 extract : 
 
 " The validity of Episcopal ordination* * * the Church of 
 Rome does own ; and the Presbyterians dare not deny it, be- 
 cause they would thereby overthrow all their own ordinations ; 
 for the Presbyters who reformed (as they call it) 'from Bishops, 
 received their ordination from Bishops/ " 
 
 " And, therefore, though the Episcopal principles do invalidate 
 the ordination by Presbyters, yet the Presbyterian principles do 
 not invalidate the ordination by Bishops ; so that the validity of 
 Episcopal ordination stands safe on all sides, even by con- 
 fession of those who are enemies to the Episcopal Order." 
 " Whereas, on the other hand, the validity of the Presbyterian 
 ordinations is avowed by none but themselves, and they have 
 all the rest of the world as opposite to them/' 
 
 " But because the design of this discourse is to show the 
 succession from the Apostles, I answer, that this succession is 
 preserved and derived only in the Bishops." — ( Works, in folio, 
 1722, Vol. ii., p. 721.) 
 
 " To state the case the most impartially, to receive Baptism 
 from these dissenters is at least a hazard of many thousands 
 to one." " But to receive it from the Bishop or Episcopal clergy, 
 has no hazard at all as to its validity, even as owned by the 
 Presbyterians themselves." — (Page 735.) 
 
 Dean Sherlock (1641-1707) From this promi- 
 nent divine Mr. Goode quotes the following para- 
 graph, and adds a sentence from Dr. Claget to sus- 
 tain it: 
 
 " I do allow Episcopacy to be an Apostolical institution, and 
 the truly ancient and catholic government of the Church, of 
 which more hereafter ; but yet in this very book I prove indus- 
 35 
 
410 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 triously and at large, that in case of necessity, when Bishops 
 cannot be HAD, a Church may be a truly Catholic Church, and 
 such as we may and ought to communicate with, without Bish- 
 ops, in vindication of some foreign Reformed Churches who 
 have none ; and therefore I do not make Episcopacy so abso- 
 lutely necessary to Catholic communion as to unchurch all 
 Churches which have it not." " The Church of England does 
 not deny but that, in case of necessity, the ordination of Pres- 
 byters may be valid." 
 
 Here is the same ground taken as by all others. 
 " Necessitas non habet les;em." 
 
 Bishop Sheklock (1678-1761), the still more dis- 
 tinguished bearer of this name, was a determined 
 and able defender of the Church against the policy 
 of those who, from evil design or mistaken charity, 
 were disposed to make unlawful concessions. Of 
 these the most active and least excusable was Benja- 
 min Hoadley, who, for his services to the cause which 
 they maintained, was, by the dominant party in Par- 
 liament, recommended for promotion, which Queen 
 Anne would not give him. On the accession of 
 George I., he was made Bishop of Bangor, and while 
 holding that position, he preached (on March 31, 
 1717) a sermon before the King, on the nature of 
 Christ's kingdom, in which he maintained principles 
 at utter variance with the constitutions of all Christ- 
 ian Churches, especially such an one as his own. 
 
 For instance, he asserts that Christ hath left no 
 legislative and no executive power to his Church, or to 
 any member thereof: "no visible human authority," 
 "no vice-regents," "no interpreters," "no judges." 
 
 He says : 
 
 "If such absolute authority be once lodged with men under 
 the notion of interpreters [of the divine law or word], they then 
 become legislators, and not Christ; and they rule in their own 
 
OPINION'S OF DIVINES. 411 
 
 kingdom, not in his." — (Sermon, 8vo. Ed., London, 1754, Vol. 
 ii., p. 292.) 
 
 Levelling doctrines like these naturally enough 
 called forth protests and replies, and so originated 
 the famous " Bangorian Controversy." In this ; Sher- 
 lock (then Dean of Chichester) was very active. In 
 one of his tracts he writes thus of Hoadley : 
 
 " Has he written one sermon, nay one page to allay the fears 
 of the people ? Has he once declared his own concern for the 
 Established Church ? * * * * On the contrary, in a book written, 
 as he says, for the service of the government, * * * he falls on 
 the ministers of Christ as 'substituting themselves in His place, 
 as assuming the authority of their great legislator and judge.' 
 He ridicules the Succession of the ministry * and regular ordi- 
 nations as trifles, niceties, dreams, and inventions of men." * * * 
 " Blown up with this success, his next step is to publish in the 
 royal audience the same doctrines. He denies all power in the 
 Church. He impeaches the Act of Uniformity and the Articles 
 of the Church, and pleads for a removal of those negative dis- 
 couragements which hurt nobody, and are meant only to secure 
 the Church."— ( Works, Vol. iv., p. 339.) 
 
 The Lower House of Convocation drew up a re- 
 port, in which it was declared that the tendency of 
 Hoadley's sermon, and his " Preservative," to which 
 allusion is made in the extract just given, is 
 
 " To subvert all government and discipline in the Church of 
 Christ, and to reduce his kingdom to a state of anarchy and 
 confusion." 
 
 Sherlock was one of the Committee by which 
 this Eeport was prepared. 
 
 In his sermon preached before the Sons of the 
 Clergy at St. Paul's, in 1710, he says : 
 
 11 The Apostles, on the death of our Saviour, succeeded to the 
 
 * The first direct adversary of Succession that wo have met, was Tin- 
 dal, the unbeliever; the second is one whom it was not uncommon to 
 call a " Socinian in lawn." Whiston, in his Life, says of Hoadley, "He 
 was a much better man before he was a Bishop. For six years he 
 never saw his Diocese, but was employed in controversy." — [Lath- 
 bury' s History of Convocation, p. 458.) 
 
412 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 government and direction of the Church. They were commis- 
 sioned to feed and rule the flock in his stead, and in his name. 
 Under them were placed teachers and pastors of different Orders, 
 who are comprehended [in the text] under the general name 
 of Prophets. These offices hare been perpetuated in the Church 
 by a constant Succession of men duly called to them, and the 
 present governors and pastors of it stand in the same degree of 
 nearness and relation to Christ, that the Apostles did, who went 
 before them in the same work of the ministry/' — (Vol. iii., 
 P . 281.) 
 
 William Latt (1686-1761) was the greatest of 
 all Hoadley's opponents. His celebrated letters are 
 master-pieces of logical composition. 
 
 " If regularity of ordination, and uninterrupted Succession 
 be mere trifles and nothing, then all the difference between us 
 and other teachers must be nothing : for they can differ from 
 us in no other respects. So that, my Lord, if Episcopal ordina- 
 tion derived from Christ, hath been contended for by the Church 
 of England, your Lordship hath in this point deserted her ; and 
 you not only give up Episcopal ordination by ridiculing a Suc- 
 cession, but likewise by the same argument exclude any minister 
 on earth from having Chris fs authority. For if there be not a 
 succession of persons authorized from Christ to send others to 
 act in his name, then both Episcopal and Presbyterian teachers 
 are equally usurpers, and as mere laymen as any at all." "If 
 so, your Lordship's servant might ordain and baptize to as much 
 purpose as your Lordship ; for it could only be objected to such 
 actions, that they had no authority from Christ. And if there 
 be no Succession of ordainers from him, every one is equally 
 qualified to ordain." 
 
 " My Lord, it is a plain and obvious truth, that no man or 
 number of men, considered as such, can any more make a 
 Priest or commission a person to officiate in Christ's name as 
 such, than he can enlarge the means of grace, or add a new 
 Sacrament for the conveyance of spiritual advantages." 
 
 " If there be no uninterrupted succession, then there are no 
 authorized ministers from Christ, and if no such ministers, then 
 no Christian Sacraments ; if no Christian Sacraments, then no 
 Christian Covenant, whereof the Sacraments are the stated and 
 visible seals." — {First Letter, pp. 8-10.) 
 
 Hugh Davis, L.L.D., Fellow of New College, Ox- 
 ford, (A. D. 1667) : 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 413 
 
 " As to the Christian Church, * * and the offices constituted in 
 it by divine authority, we have lighted upon the office of an 
 Episcopos, Bishop or Overseer ecclesiastical of the affairs of 
 it." " And he is the supreme supervisor in every ecclesiastical 
 [matter], * * * and who, by virtue of this institution of Christ, 
 * * * is bound to look after the affairs of the distinct societies 
 of the Christian Church in general." — (De Jure Uniformitatis 
 Ecclesiastical.) 
 
 Bishop G. Towerson (died, 1697): 
 
 " Taking it, therefore, for granted, that as the Apostles were 
 commissioned by our Saviour, so they were not wanting to com- 
 missionate others to succeed them in their power ; nothing re- 
 mains but to inquire in whose hands they did deposit it, which 
 is so clear, both from Scripture and the story of the Church, 
 to be in the hands of Bishops, and Priests, and Deacons, under 
 them, that nothing but prejudice and faction could have given 
 being to those schisms which late years have obliged us to 
 behold. For what other is it than Schism wittingly and will- 
 ingly to depart from the obedience of those in whose hands the 
 power of the Church was vested by them who had the plenitude 
 thereof from its head, Christ Jesus?" — [On Catechism, 2 Vols., 
 fol., 1685,Tol. i., p. 303.) 
 
 Dr. Adam Littleton (1627-1694), Chaplain in 
 Ordinary to the King. In his Sermon at Consecra- 
 tion of Bishop Fell, 1675, speaks thus : 
 
 " What the Apostles were in Christ's own time, that are the 
 Bishops ever since, and what rank the seventy disciples held in 
 the Church then, the same, and no other, do our ministers hold 
 now." " Ordination is so peculiarly the work of the Bishop 
 that Orders were never otherwise bestowed than by his hands, 
 and common Presbyters durst never attempt it, till within this 
 little above a hundred years at Geneva" — (Works in folio, A. D. 
 1680, pages 288, 295. ) 
 
 " There are two main branches of Episcopal power, visitation 
 and ordination." * * * "Nor shall I dispute whether Bishops 
 and Presbyters be distinct Orders or no ; for the promiscuous 
 use of the words in Scripture signifieth little, but the humility 
 and condescension of superior officers in taking up the inferior's 
 appellation, as St. Peter though an Apostle calls himself 
 Sympresbyteros [their fellow Presbyter], and St. Paul goes 
 lower, when he styles himself Diakonos [a Deacon] ." " Bishops 
 are Presbyters, and something more. It does not follow e converso 
 35* 
 
414 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 that all Pi-esbyters are Bishops, therefore a parity!" — (Page 
 294.) 
 
 Archbishop Wake (1657-1737). — This eminent 
 and excellent man is quoted by Mr. Goode, but, as 
 we believe, to little purpose. In his Exposition of 
 the Doctrines of the English Church, he says : 
 
 " We confess that no man ought to exercise the ministerial 
 office until he be first consecrated to it. We believe that it is the 
 Bishop's part only to ordain. We maintain the distinction of 
 the several Orders in the Church" — (Article XV., quoted in 
 Tracts for Times, ii., p. 153.) 
 
 After this, we are prepared to receive our author's 
 extract, or the testimony he adduces. It is simply 
 to the effect that the venerable Prelate had not such 
 an iron heart as to excommunicate the Foreign Pro- 
 testant Churches, or say, as some "furious writers" 
 did, that they had no true and valid sacraments, or 
 were scarcely Christian. Herein Wake exhibits just 
 the same spirit that has been manifested by the greater 
 number of our divines from the first : unwillingness 
 to condemn those whose circumstances either did 
 prevent their having a complete ministry, or were 
 believed to have prevented it. There was no recogni- 
 tion whatever of Presbyterian Churches as perfect, but 
 just the contrary ; they are called defective. There 
 was no acknowledgment of Presbyterian ordination, 
 as such, but an allowance of their ordination as prob- 
 ably or really valid, under the circumstances. 
 
 Dr. Daniel Watekland (1683-1740), the cele- 
 brated Archdeacon of Middlesex. — It is not possible 
 to read any of the writings of this able theologian, 
 without being aware that he was a very decided be- 
 liever in divine-right Episcopacy and Succession. It 
 is not an easy matter, however, to find short passages 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 415 
 
 in winch those doctrines are plainly affirmed. Here, 
 however, is one all-sufficient in itself; it occurs in 
 his second letter in reply to Mr. KelsaLTs Answer : 
 
 " As to rejecting the pretended ordination of [or by] mere 
 Presbyters, the practice is consistent with the doctrine of our 
 Church, and conformable to our twenty-third Canon." — ( Works, 
 Oxford ed„ 1823, Vol. x., p. 184.) 
 
 John Jacques. — From his work entitled " Ordina- 
 tion by mere Presbyters proved Void and Null," 
 12mo., London, 1707, we take a few sentences : 
 
 "Our blessed Lord, as Supreme Governor of his Church, 
 called and ordained his Apostles, and they ordained Deacons, 
 Presbyters, and Bishops ; but they gave the power of admitting 
 all others only to the Bishops." " It is a plain demonstration 
 that the holy Apostle did intend not only the Ordination, but 
 the scrutiny and approbation of all ecclesiastical officers should 
 be solely in the Bishop's power." 
 
 " The learned Daille, the great patron of Presbyters, did ac- 
 knowledge Ordination in St. Cyprian 1 s time was peculiarly the 
 Bishop's right. So that this confession of so great an adversary 
 may excuse any further proof for that age." — (Pp. 6, 8.) 
 
 "All antiquity will not afford one instance of Presbyters 
 making Ordinations without a Bishop. If any Presbyters did 
 claim a right to ordain, and did presume against the rule of the 
 Church in that particular, the Church of those times did declare 
 their Ordinations null" " Not only such as these, but all other 
 irregular Ordinations have ever been accounted as nullities." 
 
 " In the Council of Sardica those clerks that were ordained 
 by Musaeus and Eutychianus (who were not Bishops, but only 
 two Grecian Presbyters) were reduced to the state and condition 
 of laics. The like decree was made about the Ordinations of 
 Maximus, a pretended but not real Bishop, that the persons 
 should be reputed no clergymen, and all his acts annulled." 
 He then goes on to cite the cases of Ischyras, and Colythus, 
 and the Bishop of Agabra, and then concludes thus : All these 
 "were accounted as nullities, though performed by those who 
 were in sacred Orders." — (Pp. 18, 19.) 
 
 "Holy Scriptures do not afford one instance that mere Pres- 
 byters did ever admit [any] into the ministry by imposition of 
 hands." 
 
 Dr. William Sclatek (died 1647). — Lord-Chan- 
 cellor King, having in his youth written a book, 
 
416 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 called an " Enquiry into the Constitution, etc., of the 
 
 Primitive Church," it was answered by Sclater's 
 
 " Original Draught ;" which is said to have fully 
 
 satisfied the inquirer. King argued for parity in 
 
 Order : 
 
 44 Though the Presbyters were thus different from the Bishops 
 in degree, yet thev were of the very same specific Order with 
 them," etc., etc.— '(8vo., London, 1843, p. 108.) 
 
 To this Sclater replies, by showing that in both 
 the points included in his proposition the clear evi- 
 dence of all Christian antiquity is against him. The 
 judgment and practice of the primitive Church being 
 opposed to his theory: 
 
 " It must follow, of course, that a Presbyter, in their times 
 and in their opinion of him, had not an inherent right by his 
 Orders to perform the whole office of a Bishop."— (P. 166, Ox- 
 ford ed., 1840.) 
 
 He then goes on to show that Episcopal rule, and 
 the power of ordaining, were never committed to 
 Presbyters. 
 
 Thomas Stackhouse. — From the well-known and 
 elaborate Body of Divinity, published by this divine, 
 we offer the following. Treating of the commission 
 given by our Lord to His Apostles, he says : 
 
 "I send you to ordain your Successors. " "As my Father 
 sent me from his bosom with a full assurance of his love and 
 paternal care, so I send you and your successors, with the like 
 promise of protection and assistance and success in your labors; 
 for lo ! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." — 
 (Fol., p. 732.) 
 
 "In the times of the Apostles there were three distinct 
 Orders of Ministers by whom the Christian Church was gov- 
 erned ; and if we proceed in our inquiry an age or two farther, 
 we shall find who the supreme governor in each Church was, 
 cleared up beyond all controversy. Clemens Rom anus, who 
 wrote an Epistle to the Corinthians before St. John's death, re- 
 minds them, that before the late unhappy schism they walked 
 in God's laws, being subject to their governors, i. e. their 
 
 
OPINION'S OF DIVINES. 417 
 
 Bishops or spiritual governors giving due honor to the Presby- 
 ters among them." 
 
 He then goes on to quote Ignatius, Clement of 
 Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian; and 
 after these, says : 
 
 " The farther we go the dearer the evidence both of the Succes- 
 sion and pre-eminence of Bishops appears." — (Fol., p. 742.) 
 
 " Whilst our Saviour lived on earth he reserved the power 
 of ordaining Ministers to himself * * though he gave the Apos- 
 tles and the seventy disciples a commission to preach, he never 
 allowed them to communicate that commission to any other. 
 Upon His removal the Apostles, who were the chief governors 
 of the Church, ordained Ministers * * * * After their demise, 
 Ordination continued where they had left it, in Episcopal hands; 
 nor do we find any instance, either in Scripture or antiquity, 
 of inferior Orders pretending to that prerogative." 
 
 Archbishop Potter, of Canterbury (1674-1747): 
 
 " Since the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters has been 
 proved to have been of divine appointment, it necessarily follows 
 that the power of Ordination, which is the chief mark of this 
 distinction, was reserved to the Bishops by the same 'appointment. 
 Whence iErius was reckoned among the heretics of his age, 
 chiefly because he gave Presbyters power to ordain, and conse- 
 quently made them equal to Bishops ; which Epiphanius im- 
 putes to his ignorance of the Scriptures, and proves hence (as 
 from an undoubted principle) that Bishops and Presbyters were 
 not of the same Order, because Presbyters had not power to 
 ordain." * * * * "And St. Jerome himself (in the very place 
 where he professedly endeavors to raise Presbyters as near to a 
 parity with Bishops as he could) owns that Presbyters have not 
 power to ordain. * For what is it/ saith he, * that a Bishop 
 does which a Presbyter cannot do, except ordination P " — (On 
 Church Government, 12mo., 1711, p. 284.) 
 
 John Olyffe, in his "Practical Exposition of 
 Church Catechism" (2 vols., 12mo,, London, 1710), 
 says^: 
 
 " Thus there were in the seven Churches of Asia those who 
 were called the Angels of the Churches, who had the power of 
 government in them ; and the neglect of that government, in 
 some of them, is noted as their great fault." * * * " So that 
 we may conclude that there were to be everywhere stated offi- 
 
418 OPINION'S OF DIVINES. 
 
 oers in the Churches that were fully settled, and that the office 
 of teaching and governing the Church was committed unto 
 them ;" " and these officers were everywhere ordained and con- 
 stituted by those that had the power for it, and were not to run 
 of their own heads, nor till they were sent/' — (Vol. i., p. 261.) 
 
 Dr. Thomas Bishop also published in 1736 an 
 Exposition of the Catechism, in which we find the 
 following proof that members of the Church of Eng- 
 land are also members of the Church Catholic : 
 
 " Because we hold the Head, the Lord Jesus Christ * * we 
 are duly baptized unto his body. We accept his holy word as 
 the only rule of our faith and practice ; and we teach and main- 
 tain the same doctrine the primitive Church did, which doctrine 
 was once delivered to the saints, and hath been held by the 
 most ancient Fathers and Councils. We are built upon the 
 same foundation, and submit to the same godly discipline, 
 under a regular, duly authorized, and successive ministry from 
 the Apostolical age."— (P. 172.) 
 
 Archdeacon Welchman (born 1665, died 1735) 
 published in 1713 his brief "Notes on the XXXIX 
 Articles." He thus comments on the 23d : 
 
 " Since the ministers of the word and Sacraments are * am- 
 bassadors of Christ' and 'ministers of God/ they must neces- 
 sarily receive their authority from God, and be sent by Him ; 
 and must not assume that authority to themselves unless they 
 are called to it by God. And since God, our Saviour, from the 
 time when He called the Apostles, has not immediately called 
 any one to the ministry, it follows that they must be called by 
 those whose business it is to call others. Thus the Apostles 
 ordained Presbyters and Bishops, and the Bishops ordained by 
 the Apostles did thenceforth ordain others." — (Refers to Script- 
 ure, and to Clemens Romanus, Hooker's Ecc. Polity, Potter on 
 Church Government.) 
 
 " We know that this power was granted only to the Bishops 
 from the age of the Apostles to the time of the Reformation ; 
 but that from thenceforward some Churches, who in other things 
 were rightly reformed, have allowed it to Presbyters ; whether 
 justly or not, we leave it to themselves to consider. We neither 
 judge nor despise them; but the case is widely different with 
 our own countrymen, who, rebelling against an excellently 
 well-constituted Church, have arrogated to themselves the power 
 of ordination. These, therefore, we rightfully and deservedly 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 419 
 
 account guilty of schism and irregularity" — (Quotes Holy 
 Scripture, Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Bishop Bilson, Bishop 
 Hall, Hooker, Bishop Lloyd, Burscough, Scott's Christian Life, 
 and Field of the Church.) 
 
 Dr. Thomas Bennett (1673-1720), a very learned 
 divine of the same period, also wrote a sort of com- 
 mentary on the Articles. For exposition of the 
 23d, he refers us to his work on " The Rights of the 
 Clergy." Under the 36th ; he says : 
 
 " Because the validity of our succession depends upon the 
 validity of the prior ordinations, therefore we ought to satisfy 
 ourselves concerning them" — (Page 160.) 
 
 In a separate work on Schism, he shows that it is 
 "a deadly sin," that it exists in England; that the 
 crime lay at the door of the Dissenters, and that the 
 plea of agreement with us in fundamental doctrines 
 would not excuse them, or free them from its guilt. 
 
 Philip Skelton. — This "inimitable" preacher 
 was born 1706, and died 1787: 
 
 "Nor did they [the Puritans, etc.] consider whether it was 
 in the power of man to abolish at their discretion an order of 
 the Church instituted by God himself." "Here again the 
 scheme of our opponents was not to reform, but to destroy ; 
 and what was equally bold, to begin a new ministry with 
 hardly any other mission than such as a number of men, and 
 sometimes one man only, wholly unauthorized for aught that 
 others could perceive, should assume. From men thus sending 
 themselves, or sent by we know not whom, we are to receive 
 the Sacraments I" * * * " Do we hear of any man in Scripture, 
 who ordained himself, or presumed to take the ministry of 
 God's word and Sacraments upon him without being sent, 
 either immediately or successively, by Christ. Or can an in- 
 stance of this nature be assigned during the first fourteen cen- 
 turies of the Church. Or will even those Protestants who. adopted 
 a new mission at the Reformation, now suffer any one to admin- 
 ister the Sacraments among them without ordination obtained 
 in succESsioN from that adoption?" "Do they not by this 
 strictness practically confess at least the expediency of such a 
 Succession V 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 "So sacred a thing is the succession of ordination that the 
 Holy Ghost, who had already enabled Barnabas and Paul to 
 preach the word, ordered them to be separated for the work 
 w hereunto He had called them, by fasting, and prayer, and 
 imposition of hands, that is, to be ordained. The Spirit of God 
 hereby plainly showing that He himself would not break the 
 Successive order of mission established in the Church" — ( Works, 
 (j vols., 8vo., London, 1824, Vol. iii., pp. 360, 361.) 
 
 Bishop George Horne of Norwich, born 1730, 
 
 died 1792: 
 
 " These [the Gospel Ordinances] can no man minister to 
 effect but by God's own appointment ; at first by his immediate 
 appointment, and afterwards by Succession and derivation from 
 thence to the end of the world. Without this rule we are open 
 to imposture, and can be sure of nothing ; we cannot be sure 
 that our ministry is effective, or that our Sacraments are reali- 
 ties. We are very sensible that the spirit of division will never 
 admit this doctrine, yet the spirit of charity must never part 
 with it. Writers and teachers who make it a point to give no 
 offence, treat these things very tenderly, but he who in certain 
 cases will give no offence to men, will, for that reason, give 
 them no instruction." "We are informed that the liberties 
 taken of late years against the ministry of the Church, have 
 terminated in an attempt to begin a spurious Episcopacy in the 
 American colonies." " Mr. Wesley when questioned about this 
 fact in his lifetime, did not deny it, but pleaded necessity to 
 justify the measure. * * * A fatal precedent, if it should be fol- 
 lowed. For if a Presbyter can consecrate a Bishop, we admit 
 that a man may confer a power of which he is not himself pos- 
 sessed ; instead of the less being blessed by the greater, the 
 greater is blessed by the less, and the order of all things is 
 inverted," — [Charge, Works, Vol. ii., p. 570.) 
 
 Bishop Thomas Wilson (1663-1784) the Apostol- 
 ical Bishop of Sodor and Man, speaks thus in his 
 Sacra Privata : 
 
 ''Marks of a true pastor. — 1. A lawful entrance upon mo- 
 tives which aim at the glory of God, and the good of souls. 
 2. An external call from the Apostolical authority of Bishops." 
 
 " Bishops. — A Bishop is a pastor set over other pastors. They 
 were to ordain Elders. They might receive an accusation against 
 an Elder. They were to charge them to preach such and such 
 doctrines, to stop the mouths of deceivers, to set in order the 
 things that were wanting; and lastly, this was the form of Church 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 421 
 
 government in all ages. So that to reject this, is to reject an 
 ordinance of God." — (Works, Vol. ii. ? pp. 210-213.) 
 
 Bishop Nicholson of Gloucester (1589-1671) 
 
 thus defines the Catholic Church : 
 
 " A society of Christians dispersed unto all quarters of the 
 world, who are united under Christ, their head ; formalized and 
 moved by His Spirit ; matriculated by Baptism ; nourished by 
 His Word and Supper ; ruled and continued under Bishops and 
 Pastors lawfully called to these offices, who succeed those upon 
 whom the Holy Ghost came down, and who have the power of 
 the keys committed to them for administration of doctrine and 
 discipline/' — (Exposit. Ch. Catechism, Oxford, 1849, p. 70.) 
 
 Joseph Bingham (1708) — From the " Origines Ec- 
 clesiaticae" of this profoundly learned and impartial 
 writer, we obtain very positive evidence as to the 
 views and practice of the Ancient Church, and of course 
 his own opinions were not contrary to what his elab- 
 orate research had proved to be the Christian doctrine : 
 
 " The most ancient distinction that occurs is that of the 
 superior clergy unto the teiree distinct Orders of Bishops, 
 Presbyters and Deacons. That there were «o other Orders in 
 the Church but these three at first, will be evident in its proper 
 place. * * * That Deacons were always a sacred and standing 
 Order will be proved likewise when I speak particularly of 
 them. Here, then, it remains that our inquiry be made only 
 into the distinctions betwixt the Orders of Bishops and Pres- 
 byters. And this, so far as concerns matter of fact and the 
 practice of the Church, * * * will be most fairly and fully re- 
 solved by considering only these three things: (1.) that the 
 ancient writers of the Church always speak of these as distinct 
 Orders; (2.) that they derive the original of Bishops from 
 Divine authority and Apostolical Constitution; (3.) that they 
 give us particular accounts and catalogues of such Bishops as 
 were first settled and consecrated in the new founded Churches 
 by the hands of the Apostles." 
 
 " But before I proceed to the proof of these things, I must 
 premise one particular, to avoid all ambiguity that I take the 
 word Order in that sense as the ancients use it, and not as many 
 of the Schoolmen do, who, for reasoyis of their own, distinguish 
 between Order and jurisdiction, and make Bishops and Presby- 
 ters to be one and the same Order, only differing in power and 
 36 
 
422 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 jurisdiction. Tins distinction was unknown to the ancients, 
 among whom the words Order, Degree, Office. Power, and Ju- 
 risdiction, when they speak of the superiority of Bishops above 
 Presbyters, mean but one and the same tiling/' — (Bohn's ed., 
 Imp., 8to., 1856, Vol. i., pp. 17, 18.) 
 
 lie then proceeds to show that each of the three 
 Orders was divinely instituted, and that the powers 
 and rights of each were accurately defined and strictly 
 guarded. As to ordination, that of a Bishop was to 
 be by other Bishops, three at least, to make it regu- 
 lar or unquestionable. That of a Presbyter, by the 
 Bishop, sometimes the other Presbyters present sig- 
 nifying concurrence by some act. That of Deacons, 
 by the Bishop only : 
 
 "There were other offices which were very rarely intrusted 
 into the hands of Presbyters, and if ever they [the Bishops] 
 granted them commission to perform them, it was only in case 
 of great necessity ; such were the offices of reconciling peni- 
 tents, confirmation of neophytes," etc., etc. "But there was 
 one office ichich they xeyer intrusted in the hands of Presby- 
 ters, nor ever gave them any commission to perform, which was 
 the office of ordaining the superior Clergy, Bishops, Presby- 
 ters and Deacons. The utmost that Presbyters could pretend 
 to in this matter, was to lay on their hands, together with the 
 Bishop, in the ordination of a Presbyter." — (Page 27.) 
 
 " But it may be enquired, what was the practice of the Church 
 in case any Presbyters took upon them to ordain? Were their 
 ordinations allowed to stand good, or not? I answer that they 
 were commonly reyersed and disannulled ; as in the known case 
 of Ischyras, who was deposed by the Synod of Alexandria be- 
 cause Coluthos who ordained him, was no more than a Presbyter, 
 though pretending to be a Bishop. * * * And some other in- 
 stances might be added of the like nature, which show that then 
 they did not allow Bishops so much as to delegate or commission 
 Presbyters to ordain in their name, but reserved this entirely to 
 the Episcopal function.' f — (Page 28.) 
 
 William Jones, of Nayland : 
 
 " Jesus Christ was sent from Heayen by the Father, and in- 
 yested with the glory of the priesthood by an actual conse- 
 cration, when the Spirit descended upon Him. As the Father 
 had sent Him, so did He send his disciples, and gaye them 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 423 
 
 authority to send others ; so that the Church which followed 
 derived its authority from the Church which Christ first planted 
 in the world ; and the Church, at this day, must derive its 
 authority after the same manner, by Succession from the Church 
 which went before ; the line extending from Christ himself to the 
 end of the world." — (Essays on the Church, London, 1852, 
 p. 18.) 
 
 Mr. Jones gives as a footnote to the paragraph 
 from which, this sentence is taken, the following 
 extract from Mr. Law's Second Letter to the Bishop 
 of Bangor : 
 
 " Take away this Succession, and the clergy may be as well 
 ordained by one person as another ; a number of women may as 
 well give them a divine commission, but they are no more Priests 
 of God than those who pretend to make tKem so. If we had 
 lost the Scriptures, it would be very well to make as good 
 books as we could, and come as near them as possible ; but 
 then it would be not only folly, but presumption, to call them 
 the word of God."— (Page 19.) 
 
 Speaking of the first Christian Church, as founded 
 at Jerusalem, he says : 
 
 " Here then we have three distinct Orders of men, each 
 distinct from the other ; the twelve Apostles, the seventy Dis- 
 ciples, and the seven Deacons." * * * " In the Christian 
 Church throughout the world we find these three Orders of 
 Ministers for fifteen hundred years, without interruption. 
 The fact, therefore, is undeniable, that the Church has been 
 governed by Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, from the Apostles, 
 downwards, and where we find these Orders of Ministers 
 duly appointed, the Word preached, and the Sacraments ad- 
 ministered, there we find the Church of Christ with its form 
 and its authority." — (Pages 19, 20.) 
 
 John Wesley (1703-1791) : 
 
 u For more than twenty years this [separation] never entered 
 into the thoughts of those that were called Methodists. But 
 as more and more who had been brought up Dissenters joined 
 with them, they brought in more and more prejudice against 
 the Church. * * * Many had forgotten that we were all at 
 our first setting out determined members of the Established 
 Church/' 
 
 61 Nineteen years ago we considered this question in our 
 public conference at Leeds, * Whether the Methodists ought to 
 
424 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 separate from the Church,' and after a long and candid inquiry, 
 it was determined, nemine contradicente, that it was not expe- 
 dient for them to separate. The reasons were set down at 
 large, and they stand equally good at this day." 
 
 The venerable Preacher then goes on to meet the 
 usual plausible objection of separatists, that the 
 Church Clergy were not "holy," and therefore no 
 blessing could follow their ministrations, and he 
 shows that though the sons of Eli were wicked ex- 
 ceedingly, yet the Lord required his people to accept 
 their services, because they were his Priests. And 
 so, also, the Lord Jesus directed his disciples to 
 attend the publfc services of Priests, who were utter 
 hypocrites, for the same reason. In another Sermon 
 he thus speaks to his preachers, who had not, at that 
 time, assumed the full ministerial office : 
 
 " In 1744 all the Methodist Preachers had their first Con- 
 ference. But none of them dreamed that the being called to 
 preach, gave them any right to administer the Sacraments. * * * 
 Did we ever appoint you to administer Sacraments ; to exercise 
 the priestly office ? Such a design never entered into our 
 minds; it was the farthest from our thoughts." — [Sermons, 
 American Edition, Vol. ii., page 542.) 
 
 Eobert Caldee. This Presbyter wrote a work 
 on the Divine Eight of Episcopacy. In 1788 he 
 published, also, a small volume, entitled, " The Priest- 
 hood of the Old and New Testament, by Succes- 
 sion." In this work he establishes, at length, the 
 proposition that the theory of Succession, which Mr. 
 Goode and his followers think so " monstrous, 7 ' was 
 always recognized in the Church of God, and made 
 the test of lawfulness or validity of ministration. As 
 to the usage of the Christian Church, he quotes the 
 Scriptures and the Fathers. From Irenseus, he takes 
 the following : 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 425 
 
 "We must obey these Priests, who are in the Church, who 
 have their Succession from the Apostles. " — [Lib. iv. c. 43.) 
 
 His fourth letter commences thus : 
 
 " I have showed the necessity of lineal and uninterrupted 
 succession to prove the validity of the ministerial function, and 
 the great danger in the want of it, particularly that the ad- 
 ministrations of such are null and void, because God hath not 
 sent them." " Now I prove that Episcopal Presbyters and 
 Deacons in Scotland, England, and Ireland, have Apostolical 
 Ordination, and true mission from Bishops succeeding to one 
 another, since the days of the Apostles." 
 
 "In the foresaid year (1662), Mr. Sharp, Mr. Leighton, Mr. 
 Fairfoul, and Mr. Hamilton, were called up to London, and 
 were there first ordained Deacons, afterwards Presbyters, and 
 afterwards consecrated by Bishop Juxon." " It is certain that 
 [then] several Presbyterians submitted to Episcopal Ordination, 
 as Mr. Manton (Chaplain to Oliver Cromwell) was ordained in 
 1660, by Bishop Sydserf, being then at London. Mr. Calamy, 
 Mr. Burgess, Mr. Fulwood, and Mr. Humphrey, received Epis- 
 copal Ordination, a long time after they had performed minis- 
 terial acts in the Presbyterian way." " We find, also, that Mr. 
 Richard Baxter received ordination from Bishop Hall, to put 
 matters beyond doubt." — (Pages 49-51.) 
 
 " It is observable that ordination, by mere Presbyters, was 
 accounted a nullity in the ancient church." 
 
 Having mentioned the cases of Musaeus, Euty- 
 chianus, Maximus, and Colythus, who being Presby- 
 ters, undertook to ordain, and had their acts declared 
 presumptuous and void, he proceeds : 
 
 " The Council of Hispalis degraded a Priest, and two Dea- 
 cons, because the Bishop of Agabra being affected with sore 
 eyes, and having some presented to him, to be ordained Presby- 
 ters and Deacons, did only lay his hands upon them, suffering 
 a Presbyter who stood by to say the prayers over them, and 
 read the words of ordination." — [Council Hispalis, 2 Canon v.) 
 
 To the objection that the doctrines of Episcopacy 
 and Succession " unchurches a great body of Protes- 
 tants," to whom we ought to show more charity, he 
 replies : 
 
 36* 
 
420 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 M It is not our charity, nor civility, nor the concessions of the 
 learned, * * * that will make wrong right, or make them minis- 
 ters who have not ordination by the divine rule of Apostolical 
 Succession." — (Page 263.) 
 
 " That truth will be truth, let the professors be never so few, 
 and a multitude can never make error to be truth." " Let, 
 therefore, the Reformed Churches look to the consequences 
 themselves, for as the Apostle says, ' We can do nothing against 
 the truth, but for the truth/ * * * It is not our saying that 
 Foreign Ministers are true ministers, that will make them so." 
 (Page 150.) 
 
 11 I offer another thought upon this head, the unchurching, 
 etc., etc. If Presbyterians be right in this debate, and Epis- 
 copals wrong, this will unchurch twenty thousand more Chris- 
 tians than the Foreign Churches are, * * * there are three times 
 more Christians in the world than Papists and Presbyterians 
 are, and that under Episcopacy and Apostolical Succession." — 
 (Page 153.) 
 
 Bishop Cleaver, of Chester (1791), in his direc- 
 tions to Student's in Divinity, indicates the following 
 works as the proper sources of information on Church 
 Polity, etc.: " Bennett's Answers to Dissenters," "The 
 Episcopacy by Divine Eight Asserted (quoted on 
 page 401)," "Hammond's works," "Hare's Sermons 
 on Church Authority," "Jackson on Episcopacy," 
 "Bishop Nicholson's Apology," "Olyffe's works," 
 "Archbishop Potter on Church Government," etc., 
 etc. This list shows clearly enough what was the 
 teaching of that day upon the subjects we are con- 
 sidering. 
 
 Bishop F. Hare. When Deacon of Worcester, 
 in a work designed to expose the errors and evils of 
 Hoadley's new policy, asks this question : 
 
 " I would be glad to know * * * whether Episcopacy was not, 
 till, the 16th century, the universally received and uninter- 
 rupted form of Church Governments, and whether, when a 
 point has been thoroughly and demonstratively proved, it 
 may not be taken and spoken of as such?*— (Reply to Bp. Hoadley.) 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 427 
 
 Archdeacon Balguy, speaking of the Church 
 of England, says: 
 
 *' It is the purest Church in Christendom." " It is formed on 
 the model of primitive antiquity." "Its governors derive their 
 authority by an uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles." 
 
 Having spoken of the " sects that were the numer- 
 ous spawn of puritanism/' he says : 
 
 " Far th# greater part of these sectaries were implacable to 
 those who differed from them, and the Presbyterian party, per- 
 haps, more implacable than any other. Had their Church re- 
 tained its superiority and preserved its principles in their original 
 force, our Reformation from Popery would have profited us 
 little; for neither was Popery more absurd in its doctrines, nor 
 more severe in its discipline, nor in its spirit and temper more 
 averse from toleration than the religion then professed by the 
 main body of the Presbyterians." — [Sermon preached 17 '63 , in 
 his Discourses and Charges, London, 1817.) 
 
 Bishop Pokteous, of London. In his Charge to 
 his Clergy, A. D. 1794, this amiable prelate says : 
 
 " It becomes every day more important that you should take 
 the utmost care respecting the character and conduct of those 
 whom you thus employ [as curates or as occasional assistants] ." 
 "It is very properly and very wisely enjoined by the 48th 
 Canon, that no curate, or minister, shall be permitted to serve 
 in any Church, without the knowledge and license of the Dio- 
 cesan, and with respect to those whom you may call in as occa- 
 sional assistants, to perform any part of your duty it is indis- 
 pensably necessary, and it is expressly ordered by the 50th 
 and 52nd Canons, that you should suffer no stranger to officiate 
 in your Church, without first requiring him to produce his 
 license to preach." — (Vol. vi., p. 263.) 
 
 Samuel Wix. In his Illustrations of the XXXIX 
 Articles, gives to the twenty-third and thirty-sixth 
 interpretations in perfect harmony with the doctrines 
 here maintained. Ex. Gra. : 
 
 " As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." " These 
 words, uttered on the same occasion as that on which the prom- 
 
423 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 tse was given, that Christ would be with his Apostles to the end 
 of the world, plainly intimate to us a Succession of regular 
 Ministers of God's Word, acting under the authority of Christ. " 
 4 * These Apostles would, therefore, (as we shall see they actually 
 did), appoint Successors, whose business it would be to appoint 
 others to succeed them in their sacred office, and with like au- 
 thority to extend the line of succession to future generations." 
 
 " From this brief review of the order observed first by Christ, 
 and afterwards by his Apostles, in appointing Ministers in his 
 Church, it seems that none are qualified to administer the Sacra- 
 ■ments and preach the Word but they who can trace their authority 
 from Christ." 
 
 11 To the inquiry, then, who they are that have public authority 
 given unto them in the congregation to call and send Ministers 
 into the Lord's vineyard, it may be replied that the Bishops 
 have this authority, acting in succession to the Apostles. And 
 those Ministers ordained by them are they whom we ought to 
 judge lawfully called and sent into the Lord's vineyard. — (pp. 
 217-220.) 
 
 Veneer. In his work on the Articles, takes pre- 
 cisely the same ground as the other commentators we 
 have quoted : 
 
 "Our adversaries have been challenged long since to produce 
 an ordination, during the first 1500 years after Christ, which 
 was performed by Presbyters and not generally looked upon as 
 invalid, whereas, on the other hand, they who have been ordained 
 by mere Presbyters in the primitive times, have been stripped of 
 their pretended orders, and with derision turned down to the 
 laic form. — (On 23<2 Article, quoted in Tomline.) 
 
 Bishop Skinner, Primus of the Scottish Episco- 
 pal Church : 
 
 " As the 23d Article is sufficient to show the necessity of such 
 a lawful commission, so the 36th Article plainly declares that 
 the persons invested with such commission are the Bishops, 
 Priests and Deacons who are duly consecrated and ordered ac- 
 cording to the rites of the Book referred to in that Article, and 
 in which Book the Church of England, by her prayers to Al- 
 mighty God, acknowledges her belief that every one of these 
 Orders was appointed by his Holy Spirit, and, therefore, was 
 certainly of divine institution. — (Truth and Order, p. 132.) 
 
 Bishop Tomline, of Winchester, has been referred 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 429 
 
 to by Mr. Goode as favoring his view.* Tomline says, 
 however, without a particle of doubt or hesitation, 
 that the parties who have authority in the Congre- 
 gation or Church of Christ to call and send laborers 
 into the Lord's vineyard, are the Bishops. 
 
 " It appears, then, that no species of Church government ex- 
 cept the Episcopal, and no mode of ordination except by Bishops 
 have any claim to the sanction of the primitive Church of Christ." 
 " In every Church in which Episcopacy prevails, the uninter- 
 rupted Succession of the Bishops is considered as ESSEN- 
 TIAL to the power of ordaining and consecrating. And upon 
 that principle, when, a few years since, Episcopacy was about 
 to be established in the independent States of America, the 
 persons who were to be appointed * * * to be the first Bishops, 
 previously came from America to receive consecration from the 
 hands of English Bishops. And upon the same principle, we 
 should allow a popish Priest, who should have renounced the 
 errors of popery, to perform the functions of a Priest in our 
 Church without a fresh ordination." — [On 23cZ Article, Theo- 
 io 9y> PP- 536-7.) 
 
 Archdeacon Daubeny (1744-1827).— This faith- 
 ful and able advocate of Church principles received 
 for his " Guide to the Church," "Yindieiae/' &c., 
 &c, the thanks and commendation of such men as 
 Jones of Nayland, Bishop Fisher, and Archbishop 
 Howley. Few men have written controversial works 
 with such gentlemanly and Christian courtesy, or 
 with such a happy union of the suaviter in modo et 
 fortiter in re, as this devoted Presbyter, whose zeal 
 and princely munificence made him a blessing and 
 an honor to the Church. 
 
 * On his 70 th page, Mr. Goode quotes a paragraph from Tomline, 
 which was evidently moulded upon those passages in the works of Bacon 
 and Whitgift, which have already been explained. He uses the word 
 "government" in the same comprehensive sense that they did. He says 
 it is not necessary that all things connected with it should be "precisely 
 the same in every Christian country." He also says, " I readily acknowl- 
 edge that there is no precept in the New Testament which commands 
 that every Church should be governed by Bishops." Such statements, 
 though unguardedly made, may pass unchallenged. 
 
430 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 Speaking of the Preface to the Ordinal, he says : 
 
 "On this supposed unquestionable ground, established by 
 historical proof, of the uniformity of the Ecclesiastical Consti- 
 tution for a long succession of ages, the Church of England 
 has proceeded with confidence in her judgment on this most 
 important subject. Hence it is, that in her Canons she exclu- 
 sively appropriates the title of a true and lawful Church to that 
 society of Christians in this country assembled under Episcopal 
 Government, and determines all separatists from it to be schis- 
 matics."— {London Ed., 2 vols., 8vp., 1830, vol i., p. 8.) 
 
 " The strength of the argument in defence of the Apostolical 
 Government of the Church lies in this undoubted truth, that 
 the Christian Priesthood is a divine institution, which, as it 
 could have no beginning but from God, so neither could it be 
 continued but in the way appointed by God for that purpose. 
 * * * The Ministry of reconciliation was committed by Christ 
 to his Apostles; and that Ministry was confessedly branched 
 out to them into three distinct Orders, distinguished from 
 each other by the appropriate titles of Bishop, Presbyter, and 
 Deacon."— (P. 13.) 
 
 And having shown that the polity of the Christian 
 Church had always, for fifteen centuries, been, "in 
 the true sense of the word, Episcopal," he proceeds : 
 
 " This argument, three centuries ago, would have been unan- 
 swerable ; but since men thought proper to depart from the Gov- 
 ernment of the primitive Church and to erect a new platform of 
 Church discipline, it has become necessary that their reasoning 
 should correspond with their practice." * * * " Those foreign 
 Reformers who were the first establishers of a new form of 
 Government in the Church pleaded necessity for their conduct. 
 " It is not our business to examine the justice of that plea, but, 
 in candor, to admit it. We therefore say for them what on this 
 occasion they said for themselves — that they considered it a 
 most unjust aspersion of their character to say that they were 
 a?i£i-Episcopalians, or that they condemned or threw off Episco- 
 pacy as such; on the contrary, they lamented their unhappy 
 circumstances" * * * considering their want of Episcopacy to 
 be more their misfortune than their fault. Such was at the 
 time the declared language of Calvin and Beza. — (Pp. 14, 15.) 
 
 ' 'Ignorance * * * is well known to be one general cause of 
 separation from the Church. Let it be an object with the 
 Clergy, then, to remove that ignorance with respect to the 
 Church, by bringing their people so acquainted with its nature 
 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 431 
 
 and the design of its establishment, that they may feel it to be 
 their duty to continue members of it. Whilst they are suffered 
 to remain uninformed upon this subject the preservation of 
 Christian unity is not to be expected." 
 
 " The people must not only be taught that it is their duty to 
 live in communion with the Church ; they must, moreover, be 
 satisfied that they shall be profited by that communion." 
 
 On this point he quotes this from Archbishop 
 
 Sharpe : 
 
 " This I am sure of — so long as you continue in our com- 
 munion you are in the communion of the Church of Christ. 1 
 dare answer for the salvation of all those who continuing in our 
 Church live up to the principles of it. But I dare answer 
 nothing for them who being brought up in this Church, and 
 having so great opportunities given them of knowing the truth, 
 do yet depart from it. I pray God they may be able to answer 
 for themselves."— (Pp. 361-3.) 
 
 We may add that though the conductors of the 
 Christian Observer often differed with the venerable 
 Archdeacon, yet, in their fourth volume (p. 180), they 
 commend him for his advocacy of Episcopacy in the 
 " Guide to the Church," from which we have made 
 these extracts. 
 
 Bishop S. Horsley. Says, in his charge of 1790 : 
 
 "Dissenters are to be judged with much candor, and with 
 every possible allowance for the prejudices of education. But 
 for those who have been nurtured in the bosom of the Church 
 and have gained admission to the Ministry, [if] from a mean com- 
 pliance with the humor of the age, or ambitious of the fame of 
 liberality of sentiment (for under that specious name a profane 
 indifference is made to pass for an accomplishment), they affect 
 to join in the disavowal of the authority which they share, or 
 are silent when the validity of their divine commission is called 
 in question — for any (I hope they are few) who hide this weak- 
 ness of faith, this poverty of religious principle under the attire 
 of a gown and cassock; they are, in my estimation, little better 
 than infidels in masquerade." — (p. 31.) 
 
 Dk. Thomas G. Taylor : 
 
 " It is not enough that the doctrines and services of our Church 
 are pure and Apostolical ; there must be a divine commission, 
 
432 - OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 or there can be no authority to command obedience, no sanction 
 to secure the promises." "An outward commission, mediately 
 
 or immediately from God, i< requisite to authorize a man to exe- 
 cute any sacerdotal act of religion, is evident from the word of 
 Scripture and the example of our Saviour and his Apostles. " 
 
 " Of those who were regularly ordained there were regular 
 Orders and Degrees, each invested with the powers that were 
 proper to their respective offices, and neither [of them] Buffered 
 to interfere in the peculiar functions of their superior Order." 
 " Whatever cavils may have been made concerning the names 
 of Bishop and Presbyter being sometimes applied in common, 
 it cannot be doubted that there were Ministers in the Church of 
 a superior Order to the Presbyters and Deacons, as long as the 
 Epistles of St. Paul * * * exist, containing directions for the 
 governing of those Orders. And in the very next age we have 
 the concurrent testimony of antiquity, confirming the institu- 
 tion of this superior Order, and appropriating to the Ministers 
 of that Order the title of Bishops. '' 
 
 li It must certainly be a chief recommendation of any church 
 that it preserves the institutions and primitive ordinances of the 
 Apostles in their greatest purity. But it is moreover essential 
 to the validity of the ministerial functions, that the divine 
 commission be regularly transmitted in the way of Apostolic 
 institution. M — [" Why I am a Churchman" Published bv 
 S. P. C. K.) 
 
 Bishop Maxt, of Down, Connor and Dromore : 
 
 ' ; If Schism or an unreasonable separation from the Church 
 be in itself sinful, it is sinful at one time as well as another, as 
 well when the Church is under the government of the legiti- 
 mate Successors of the Apostles as when it was under the gov- 
 ernment of the Apostles themselves. ' ; — [Sermons, vol. ii., p. 
 295.) 
 
 He then goes on to inquire as to the means of 
 grace and the parties who are empowered to adminis- 
 ter them, and with whom, therefore, it is the bounden 
 duty of every Christian to remain in communion, and 
 comes to this conclusion : 
 
 "The Apostles, who were themselves holy men and full of 
 the Holy Ghost, did send other persons, to whom they gave 
 power and authority to send others, through whom the office of 
 Ministers of the Gospel has been handed down in regular and 
 uninterrupted succession from the Apostles to the present 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 433 
 
 time. And hence we perceive who are .the persons with whom 
 our Saviour promised he would be " always, even unto the end 
 of the world" — namely, those persons who should be employed 
 in the administration of the means of grace provided in the 
 Gospel, by a commission derived regularly from the Apostles, and 
 through the Apostles from Himself ," — (P. 320.) 
 
 In another place he says : 
 
 " It may inoffensively be said, that under the Episcopal form, 
 regularly transmitted by Succession from the Apostles, together 
 with the Apostles' doctrine, is to be found the Apostles' fellow- 
 ship — that there, if anywhere, may be confidently expected the 
 sanctifying influences of the Comforter — that there, if anywhere, 
 may be enjoyed the perpetual presence of the Divine Founder 
 of the Church." 
 
 The Christian Observer — the great Evangelical 
 
 standard — comments thus on the passage just quoted, 
 
 and its context : 
 
 " We heartily concur in the Right Reverend author's remark, 
 that greatly as we have reason to thank God for having by his 
 good providence established among us a pure Episcopal Church, 
 the value of the Episcopal office is altogether distinct from any 
 'privilege it enjoys, as sanctioned by the laws of the land. 9 ' 
 
 Dr. T. Waite, published, in 1826, his Discourses 
 on the XXXIX Articles, from which we quote a few 
 sentences : 
 
 " Thus [i. e. by the Apostles] was that Order of Bishops, 
 Priests and Deacons established, which continued in uninter- 
 rupted succession for fifteen hundred years in all Christian 
 Churches, and still subsists in our own." — (P. 336. On 23c? 
 Article.) 
 
 "This authority had its origin, not with Popery, as some 
 imagine, but with the Apostles. An Episcopal Church existed 
 in England long before the name of the Pope was known in the 
 island. And though the British Church afterwards partook of 
 the corruptions of that of Rome, yet its succession of Bishops 
 continued unbroken. Though its ministrations were corrupted 
 yet its authority was not destroyed. Its right of ordination 
 was no more affected by the Romish errors and superstitions, 
 than a person's title to his inheritance is injured by the vices 
 and depravity of his ancestors. The Reformation restored our 
 Church to its primitive purity, delivered it from the spiritual 
 37 
 
434 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 tyranny of the Roman pontiff and rescued it from a load of 
 superstitious notions and practices under which true religion 
 seemed to be sinking. It preserved, also, the ecclesiastical 
 Orders which the Church received from the Apostles, and trans- 
 mitted them unimpaired to us. Whatever, then, may be the case 
 with other Churches, of the validity of our ministrations there can 
 be no doubt they are the Ordinances of Christ, which he has pro- 
 mised to be with, to prosper ■, and to bless unto the end of time. ,y 
 
 " The authority of the governors of the Church being ad- 
 mitted, those only are to be considered as lawfully called and 
 sent, who are ordained to the office of the ministry by them." — 
 (Page 339.) 
 
 Dr. Waite thinks the framers of the Article omit- 
 ted from it, in tenderness to those "whom they 
 wished to reconcile/' any definite statement as to 
 the parties having lawful authority to ordain, and 
 says it becomes us to imitate their moderation. We 
 are perfectly willing to do so, as far at least as he 
 has done himself. But we recognize no such ten- 
 derness, or "desire to avoid giving offence;" for if 
 the honest avowal of belief on such a matter would be 
 offensive, they have made it in another place. There 
 certainly could be no great anxiety (from any such 
 motive) to keep out of one page what they print open- 
 ly on the next. There is altogether too much said on 
 the subject of our formularies not "impugning the or- 
 dination of other Churches." Expressly by name and 
 by anathema they do not indeed ; but by direct and 
 unavoidable inference they do ; unless, indeed, it can 
 be shown that the Church of Christ can be divided, 
 and yet united — many and one — Episcopal and 
 Presbyterian at the same time ! If it can be shown 
 that two forms of polity entirely different, and oppo- 
 site in their character, are both sanctioned, or both 
 established in Holy Scripture, then proving the 
 authority of one, will not necessarily involve the 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 435 
 
 condemnation of the other; but if nothing of the 
 kind can be shown, then every testimony in favor of 
 Apostolical Episcopacy is a testimony directly against 
 Popery, Presbyter ianism, Congregationalism., and every 
 other system. That this is the fact is shown by Waite 
 himself; for immediately after eulogizing the Church's 
 supposed tenderness in not impugning the validity 
 of other ordinations, he proceeds to prove that " no 
 ministry can be valid/' which is not derived from 
 Jesus Christ, either mediately or immediately, and 
 that in this age it can only be found among those 
 who have received it in direct Succession. 
 
 Edwaed Bickeksteth [On Articles]. In proof 
 of the doctrine that no one must invade the minis- 
 terial office, this writer refers to " the cases of Korah 
 Dathan, and Abiram, of Saul, and of Uzziah, all of 
 whom committed a great trespass in presuming to 
 minister in holy things, without being lawfully 
 called." He then goes on to inquire about the Con- 
 stitution of the Church, supplying answers to his 
 own questions. We will give some of the replies: 
 
 "In the Jewish Church there was a threefold ministry, that 
 of High Priest, Priests, and Levites, corresponding to the 
 three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons." In the 
 Christian Church, as founded by the Apostles, " there were 
 two gradations of inferior Orders, one higher than the other ; 
 and there was a third Order superior to them both, with power 
 to ordain the two inferior Orders, and to take the general 
 oversight of them, and of the Church" 
 
 After the death of the Apostles, they were suc- 
 ceeded by those to whom exclusively the name of 
 Bishops was given, and to this effect Mr. Bickersteth 
 quotes the following : 
 
 " Let us not fear to be herein bold and peremptory, that if 
 anything in the Church's government, surely the first insti- 
 
436 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 tution of Bishop? was from Heaven, was even of God, the 
 Holy Ghost was the author of it." — (Hooker.) 
 
 k> The Bishops are the lawful Successors of the Apostles 
 arid inheritors of their power. 1 ' — (Sanderson.) 
 
 As to the authority for any other than the Epis- 
 copal mode of government, he quotes Hooker's well 
 known challenge, and upon Presbyterian Ordination, 
 gives this from the same great authority : 
 
 " Xo man is able to show either Deacon or Presbyter ordained 
 by Presbyters only, and his ordination accounted lawful in any 
 ancient part of the Church." 
 
 Henry Melville, probably the greatest Preacher 
 of the English Church in this age, shall be our next 
 witness. Speaking of the authority to ordain, and 
 to exercise the ordinary work of the ministry, he 
 says: 
 
 " From the Bishops ordained by the Apostles, we are ready 
 to prove by a series of historical documents, that our Bishops 
 derive their authority to ordain ministers, a point which, how- 
 ever, lost sight of, or ridiculed in a day when men think no 
 authority necessary, provided they have a little turn for public 
 speaking, * * * this point, we say of the Apostolical Succes- 
 sion, of the ministry of our Church is one of the weightiest 
 that can be agitated in a Christian community. I could as 
 soon believe that Christ is not the head of his Church, as 
 believe that He has made no provision for a Succession of 
 ordained ministers ; and unless this provision be found in an 
 Episcopal Order, my firm conviction is that it exists not on the 
 broad face of the earth." — (Sermons, Vol. iii., p. 265.) 
 
 Theophilus Girdle stone, treating of Schism, 
 
 says: 
 
 "It is a separation of the members of the body of Christ, 
 from each other, and by consequence from the common head 
 of all, and since this separation takes place in opposition to the 
 will and design of our Lord, it is an act of direct disobedience 
 towards Him, and of resistance to his supreme authority ; for 
 if He requires that all his people should worship Him with 
 one mouth, ' being perfect, joined together in the same mind, 
 and in the same judgment/ it must needs be exceeding sinful 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 437 
 
 to separate them into divers places and modes of worship, * * * 
 and a wide difference of doctrine." 
 
 'It is plain that if every society of professing Christians is 
 entitled to call itself the Church of Christ, then his Church 
 consists of as many separate societies holding all shades and 
 degrees of opinion as there are vain and fanciful men to strike 
 out new forms of doctrine ; there can be no established system 
 of government, no uniformity of teaching, no communion in 
 worship ; and it is in the power of any private individual to 
 erect a new Church of Christ, or even to be a Church by him- 
 self! Upon this supposition certainly there could be no sepa- 
 ration from the Church, and no such offence as Schism." 
 
 "If we could suppose the Apostles and the primitive Bishops 
 to see the present state of the Christian world, what words 
 could be found to express their astonishment, alarm, and indig- 
 nation, at the scene which it presents ; the contempt for lawful 
 authority ; the endless varieties of doctrine ; the needless 
 divisions into sects and parties ; the assumption of the minis- 
 terial office by men either unordained, or ordained by persons 
 with no better title than themselves ; the indifference with which 
 these flagrant violations of our Lord's prerogative are generally 
 regarded, and the ignprance which prevails respecting the nature 
 of the Church, and the due succession of its Bishops and 
 Ministers, by Apostolical Ordination ? All these signs of the 
 times would have filled those pious men with horror, and made 
 them to doubt whether the Church of Christ had not ceased to 
 exist !" " I feel bound to declare to you my conscientious con- 
 viction that the Church under the government of Bishops, 
 Priests, and Deacons, is the only Church of Christ, and that 
 all other societies of Christians can only be regarded as sepa- 
 rations from it, in contradiction to the plan formed by the 
 Apostles under the direction of their Divine Master." — (Lectures 
 on Catechism.) 
 
 Wm. Archer Butler, Professor T.CJX It is im- 
 possible to mention the name of this great and gifted 
 divine without a feeling of melancholy. Surely, the 
 removal of such a man, in the very vigor of youth, 
 is one of the strangest mysteries of Providence. 
 But it was the work of Him who doeth all things 
 well! 
 
 In the first volume of his sermons, one will be 
 found, which we earnestly wish were not only read 
 
438 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 but studied by every Minister of the Church. It is 
 on the union of Church principles with Christian 
 sympathy. We believe there has been nothing so 
 admirable put forth on this subject since the days of 
 Hooker or Bishop Hall. After treating of the mis- 
 representations of outsiders, and the extreme views 
 of partisans, the Professor announces it as his wish : 
 
 " To tranquilize the fears of those who conceive, either that 
 if they accept as obligatory the primitive system of the Church, 
 they must avoid every form and degree of spiritual recognition 
 towards those who have lost it ; or that since they cannot accept 
 the extravagant theory which places the pious Presbyterian and 
 Congregationalist on a level with the heathen, they must, of 
 necessity, surrender all the exclusive claims of the ancient Epis- 
 copal Ministry." 
 
 " The positions, then, which I consider that we, as the duly 
 commissioned Ministers of this Church, are justified in main- 
 taining, are these : 
 
 1. The great general principle, that the Apostleship of Jesus 
 Christ is still and forever in the world ; as really in all the sub- 
 stance of the office as when it was held under circumstantial dif- 
 ferences of miraculous attestation by Peter, and James, and John. 
 That as breathing the breath of natural life into the first man, He 
 gave him, by a single act, a power thenceforward physically trans- 
 missive through the whole immense series of the human race, so, 
 
 * * * breathing on them the Holy Ghost, He conferred, once for 
 all, a spiritual power analogously transmissive to innumerable 
 Successors. * * * That it therefore becomes the same violation 
 of his appointed order * * * to separate, under any pretext of 
 sanctity, from this Succession without a palpable corruption of 
 doctrine * * * as it would for holy men during the actual Min- 
 istry of the Apostles, to have neglected all communion with 
 them." 
 
 2. That this general conception of a perpetual Apostolate 
 
 * * * is manifestly confirmed by the fact of the organization of 
 the Apostolic Churches, both laity and Ministers, under indi- 
 vidual Governors, exercising exclusive power of ordination and 
 spiritual superintendence." 
 
 3. That the divine and exclusive authority of this Consti- 
 tution is consistent with the strong probability that where it 
 should be lost, the mercy of God would not suffer that unhappy 
 error to prevent the gift of His graces to those who sincerely 
 sought them." 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 439 
 
 He then goes on to speak of real, undeniable holi- 
 ness existing in some who are yet outside of the 
 Church as regularly and fully constituted, and the 
 usefulness of some as Grospel Preachers who are not 
 validly ordained : 
 
 " It is wrong to affirm that the hearers of such uncommissioned 
 persons must be left to the extraordinary [or uncovenanted] 
 mercies of God." 
 
 " It is quite possible to consider the Apostolic Constitution of 
 the Church as the established dispensation of the means of grace, 
 and to regard adherence to that Constitution as a peremptory 
 and perpetual duty, and yet to recognize the reality of its oc- 
 casional degradation, the independency of divine grace on its 
 necessary instrumentality, and the benefits that have been 
 attained beyond its verge." 
 
 " But it may probably be urged that all these concessions are 
 not sufficient, unless we admit within the circle of The Church 
 itself the various forms of associations which have been made the 
 means of grace to believers in Christ ; that is, unless we include 
 within our conception of the Church, every existing or possible 
 social organization for the preaching of the Gospel. And it is 
 supposed that unless this admission be made, it will still be 
 necessary to exclude many of the holiest disciples of Christ 
 from that sole claim to eternal happiness which is founded in 
 being members of His mystical body. But there need not arise 
 any very perplexing difficulty on this point. We are not forced, 
 in order to save the pious Dissenter, to make his irregular Society 
 an integral part of the mystical body of Christ. The mercy of 
 God secures his salvation, when he is to be saved, on deeper 
 grounds than this." 
 
 Bishop Harold Browne. The learned Bishop 
 of Ely, now exercising his high office, thus treats of 
 our subject in his most elaborate and admirable Ex- 
 position of the XXXIX Articles : 
 
 "It is the plain record of all antiquity, that Ordination was 
 anciently conferred by the highest Order of the Ministry. 
 This will probably be questioned by no one. We have seen 
 that St. Clement, the earliest Christian writer, except those of 
 the New Testament, speaks of the Apostles as having appointed 
 Successors to themselves in the Ministry and Government of the 
 Church. We have seen that Irenaeus speaks of a regular Suc- 
 cession from the Apostles in the Churches, and that he counts 
 
440 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 up the Succession in the Churches of Rome and Smyrna. A 
 like testimony we have brought from Tertullian. -The farther 
 we proceed, the clearer the evidence becomes that no ordina- 
 tions TOOK PLACE, EXCEPT OF THOSE WHO THUS SUCCEEDED TO THE 
 
 Ministry of the Apostles, deriving their Orders in direct Suc- 
 cession from them. 
 
 " There is no example of Ordination ever being entrusted 
 to Presbyters only/'' 
 
 " Those who advocate the parity of Bishops and Presbyters 
 appeal tu the language of St. Chrysostom and St. Jerome, who 
 undoubtedly maintained with great earnestness the dignity of 
 the office of Presbyter, and esteemed it very little inferior to the 
 Episcopate. Yet their very words shew distinctly that in one 
 point, and that the very point now in question, the Bishop had 
 a power not entrusted to the Presbyter. St. Chrysostom says 
 that ; Bishops excel Presbyters only in the power of Ordina- 
 tion/ and St. Jerome asks, ' What does a Bishop that a Pres- 
 byter does not, except ordaining?' ,} 
 
 "Other Presbyters equally with him [the Bishop] received 
 authority to teach, to baptize, to minister the Eucharist; but he, 
 only, had authority to ordain. Such authority was believed 
 to have been derived to Bishops from the Apostles. And the 
 principle upon which their Ordinations were deemed valid was 
 not merely that they themselves had the priestly office, but that 
 they had received authority (by regular Episcopal descent) to 
 give Ordination and Mission to others." 
 
 " Those who maintain the validity of Presbyterian Orders, do 
 so on the ground that Bishops were themselves but Presbyters. 
 Those who maintain that Episcopal Ordination is necessary 
 reply, that even though Bishops be themselves Presbyters, yet 
 they only, and not all Presbyters alike, had the authority to 
 ordain, and, therefore, that without them Ordination could 
 
 NOT TAKE PLACE. 
 
 " In the English Church the primitive rule of Episcopal 
 Ordination and Apostolical descent has never been infringed. n 
 —(On 23d Article.) 
 
 As to the supposed " carefulness" of the Keformers, 
 so to word this Article as "not to exclude" those who 
 maintain Presbyterian Ordination, or upon the sup- 
 posed ambiguity of its language, Bishop Browne 
 says : 
 
 " The ambiguity is not real, but apparent only, as it is not 
 only clearly stated that not all who are themselves Ministers 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 441 
 
 can ordain, but only those invested with public authority in the 
 Church to send others into the vineyard. This is a complete 
 description of a Bishop." — (Ibid., p. 557.) 
 
 Here, then, we close our Catena. It begins, as of 
 right, with Cranmer — it ends with a Bishop yet alive. 
 In the three hundred and twenty years between those 
 two, every successive period has been represented in 
 it. We have given fairly, and as fully as our limits 
 would admit, the opinions of every divine whose 
 name is famous, who has written upon the subject 
 we are considering, and whose works are procurable 
 in this country. What, then, is the result ? Do 
 they give an uncertain sound ? Do they not, one 
 and all, declare themselves believers in Episcopacy, 
 jure divino, and in Apostolical Succession ? Do they 
 not, one and all, re-echo the voice of the Church. 
 We find, of course, some differences in minor matters. 
 Thus, we see Bishops Hall and Davenant agreeing 
 with Andrews and Cosin in giving to Foreign 
 Churches the benefit of the plea advanced by their 
 founders, while Hicks, Jacques, Calder, and others 
 are unwilling to confess that there ever was any such 
 necessity as could justify a departure from the regu- 
 lar and Scriptural mode of governing the Church 
 and commissioning its ministers. Other differences, 
 also, may be perceived ; but as to the chief points — 
 those that are distinctive principles of our 
 Church, we have here presented, as we believe, 
 evidence of a greater concord than can be found to 
 exist on any other topic of the sort, or than any 
 Catena has ever produced. And this we set forth as 
 an honest and proper chain of evidence. It is no 
 partial or meagre list, like what we sometimes see 
 
442 OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 
 
 put forward to serve a weak cause. We can con- 
 ceive nothing more false or absurd than to offer as 
 a Catena a list of Anglican divines in which the 
 names of Jeremy Taylor, Bishop Bull, Leslie, Law, 
 Waterland and Jones would not appear. They are 
 not to be found in Mr. Groode's book ; but they are 
 here — and on tha subject of debate, their judgment 
 is one and the same. Concordant among themselves, 
 they are one in opinion with all the rest who here 
 bear their open testimony. 
 
 And what appears on the other side? A few 
 extracts from prominent divines, brought forward to 
 prove that they were the very opposite of what his- 
 tory and their own writings show that they were — 
 a series of extracts, sometimes questionable, often 
 garbled or misapplied, or, if fairly given, containing 
 only charitable expressions, or statements of what 
 might be lawful in cases of necessity. And that 
 
 IS ALL ! 
 
 What one, even of Mr. Groode's authorities, ven- 
 tures to say out boldly that Presbyterian Ordination, 
 as such, is valid. Not one ! If any of his own 
 witnesses sanction the Orders of the Foreign Episco- 
 pal Churches, it is only on the ground of their al- 
 leged necessity. Not one of them has a single word 
 
 o o 
 
 to say in favor of Presbyterian Ordination, as it was 
 found in England, and is found here in America. 
 Even Burnet himself declares that it is quite out of 
 all rule, and could not be done WITHOUT A VERY GREAT 
 sin unless the necessity were great and apparent^ 
 The only sentiment we remember that approaches 
 the character of a direct acknowledgment of Pres- 
 
OPINIONS OF DIVINES. 443 
 
 byterian Orders as such, is this : " Seeing a Presbyter 
 is equal to a Bishop in the power of Order, he hath 
 equally intrinsical power to give Orders" But, unfor- 
 tunately for Mr. Groode's cause, this was not written 
 by the great Episcopal divine to whom it is attri- 
 buted, but by the Scotch Presbyterian Minister who 
 forged Ms name, twenty years after his death ! 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 AMERICAN DIVINES. 
 
 TT T E must study brevity in this Chapter. Its only 
 1 1 purpose is to show that the judgment of the 
 American Clergy upon the subject before us has 
 been always in accordance with that of their English 
 brethren. And this may be done without going to 
 any great length : 
 
 Bishop Seabury (1728-1796): 
 
 "The authority under which the Apostles acted being 
 derived from Christ, in the exercise of it they were his minis- 
 ters, because the authority was originally and properly his, 
 and they could act only in his name ; and this authority being 
 by successive ordinations, continued down to this day. all duly 
 authorized Clergymen now act by it, and are, therefore, the 
 ministers of Christ." 
 
 "It remains then that there is no other way left to obtain a 
 valid commission to act as Chrisfs minister in his Church, but 
 by an uninterrupted succession of ordinations from the Apos- 
 tles."— (Sermons, Edition of 1815, "Vol. i., pages 9-23.) 
 
 Bishop White (17-17-1836) must be quoted a 
 little more at length, owing to the common misrepre- 
 sentation of his views Concerning the 36th Article, 
 and the Ordinal, which it endorses, he says : 
 
 "This is another Article of our Church, which has been 
 much applauded for its liberality, and at the same time not 
 with a friendly design ; it being done to lead to the inference that 
 in framing the Articles of the Church of England (of which 
 ours is a copy, with accomodation to local circumstances), no 
 >AAA) 
 
AMERICAN DIVINES. 445 
 
 more was intended than to offer an apology for the difference 
 between Episcopacy and Presbytery on the ground of human 
 institution, not in itself sinful. This is an entire miscon- 
 ception of the enlightened views of the English Reformers, * * * 
 in laying down Articles of faith, they had no design of con- 
 demning other Protestant Churches on a point of discipline. 
 While yet being governed in practice by their own sense of the 
 original difference between the two higher Orders of the Ministry, 
 they have precisely marked it in the preface, and in some of the 
 devotions of the Ordinal. These being the subject of the 
 Article must be supposed to assist in the interpretation of it." 
 " An express tendency to this effect presents itself to our 
 notice in the first sentence of the preface, which says : ' It is 
 evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and 
 ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been 
 these three Orders of ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, 
 Priests, and Deacons/ Here is an appeal to Scripture for the 
 discrimination of Order in the time of the Apostles, and to 
 ancient authors for its prevailing from that time downward. 
 Evidently the framers of this preface knew of no deviations from 
 the original institution, until the then recent times immediately 
 subsequent to the Reformation." "Consistent with this are 
 three prayers in the three several services for the ordaining of 
 Deacons, the ordaining of Priests, and for the consecration of 
 a Bishop. Each of the forms acknowledges that by divine 
 appointment there are divers Orders of Ministers in the Church, 
 and then prays [for each in turn]." "There could hardly 
 have been a more significant declaration that each of the noticed 
 Orders made a, distinct branch of the original Constitution of 
 the Church, and the sentiments derives an immense increase 
 of solemnity from its being made in an appeal to Almighty 
 God." — [Lectures on Catechism, pages 157, 158.) 
 
 Again, on the page last quoted, the good Bishop 
 expressly maintains that the ministry of the Chris- 
 tian Church is of Divine institution, and that as 
 established " by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, it in- 
 cludes the three Orders of Bishops, Priests, and Dea- 
 cons." That the ministry is of Divine institution, 
 he says is to be maintained against enthusiasts who 
 claim to do without any external commission : 
 
 " In opposition to these we affirm the necessity of Succession 
 from the Apostles. The commission from them was by a 
 38 
 
44(5 AMERICAN DIVINES, 
 
 personal act, .performed on those whom they admitted in the 
 beginning to a co-partnership with them in their authority and 
 their labors. But it is evident that Succession is the only way 
 in which there could have been a transmission of the same 
 from age to age." — (Ibid.) 
 
 " So far as the practice of early Churches is concerned, it 
 goes directly to the same point. There not having been any 
 Church in which the ministry was not supposed to be fenced 
 round by divine appointment, and to have been handed down in 
 
 SUCCESSION FROM THE APOSTLES." 
 
 " The anti-Episcopalians concede that during the lives of the 
 Apostles there were two Orders, one of whom were those holy 
 men themselves, and the other were an Order subordinate to 
 them, which were called by two Greek words, which are trans- 
 lated Bishops and Presbyters, names designating the same 
 office. That the two terms were thus indiscriminately applied, 
 is a matter conceded by Episcopalians. But they say that the 
 general superintendence of the Church, and the power of ordi- 
 nation, were never committed to that Order, but remained in 
 the Apostles, and in persons whom they associated with them- 
 selves, with a view to those higher ends." — (Page 170.) 
 
 As to the question whether the Episcopacy be 
 "obligatory, like the Sacraments, at all times and 
 under all circumstances of the Church," he says : 
 
 " If the moving of this question had originated in the mere 
 rage for innovation, it would be hardly worth the resolving, at 
 the expense of the danger of disparaging an institution made 
 venerable by Apostolic origin, and by the uninterrupted usage 
 of fifteen centuries. But it happened at the Reformation that 
 in some countries Christians were so circumstanced as that they 
 had no alternative between dispensing with this particular regimen, 
 and continuing in the bosoin of a Church extremely corrupt in 
 doctrine; and under this embarrassment many ecclesiastical 
 systems were established without the requisition of Episcopal 
 Ordination."— (P. 173.) 
 
 The Bishop thought the English Eeformers were 
 
 specially considerate in judging of the Foreign 
 
 Churches, owing to this necessity. He says the 
 
 Church of England 
 
 H Decidedly set her feet on the ground of the Apostolical origin 
 of Episcopacy , [yet] she carefully avoided passing a judgment 
 
 
AMERICAN DIVINES. 447 
 
 on the validity of the ministry of other Churches, or determin- 
 ing in any shape on the question last proposed/' 
 
 On this we must remark, as we have done more 
 than once, that if it means that the English Church re- 
 frained from open denunciation or anathema, preserv- 
 ing a charitable silence as to the points in which the 
 Continental Protestants professed themselves obliged 
 to differ, it is all perfectly correct ; but if it means 
 that the Anglican Eeformers did not hold to the 
 divine right of Episcopacy, with all the legitimate 
 consequences of that theory, or that they did not 
 avow it, and act upon it constantly, it is entirely 
 wrong ; and the good Bishop himself has proved it 
 so. He excuses the Foreign Protestant Churches, on 
 the score of necessity, but says expressly, that " the 
 effects of this are to continue no longer than the 
 
 o 
 
 crisis which gave occasion to them." 
 
 Of the .opinions held by Dr. Smith, Bishop Clag- 
 gett, and Bishop Jarvis we have given proof else- 
 where. 
 
 Bishop Benjamin Moobe, of New York (conse- 
 crated 1801): 
 
 " When this pure and undefiled religion was established upon 
 earth by Christ and his holy Apostles, every necessary provision 
 was made to secure the continuance of it to the end of the world. 
 Its Ministers were solemnly ordained, and the mode of perpetuat- 
 ing the Succession was pointed out; its sacred ordinances were 
 instituted, and the regular administration of them in all suc- 
 ceeding ages clearly enjoined. " — (Sermons, vol. i., p. 346.) 
 
 "Just at the conclusion of the Apostolic age, these three 
 Orders received the distinguished appellation of Bishop, Priest, 
 and Deacon, which have continued through all succeeding ages 
 to the present day. What the peculiar privileges and powers 
 of the highest Order are may be learned from the Acts of the 
 Apostles, and the Epistle to Timothy and Titus, one of whom 
 was Bishop of Ephesus, and the other of Crete." " To the first 
 Order of the Christian Clergy ivas committed the sole power of 
 
448 AMERICAN DIVINES. 
 
 ordaining Ministers in the Church of Christ." — (Ibid., p. 
 350.) 
 
 Bishop Hobart (consecrated May 29, 1811). — The 
 opinions of this eminent man are so well known, that 
 it is hardly necessary to quote a sentence ; yet, in 
 accordance with the course hitherto pursued, he will 
 be permitted to speak for himself. We may say, in 
 passing, that those who like to put up a scolding- 
 post represent Bishop Hobart as the introducer into 
 America of the doctrine of Succession, etc., but with 
 what propriety the foregoing extracts will show : 
 
 " The Church is a divinely constituted society, of which Christ 
 is the Head. Its officers must derive their commission from Him, 
 its Head. This commission is transmitted through a superior 
 Order of the ministry (among whom ranked Timothy and Titus), 
 afterwards called Bishops. * * * Union with the Church can- 
 not exist where we are not in union with the ministry deriving 
 their power through the legitimate channel, from the Head of 
 the Church. The Churchman, believing that this Order is the 
 Order of Bishops, would think that, in separating from their 
 ministrations, he cut himself off from the communion of the 
 Church, and was guilty of the sin of schism." 
 
 " These opinions may not now be popular. And yet they 
 were popular. They were the only principles recognized in 
 those ages when the Christian faith was most pure, Christian 
 morals most holy, and the Christian Church most united. * * * 
 Let not the clamors of our Protestant brethren who are, unfor- 
 tunately, destitute of the primitive bond of Church Union, in 
 the Order of Bishops, intimidate us from avowing and acting 
 on the principle which the Churchman, in every age, has avowed 
 and acted on ; and which one of the first Bishops of the Chris- 
 tian Church, a disciple of an Apostle, the venerable martyr Ig- 
 natias, lays down : ' Let no man do anything of what belongs 
 to the Church, without the Bishop/ " — (Charge delivered at New 
 Haven, 1818.) 
 
 Bishop E. Channing Moore (consecrated 1814). — 
 When this Apostolic man was placed over the dio- 
 cese of Virginia, the interests of the Church were at 
 a very low ebb. " For several successive years not 
 
AMERICAN DIVINES. 449 
 
 even a Convention had been called, or a single com- 
 bined attempt made to preserve the Church from 
 irretrievable ruin." Its condition may be guessed, 
 from the statement made at the time in a letter of 
 Mr. (afterwards Bishop) Meade, that the congregation 
 at Richmond, which was "by far the largest body 
 of Episcopalians in the Southern country." was so 
 ignorant of Church doctrine, or so unstable in char- 
 acter, that, "if a clever Presbyterian should offer, they 
 will throw away Episcopacy and fall under his banners." 
 This will explain the following passage from Bishop 
 Moore's pen : 
 
 " Had we been all Episcopalians, in the strict sense of the 
 word, the Church of Virginia would not have been in her 
 present languid condition. We had most of the principal 
 people with us, and if they had been united in sentiment, act- 
 ing in accordance with the spiritual government to which we 
 belong, we should have commanded their respect and obtained 
 their support. Parity of Order and the doctrine of Episcopacy 
 are two distinct things, and to incorporate them is as much impos- 
 sible as to unite water with oil. The committee and myself must 
 take special care that we do not lose sight of the above princi- 
 ple." — [Memoir, p. 223.) 
 
 Bishop Griswold (consecrated 1811): 
 
 "Soon after the second ordination of the twelve, 'the Lord 
 appointed other seventy also, and sent them' forth to teach. 
 Thus it appears that during Christ's ministry there were three 
 different orders or grades of preachers. First, Himself, acting 
 as High Priest or Bishop, in his own person, and governing 
 the Church ; secondly, the twelve, and, thirdly, the other sev- 
 enty." " The law given by Moses was a shadow of good things 
 to come ; it, in all things, typified the gospel state, and is called 
 a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ. And, accordingly, it 
 had the three orders of the ministry (the High Priest, the 
 Priests and the Levites), with different and distinct powers 
 and duties." " St. Matthew informs us that Christ, in giving 
 his Apostles their final commission, begins by saying ' All 
 power is given unto me in Heaven and in earth/ showing that 
 he had authority to ordain them to any ministry. And then, 
 as St. John tells us, he mentions the ministry which he actually 
 did give them : such as his Father had given him. He appoints 
 
450 AMERICAN DIVINES. 
 
 them to the office he was leaving, Christ glorified not himself 
 to be made an High Priest, but had, like Aaron, his type under 
 the law, a regular call to the office. Nor did the Apostles take 
 the honor to themselves ; they were sent by Christ, as he was 
 by the Father." 
 
 The powers given unto the Apostles were : 
 
 " First, to exercise discipline and govern the Church. * * * 
 They were also commissioned to go into all the world, and 
 preach the Gospel to every creature of all nations, baptizing 
 them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost. * * * He also promised to be with them, even to 
 the end of the world — evidently meaning them and their succes- 
 sors in the same office." * * * " They were sent by Christ as the 
 Father had sent him, and, of course, to minister to the Church 
 as he had ministered, and to appoint such ordinances as the 
 new dispensation might render expedient, such as ordaining to 
 the Ministry, &c, &g." " What we teach and firmly believe is, 
 that in the Apostles' days (as has been the fact ever since), 
 there were three different Orders ; but we do not say or sup- 
 pose that they were distinguished exactly by the same names 
 then as now. The words Bishop, Elder and Deacon, which we 
 now appropriated severally to three different grades, were then 
 sometimes used for all the Orders. The Apostles were called 
 Elders and also Deacons. The Elders, Presbyters or Priests 
 (which are all words of the same meaning), were then also 
 styled Bishops, a name which signifies overseers, because they 
 had the oversight of congregations or parishes. But ever since 
 the Apostles' days, none but those who have the general over- 
 sight of all the Churches in a City, or State, or Province, with 
 power to ordain, are called Bishops." — {On the Apostolical 
 Office.) 
 
 Dk. Fredekick Beasley (1777-1845), former Pro- 
 vost of Pennsylvania University : 
 
 "Episcopacy rests upon the strong foundation of the sacred 
 Scriptures. It is an irrefragable truth, that the Episcopal form 
 of Church Government is the only one Christ hath prescribed in 
 His Word ; it is the only one which was known in the universal 
 Church for fifteen hundred years. Whilst our Saviour remained 
 on earth he, of course, held supreme authority in his Church. 
 The twelve were appointed by him as his subordinate officers. 
 The seventy disciples constituted a still lower Order. There 
 existed, then, in the Church of Christ at this time, three distinct 
 grades of Ministers. When our Lord ascended into Heaven — 
 when he breathed upon the twelve and said, 'As my Father 
 
AMERICAN DIVINES. 451 
 
 gent me, even so send 1 you/ he transmitted to them the same 
 authority which he himself had retained during his continuance 
 amongst them. The twelve commissioned their Presbyters and 
 Deacons, to aid them in the administration of ecclesiastical gov- 
 ernment. Before their death they constituted an order of Min- 
 isters, to whom they conveyed that Supreme authority in the 
 Church, which was lodged in their hands during their lives. 
 To this Order of men, who succeeded the Apostles in dignity 
 and authority, the appellation of Bishops was, in process of time, 
 peculiarly appropriated. Ever since the times of the Apostles 
 this Order has always possessed prerogatives peculiar to itself 
 It has always held, exclusively, the power of ordination, the 
 privilege of communicating the sacerdotal authority. These are 
 positions which may be established by an accumulation of evi* 
 dence from Scripture and the testimony of ancient writers, that 
 will defy all opposition." — [Letters of Cyprian, A. D. 1807.) 
 
 Bishop Kavenscroft, of North Carolina, conse- 
 crated 1823 : 
 
 " Before the Apostles finished their course respectively, they 
 committed unto faithful men, by Divine direction, that commis- 
 sion and authority for the rule and government of the Church, 
 for the guardianship of the faith and the fulfilment of the Gos- 
 pel dispensation which they received from Christ, and Christ 
 from the Father. In which transfer they gave instructions for 
 the due and faithful performance of the duties peculiar to their 
 office with directions that they also should, in like manner, 
 * commit the same to faithful men, who should be able to teach 
 others/ and thus continue the line of Apostolical Succession 
 unbroken to the end/' — (Vol. i., p 125.) 
 
 " As Christ's commission and authority derived from the 
 Father admitted a transfer of it to his Apostles, in like manner 
 the commission and authority of the Apostles derived from 
 Christ admitted and, in fact, included a like transmission to 
 others." 
 
 " In the necessary powers and qualifications for its government, 
 &c. &c,, the Apostles both could have and did have Successors, 
 which have continued in an unbroken line of transmitted au- 
 thority to this day, through the Order of Bishops, as the only 
 lawful and verifiable source of spiritual rule in the Kingdom of 
 Christ/' — (P. 127.) 
 
 Dr. John Bowden (1751-1817), Professor in 
 Columbia College, A. D. 1808. — His admirable and 
 conclusive letters to Dr. Miller, are in the very best 
 
452 AMERICAN DIVINES. 
 
 vein of controversial writing — fair, candid, cour- 
 teous, but forcible : 
 
 " If the Holy Ghost inspired the Apostles to establish Epis- 
 copacy in the Church, it is certainly of Divine institution, 
 although there may be no express and formal precept for that 
 purpose. Or if the Apostles, by virtue of the commission 
 which they received from Jesus Christ, established Episcopacy, 
 it must, if not immediately, yet mediately be grounded upon 
 Divine institution. For if the Apostolic commission was 
 founded upon Divine authority, as it certainly was, then all 
 commissions derived from that source, and within the limits of 
 that commission, are also mediately founded upon a Divine 
 authority, and in this sense, at the very least, every one that 
 believes Episcopacy not to be a mere human institution, must 
 believe it to have a divine sanction." — (P. 245.) 
 
 " Thus, then, it appears to be capable of demonstration, that 
 an uninterrupted successiox of Ministers is essential to the 
 Christian Church ; and if there has been any failure, a min- 
 istry deriving its authority from Christ has also failed. But 
 this we know cannot be, for Christ has promised that it should 
 not ; and what he has promised he is certainly able to fulfil. 
 And as the Order of the Clergy is a positive institution of the 
 great head of the Church, so the different degrees of the min- 
 istry must, of necessity, be a positive institution by the same 
 authority. If, then, Episcopacy has been proved to be a divine 
 institution, it as necessarily follows that the Succession of 
 Bishops has been as- uninterrupted as the ministry. For if to 
 the Order of Bishops the power of ordaining was attached, 
 then it follows that the Episcopal Order is essential to the 
 perpetuity of the Ministry. Of course, a succession of such 
 ordainers is essential. Admit, then, that Episcopacy is a divine 
 institution, and the Succession is a matter of necessity, and is no 
 more capable of failure than the [whole] ministrv is." — (P. 
 316.) 
 
 The opinions of Bishops Kemp, Chase, Dehon, 
 Bowen, Waimvright, Doane, and others, on the 
 present topic, are too well known to require illustra- 
 tion. We therefore pass on. 
 
 Bishop H. U. Oxderdoxk, of Pennsylvania, con- 
 secrated 1827. — In his excellent tract, ''Episcopacy 
 Tested by Scripture." the distinctive principles of 
 
AMERICAN DIVINES. 453 
 
 the Church, are ably maintained. We can give only 
 a brief extract or two : 
 
 " Parity declares that there is but one order of men author- 
 ized to minister in sacred things. * * * Episcopacy declares 
 that the Christian ministry was established in three orders, 
 called, ever since the Apostolic age, Bishops, Presbyters or 
 Elders, and Deacons, of which the highest only has the right 
 to ordain." — (P. 11.) 
 
 11 Scriptural proof having been given for Episcopacy, down 
 to the latest date of the inspired canon, and it having been 
 shown that no other Ministry is set forth in the New Testament, 
 all is done that was proposed in the beginning of this essay/' 
 ■—(P. 39.) 
 
 Bishop Onderdonk expressly repudiates the idea 
 of " unchurching 7 ' non-Episcopal denominations ; but 
 he argues strongly ; as we have shown elsewhere, 
 against justifying the Foreign Bfcformed Churches 
 on the ground of necessity : 
 
 " We think it doubtful whether Luther and his associates and 
 Calvin and his associates were prevented from obtaining Episco- 
 pacy by difficulties strictly insuperable" " When the difficulty 
 appears great, those who yield to it are, we doubt not, excused 
 by a merciful God, and they ought to be fully and readily ex- 
 cused by man. But this mild judgment of persons does not 
 establish either the correctness of their opinions or the validity 
 of their acts." " Least of all can the supposed necessity which 
 may formerly have lead to a deviation from divine institutions, 
 be a sound plea for persevering in that deviation, after the sup- 
 posed necessity has ceased." — (P. 42.) 
 
 Bishop J. H. Hopkins, of Yermont, consecrated 
 
 1832, and now Presiding Bishop of this Church. 
 
 This learned and able divine, in his " Letters on the 
 
 Novelties which Disturb our Peace/' published in 
 
 1844, takes as low ground for Episcopacy as it 
 
 appears possible to take, without wholly abandoning 
 
 the Church's doctrine. 
 
 " The first question to be settled is this, namely : "Whether 
 Episcopacy is essential to the very being of the Church of Christ, 
 so that there can be no Church where there is no Episcopacy. 
 
454 AMERICAN" DIVINES. 
 
 And here I beg leave to be understood as distinctly maintain- 
 ing, that the institution of the Episcopal government is divine, 
 because Apostolic. In the words of the venerable Hooker, I 
 would say without the least reservation, ' Let us not fear to be 
 herein bold and peremptory, that if anything in the Church's 
 government, surely the first institution of Bishops was even 
 from God. The Holy Ghost was the author of it. But it does 
 not necessarily follow from this that the loss of Episcopacy 
 destroys the very being of a Church. It destroys its Apostolic 
 Order, undoubtedly, ***** yet the Church, in its essential 
 elements may exist notwithstanding/ " 
 
 In this last clause, and others like it, we recog- 
 nize the effect of the "Puseyite" controversy, just 
 as we find it displayed in Bishop Meade's "True 
 Churchman," a charge delivered in 1851. In conse- 
 quence of unfair deductions from certain established 
 principles, or the undue prominence given to some 
 particulars of doctrine by the Oxford writers, those 
 who were startled and pained at the tendency of their 
 " Tracts," began to change their ground, and to be 
 careful of granting the original principles, lest the 
 inferences would follow. Some denied what all 
 Churchmen had previously taught, and some even 
 contradicted publicly what had been upheld in their 
 own writings through a long course of years. We 
 believe that the good Bishop wrote under the influ- 
 ence of this feeling — that fearing to yield too much 
 to the " Newmanites," he went a little too far in the 
 opposite direction. Yet, after all, hating a single word 
 or two here and there, he has written nothing on the 
 subject which could not be supported by the author- 
 ity of some of our greatest divines, and nothing to 
 which we ourselves would not cheerfully subscribe. 
 
 Bishop Henshaw, of Ehode Island, consecrated 
 1843: 
 
AMERICAN DIVINES. 455 
 
 " We all believe in the Apostolic institution of Episcopacy, 
 and, of course, acknowledge that it has the divine sanction and 
 approbation; for inspired Apostles would institute nothing in 
 opposition to the will of God." " [The Episcopal Church] does 
 not, as the phrase goes, " unchurch" other denominations. She 
 does not condemn a Non-Episcopal Ministry, and pronounce all 
 its acts invalid ; nor does she even declare them to be irregular, 
 for it was no part of her business to assert negatives. But she 
 does positively affirm the Apostolic origin and universal preva- 
 lence of the ministry under the Episcopal form, and declares her 
 determination to recognize no other. In proof of this, we quote 
 the language of the Ordinal. From the Apostles' times there 
 have been these Orders of Ministers in — what? In the Epis- 
 copal Church as distinguished from others? No! But in 
 Christ's Church, i. e., the Holy Catholic Church." * * * 
 "Upon this strongly asserted fact of the universal prevalence, 
 from the beginning, of the ministry under the Episcopal form, 
 our Church founds her solemn declaration that she can recognize 
 and sanction none other." " No man shall be accounted or taken 
 to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in this Church, or suf- 
 fered to execute any of the said functions, except he be admitted 
 thereto according to the form hereafter following, or hath had 
 Episcopal consecration or ordination." 
 
 " If there could be any reasonable doubt as to the meaning of 
 our Church in this declaration, one would suppose it would be 
 removed by her uniform action in the premises, under the direc- 
 tion of her canons. It is by no means uncommon for Non-Epis- 
 copal ministers to conform to our Church, and seek admission to 
 Orders. A very considerable portion of our Clergy have made 
 this transition. How are they treated on coming to the Church 
 for admission ? As clergymen, or as laymen ? She will not 
 permit such an one to serve at her altars till she ordains him, 
 just as if he had been professedly nothing but a layman before /" 
 — [The Apostolic Ministry, pp. 5, 6.) 
 
 Dk. GrEOKGE Boyd. — In his sermon on the " Old 
 Paths," preached April, 1836, maintains the follow- 
 ing propositions : 
 
 (1) " The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ is a visible society, 
 divinely constituted for special purposes." (2) " The Lord 
 Jesus Christ instituted, in this Church, a ministry to be perpetu- 
 ated to the end of the world, which ministry consisted of three 
 Orders." (3) " Such a society being instituted and thus or- 
 ganized, it becomes the bounden duty of every one who hears 
 the Gospel, if he can find access to this Church, to connect him- 
 self with it." (4) "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 
456 AMERICAN DIVINES. 
 
 United States is identically the same Church as the Apostolic, 
 and has been continued in direct and regular succession from 
 the time of the Apostles to the present day." 
 
 J. Flavel Mines, a prominent Presbyterian Min- 
 ister, converted to the Church. — He has left his opin- 
 ions on record, and used very plain language : 
 
 " My old religion teaches that three or four good laymen may 
 come and lay their hands on my pious bootblack, and make him 
 as true a minister of Jesus Christ as myself— equal in dignity, 
 and right, and power." " I regard it no small thing to have re- 
 covered the ancient Episcopacy." — [Presbyterian Clergyman, 
 &c, p. 569.) 
 
 Dr. Dorr, the present venerable Eector of Christ 
 Church, Philadelphia, quotes from Bishop Home 
 and Archbishop Potter : 
 
 " * In order to preserve his Church till this last period of time, 
 Christ hath promised to be with his Apostles and their Succes- 
 sors always, even unto the end of the world/ " " This is the 
 substance of the Archbishop's first chapter, and his positions 
 appear so evident as hardly to require any proof that the Chris- 
 tian Church, is an outward, visible, spiritual society, universal 
 as to time and place, and one whereof men are obliged to be 
 members." 
 
 44 'Let them produce/ says Tertullian 'the origin of their 
 Churches ; let them unfold the Order of their Bishops, so 
 proceeding by regular Succession from the beginning, that their 
 first Bishop may be showed to have been appointed either by 
 one of the Apostles or by Apostolical authority/ The Church 
 thus constituted derives its origin from one common source ; it is 
 built upon the same foundation and after one uniform model ; it 
 is subject to the same Orders of the ministry whose commission 
 has been regularly handed down from the Apostles " &c, &c — 
 [Churchman's Manual, pp, 120-123.) 
 
 Dr. Chauncey Fitch. — In his ingenious and able 
 Tractate on James, the Lord's brother, says: 
 
 '"rtfe theory of an Apostolic Ministry is that it is derived 
 from Christ through those whom he empowered to organize and 
 govern the Church. Civil power may be conferred by the gov- 
 
AMERICAN DIVINES. 457 
 
 emed upon their rulers, but the Christian Ministry comes from 
 Christ down to the people. * * It was by the putting on of the 
 Apostles' hands the first Ordination was conferred. When 
 one was admitted in this way to be a Deacon, an Elder, or a 
 Bishop, he received a part of the Apostolic Ministry. Those 
 Elders whom Titus ordained in every city of Crete obtained a 
 part of the same Ministry which Titus had, but not the whole 
 — not that part of it which would authorize them to ordain 
 others. If one of these Elders had taken upon him to ordain 
 without having received authority so to do, a ministry thus 
 begun would not have been Apostolic/' 
 
 In reply to the question, "What is it that is con- 
 veyed by the Apostolical Succession?" Dr. Fitch re- 
 plies thus : 
 
 " It is safe to say — -just that legal authority which could be 
 conferred by Ordination and which would be necessary to per- 
 petuate the same Church in all its integrity. * * * Authority to 
 do what St. Paul in his Epistles instructs Timothy to do at 
 Ephesus, and Titus at Crete, could be conveyed perpetually by 
 Ordination. Such authority, committed to faithful, men would 
 sustain and leave the Church of Christ, at the end of time, the 
 same Church it was at the beginning. Authority to do these 
 things, disconnected from inspired guidance and supernatural 
 gifts, is all that is claimed by those who, through a regular Suc- 
 cession of Ordinations from the Apostles, now exercise the office 
 of Bishop in the Church of Christ."— (P. 69.) 
 
 Prefixed to this treatise we find a letter from Bishop 
 Mellvaine, of Ohio, recommending it strongly. 
 
 We have thus brought this chain of witnesses down, 
 in regular order, from the first Bishops of our Church 
 in this country, to the present presiding Bishop and 
 others yet alive. We have been obliged to omit 
 many writers and much matter ; but enough has 
 been supplied to show that here, as in England, the 
 doctrines held and publicly taught by Episcopalian 
 divines have been always the same in substance, and 
 in complete harmony with our Standards. . 
 
 39 
 
CHAPTEE XIII. 
 
 LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 
 
 WE have stated that the Eeverend Mr. Goode has 
 no right to put himself forward as the champion 
 of Low- Churchmen — that his views and the views of 
 those of whom he affects to be the representative are 
 widely different, and this we now proceed to prove. 
 
 We have quoted in Chapter XL, the works of Bur- 
 net and Chillingworth, of Davenant, Hall, and Usher, 
 who might be pointed to as substantiating our state- 
 ment; but we prefer giving the opinions of those who 
 have lived more recently, and been fairly classed with 
 that known as the "Evangelical party" both in Eng- 
 land and America. 
 
 Let it be borne in mind that Mr. Groode contends 
 for a parity of Order between bishop and Presbyter ; 
 that he denies the divine right of Episcopacy, claiming 
 for it "only apostolical precedent" or a venerable an- 
 tiquity; and that he scouts the whole theory of 
 Apostolical succession as anti-Evangelical and " mon- 
 strous." t It will be found that they speak a different 
 language. 
 
 The Geeat Authority on the Evangelical side is 
 the monthly magazine known as the Christian Ob- 
 
 (458) 
 
LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 459 
 
 server. It was founded as the organ of the party or 
 body of men to whom at the close of the last century, 
 the name of " Evangelicals" was given, or by whom 
 it was appropriated. Its first editor was Zachary 
 Macauley (father of the historian). He was succeeded 
 by Rev. S. C. Wilks, and under these it continued to 
 be in all respects the same for at least half a century. 
 In the first volume (published 1802) we find com- 
 munications from " Way-ring," from which the follow- 
 ing sentences are extracted : 
 
 " There were three Orders of Ministers in the Primitive 
 Church, Apostles, Presbyters, and Deacons." 
 
 " The Apostles governed the Christian Church during their 
 life, and when the charge became too burdensome, they ap- 
 pointed others with Apostolical authority to assist, who were 
 afterwards called Bishops for the reason mentioned by Theodo- 
 ret." " There were some ecclesiastical offices which common pas- 
 tors were not allowed to perform — the Apostles or an Apostolical 
 man must preside at every ordination." — (Page 573.) 
 
 " The Apostolical origin of Episcopacy being admitted, the 
 great question is not whether the Christian Church can subsist 
 without this Order any more than whether it can subsist with- 
 out spiritual worship, but, whether 1 am justified in rejecting the 
 Order which is clearly Apostolical?" " If I am asked what I 
 think of those foreign Protestants who have cast off the Episco- 
 pal government, I answer * nothing.' To their own master they 
 stand or fall. The question seems to me irrelevant; it becomes 
 not me to decide respecting the state of others, but with hu- 
 mility and fear to follow the steps of the Apostles as they fol- 
 lowed their Master." 
 
 " It will be easy to see what degree of importance attaches to 
 the numerous ordinations of certain classes of Dissenters which 
 we see advertised in the public prints, where one prays, and 
 another exhorts, and another sings, and all are equals. 
 These things derive a consequence from the air with which 
 they are brought forward; but it is sufficient to say that nothing 
 similar appears in any part of the New Testament." — (Page 
 771). 
 
 In the second volume (A. D. 1803) an article ap- 
 peared on " Episcopacy as a Distinct Order in the 
 
460 LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 
 
 First Century." We take the following from its 
 opening paragraph : 
 
 " It [Episcopacy] simply consists in a commission derived 
 from the Apostles of Christ to continue the Succession of its 
 own and the.inferior orders of Ministers in the Church, and to 
 exercise jurisdiction over those Orders as well as over the people 
 committed to their charge." — (Page 709). 
 
 In the third volume, this article is continued, the 
 editor maintaining that " Episcopacy was instituted 
 by the Apostles, and, therefore, comes from God." 
 On page 29 he quotes, approvingly, this strong sen- 
 tence from Jones, of Nayland : 
 
 " The Church has been governed by Bishops, Priests, and 
 Deacons from the Apostles downwards, and where we find these 
 Orders duly appointed, the Word preached, and the sacraments 
 administered, there we find the Church with its form and au- 
 thority." 
 
 In the fourth volume, Archdeacon Daubeny is 
 commended for his advocacy of Episcopacy in his 
 " Guide to the Church." 
 
 In the volume for 1828, we have the following 
 reference to the Moravians : 
 
 " Amid all their sufferings they did not forget the duty of 
 perpetuating a pure Episcopal Church, after the existing race 
 of their pastors who had received regular ordination by Bishops 
 should become extinct. Tbey could neither expect nor wish 
 for assistance in this matter from the Church of Rome, nor even 
 from the Calixtine Bishops. They, therefore, had recourse to 
 the Waldenses, whose Prelate, Stephen, before his martyrdom, 
 with the assistance of another Bishop, consecrated three of their 
 Priests, from whom the Episcopate has been regularly main- 
 tained in their Church to the present moment, in the same 
 manner as Anglican Episcopacy is in Scotland or the United 
 States of America. The British Parliament has formally re- 
 cognized them as a regular Episcopal Church." 
 
 The writer of such paragraphs as these had cer- 
 tainly no fellowship of opinion with Mr. Good. It 
 
LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 461 
 
 was not then " Evangelical" to surrender the divine 
 right of Episcopacy or to sneer at " Apostolical Suc- 
 cession." But to proceed. 
 
 In the number for May, 1830, the editor, reviewing 
 the sermons of Bishop Griswold, says: 
 
 " Our American Episcopalian friends are * High' (or rather 
 as we should say, 'true') Churchmen. They adhere to Episco- 
 pal discipline where Episcopacy has no civil privileges, no secu- 
 lar patronage, no numerical distinction, no cathedrals, no titles, 
 no endowments, no splendor, nothing but pure scripture au- 
 thority" 
 
 In December, 1832, it contained the memoir or no- 
 tice of Drs. Johnson and Cutler, to which we have 
 already referred, and in which it is stated plainly 
 that it was impossible for those Congregational minis- 
 ters after studying works upon Church polity, not to 
 suspect "the lawfulness and validity of their own ordi- 
 nation.^ 
 
 Very soon after this the Tractarian controversy 
 began, and its influence became apparent in the tone 
 of the " Observer," yet it did not for a moment aban- 
 don the distinctive doctrines of the Church. 
 
 In April, 1834, noticing a sermon by Archbishop 
 Wake, on Unity, the editor says : 
 
 " The Archbishop, though he was v^ery far from undervaluing 
 the privilege and advantage of Apostolical Succession, which 
 we moat firmly believe belongs to the Church of England, at the 
 same time saw what a dangerous weapon was furnished to the 
 Church of Rome by the language which some Episcopalian 
 Protestants have used upon the subject." 
 
 In the same volume (April number) the editor says 
 
 of " external Apostolical Succession:' 7 
 
 " We fully approve and highly appreciate that Succession." 
 
 And again, in the August number : 
 
 " We cannot see, with an admirer of the Oxford Tracts, how 
 39* 
 
462 LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 
 
 the inculcation of the doctrine of Apostolical Succession, though 
 we fully believe that Succession, is to silence the objectors to our 
 national ecclesiastical establishment." 
 
 In 1837, commenting on some extravagant or he- 
 retical language of J. H. Newman, the editor says : 
 
 " We are as conscientious Episcopalians as the Tract writers ; 
 aye, and as firm believers in the Apostolical Succession also, 
 though not icitli its Popish overlaying ; and we therefore the 
 more lament to witness exaggerated statements like these." 
 
 Again, in the same year, he says : 
 
 "If .the present question were between the Church of Eng- 
 land and Foreign Churches, and, still more, if it were between 
 us and the Dissenters at home, we should stand up as earnestly 
 to defend Episcopacy and the regulations of the Church of Eng- 
 land as we are now doing to oppose what we consider unjust 
 representations of them. The Foreign Churches became Non- 
 Episcopal from the pressure of circumstances, not from predilec- 
 tion, and ought not to be i unchurched' or considered schismat- 
 ical. The case of Dissenters among ourselyes stands on very 
 different grounds ; and our only remark upon it shall be, 
 *What have we to do to judge them that are without? — them 
 that are without God judgeth.' 
 
 " Let men in this lax day say what they will, there is such a 
 sin as Schism ; and, unless the Church of England be unscrip- 
 tural, so as to justify and require secession [from it], we see no 
 alternative, but that tlwse who, being situated within its limits, 
 forsake it, are guilty of that sin. )} 
 
 And again, in the same volume, speaking of Hooker, 
 the writer says he held 
 
 " The doctrine of Apostolical Succession, as every true 
 Churchman does, with its legitimate results." 
 
 Would it be possible to find in any u High Church" 
 periodical language mace directly opposed to the lev- 
 elling doctrines of Mr. Groode and his American fol- 
 lowers? Here is more of the same sort, from the 
 next issue of the " Observer," which is valuable, not 
 only as an index of the writer's views, but as cor- 
 
LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 463 
 
 roborating what we have herein maintained as to the 
 Fathers and founders of our Church : 
 
 " Hooker and Jewell, and the first Reformers, maintained the 
 uninterrupted succession of the Christian Ministry from the 
 times of the Apostles, and also the three orders, of Bishops, 
 Priests, and Deacons ; but they did not infer that a com- 
 munion which, either from misapprehension of Scripture, or 
 from unavoidable circumstances, was deprived of Diocesan Epis- 
 copacy, was without the limits of the covenant of divine mercy .'' 
 
 And here is a passage which by anticipation judges 
 the course pursued recently in New York, by those 
 who have accepted Mr. Groode's novel theory : 
 
 " The Bishop of London [Blomfield] lately said in Parlia- 
 ment that the promiscuous interchange of pulpits, advocated by 
 the Rev. Baptist Noel^ would make the Church 'a Noah's ark ;' 
 and so we think it would. We do not mean in the better 
 typical sense, but in the colloquial sense intended by the 
 Bishop. 
 
 " But we see no reason why Protestant Episcopalians 
 should not officiate for each other, under suitable regulations, 
 more especially as our Churches are open without bar to conform- 
 ing Popish Priests." 
 
 Here, then, we have the teaching of this acknowl- 
 edged and able organ of the Evangelical party, for a 
 space of forty years, and we find it to be utterly at 
 variance with the theory now attempted to be palmed 
 off upon the American public as "Evangelical." 
 
 The evidence of the "Observer," inasmuch as it did 
 not speak for one alone, but for all of the Low-Church 
 section, would of itself expose the groundlessness of 
 Mr. Groode's claim to represent that body, and would 
 justify our statement to that effect ; but it is best to 
 add the express statements of some of those men 
 whose names are household words, and who are well 
 known to have been leaders of the "evangelical" 
 movement. 
 
LOW-CHURCH DIVINES. ETC. 
 
 Leigh RlCHi : an article in the "Observer" 
 
 vaotes from Lord 1 p Pearson 
 
 sjes endorsing Su —ion. which we have printed 
 
 in the r, and then proceeds : 
 
 "The ooncum tony of the Apostle? and succeeding 
 
 the better edifying of his people. 
 
 our bless I S ri ur ap] ; : ted officers in his Church, entrusted 
 v:'.' : - ministry even unto the 
 
 . .:■:, :.:.- 
 
 "William Romaixe (171-i— 1795\ who was regarded 
 
 in his dav as the lowest of all Low-Churchmen, writes 
 thus : 
 
 *■ I am an old clergyman of the Church of England, and thor- 
 oughly attached to my venerable mother. Some are zealous for 
 Tjuiiar ductrines, xchi'.-. ~ ' -:ak through the rules she has 
 i ic ven for the order' . r office. Others, who are so 
 
 i hrnas of worship as not to endure the 
 
 fr-mVhe" doctrine^ 
 Homilies, and othc 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Chri-t is pre 
 
 
 [TNAUTHl 
 
 
 
 them, do yet 
 
 deviate as far as possible 
 
 :ht in the Thi 
 
 rty-Xlne Articles and the 
 
 utin^s of tho 
 
 se'who compiled her Lit- 
 
 lese "sorts ::' c 
 
 ilergymen be true Bonfl of 
 
 not. Xeithe] 
 
 • the stiff formalists who 
 
 tly fulfilling*] 
 
 ieii vows. * * * 
 
 
 \ - :• '/ . and u 
 
 ~ * AVe Mi^rht indeed to 
 
 cr.e 1 ar. a s.uh 
 
 - are saved, - _ en by irreg- 
 5 j but much more, if these 
 
 aed without - 
 
 . ' : . blished 
 
 hat atter a all 
 
 [sums and separations 
 
 
 " . _ a spirit 
 
 
 j'.'.y* h union, and 
 
 7 ■:/ mities." * * * 
 "In the lives :>f the "Wesleys. Whitefield. ana Ingram we ?ee 
 no regard paid i --. the rules, and the order of the 
 
 T hey - ts I thai their ordination 
 
 confined their ministration w :ain limits., and 
 
 bound it upon r bor 'where they should 
 
 wfully call ace to fchei astieal gov- 
 
 ernors. L r es as regular | 
 
 ted as Evangehste at large, ranging about 
 
LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 465 
 
 assuming a kind of Apostolical tone and authority. * * * In 
 short, they made too much haste to do good, and in their zeal for 
 sound doctrine and experimental religion, forgot that there were 
 such evils as enthusiasm and schism. We have lived to see the 
 sad consequences of these irregular proceedings." 
 
 The venerable writer then goes on to speak of 
 Walker of Truro and Adam of Wintringham, " both 
 clergymen of uncommon sagacity, and inferior to 
 none of their contemporaries in real godliness/' who 
 remained faithful to their Church, obeying its rules 
 in the spirit and the letter. He commends in passing, 
 the "loyalty and zeal for established Order 11 which in. 
 those " perilous times" appeared in some Church pe- 
 riodicals, whose doctrinal teachings he could not ap- 
 prove. On the other hand he refers with disappro- 
 bation to some in which were 
 
 " Pompous and parading relations of chapels opened in every 
 part of the kingdom^of ordinations, conferences, and wonder- 
 ful conversions, as if nothing good were done among us but by 
 the Sectaries. Nor do I like to see the names of clergymen of 
 the Church of England appear among those of Dissenting 
 teachers* of various denominations on the blue cover of a 
 magazine where is advertised ' Dr. GilFs Reasons for Separating 
 from the Church of England' — a mischievous book ably answered 
 by the venerable Mr. Hart of Bristol." — ( Christian Observer, vol. 
 i, pp. 161-3). 
 
 George Stanley Faber (1773-1854). This very 
 eminent divine to whose learning and diligence the 
 Church is indebted for some of the ablest and most 
 valuable works of the present century, shall be 
 our next witness. In the year 180.2, he preached 
 before the University of Oxford a sermon on the Min- 
 istry, which was published immediately after. Its 
 very title is enough to show how he judged upon the 
 
 * The very name given to the same parties by Dr. Hook, and for 
 which he has been so freely censured. 
 
406 LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 
 
 question before us. It was this: " Divine Authority 
 Conferred by Episcopal Ordination Necessary to a 
 Legitimate Discharge of the Christian Ministry." 
 Archbishop Laud never wrote anything stronger 
 than that. 
 
 Mr. Faber sets out with showing that a self-ap- 
 pointed Evangelist, without any delegated authority, 
 is the very same anomaly in the spiritual world as a 
 self-appointed ambassador without any credentials 
 would be in the political. He then exposes the fal- 
 lacy of warranting invasion of the ministerial char- 
 acter, by those passages that are generally adduced to 
 justifying irregular ministrations, and proceeds: 
 
 " All the Apostles derived their authority immediately from 
 Christ," and " No person has a right to execute the office of an 
 Evangelist without having previously received a commission." 
 
 " Here another very important matter yet remains to be con- 
 sidered, Wlio are the persons that possess the EXCLUSIVE right 
 of granting this commission ? We assert that in all ages the 
 Church of Christ has been governed by three distinct Orders, 
 Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons ; and we challenge our an- 
 tagonists to produce from all the records of antiquity a single 
 instance of a Presbyteral community previous to that established 
 at Geneva." 
 
 "He then goes on," says the editor of the "Christian 
 Observer," "to solve the question whether Episcopi and 
 Presbyteri be synonymous," as supposed by the Dissen- 
 ters, or "whether they be descriptive titles of two dis- 
 tinct Orders as maintained by the Church of Eng- 
 land, 11 and to this end quotes Ignatius : 
 
 " The distinction between the three Orders being clearly 
 pointed out by Ignatius, it will follow almost of course that 
 Presbyters as such have no right to grant a commission to 
 
 preach the Gospel." 
 
 The editor of the " Christian Observer" says of this 
 sermon : 
 
LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 467 
 
 " The great talents which had been displayed by the Reve- 
 rend author in the execution of a much more arduous undertak- 
 ing entitled Horce Mosaicce, could not but prepossess our mind in 
 favor of the above discourse ; and we have the pleasure to add 
 that our expectation has not been disappointed. He has treated 
 the subject with delicacy and ability.* 
 
 "It must be obvious to the judicious reader that there are 
 many in the present day interested in the issue of this discus- 
 sion, who will not be able to vindicate their own conduct, unless 
 they are able to overturn the arguments which are here with 
 calmness and meekness proposed to their mature consideration." 
 — (Christian Observer, vol. i, pp. 447-8.) 
 
 When Mr. Faber preached the sermon from which 
 we have quoted, he was not a novice, borne into ex- 
 tremes by the ardor of youth, but a mature man, an 
 author of acknowledged power and great scholarship. 
 It might, therefore, stand as the deliberate judgment 
 of a divine so prominent among those known as 
 "Evangelical:" but it need not stand alone. After 
 an interval of twenty-three years, spent in study and 
 ministerial work, he wrote thus : 
 
 "Respecting the divine origin of that particular form of ec- 
 clesiastical government which from its chief officer bears the 
 name of Episcopal, I am not about to produce a regular disser- 
 tation. The matter lies within a very narrow compass. To 
 demonstrate that this polity was of no mere human appointment, 
 I require nothing more than the bible, illustrated by the attesta- 
 tion of two of the oldest Fathers to a naked matter of fact/' 
 
 "The study of the old ecclesiastical writers will not (as the 
 Bishop of Aire imagines) conduct us of necessity to Rome: but 
 without (I trust) making us firebrands and bigots, it will be 
 very apt, if pursued with real candor and love of truth, to con- 
 vert us into what are sometimes called High-Churchmen. From 
 its abuse, this term may, perhaps, in the present day of capri- 
 cious innovation and unlearned neglect of antiquity, have become 
 
 * If the editor of the '•'Observer" had only been as Evangelical as soma 
 of those who profess to follow in his footsteps, he would have spoken 
 very differently of the discourse. We heard a sermon last year before a 
 Diocesan Convention, in which the Church's cause was not even so 
 strongly set forth as by Mr. Faber, and yet the "Episcopal" paper of the 
 Diocese pronounced it a miserable display of bigotry ! 
 

 LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 
 
 with many under- 
 
 the term : .~ j its genuine 
 accept-., i mply impl 
 
 on instrumental Lord 
 
 ••Ireiuvus assures us that in every church there had been a 
 • succession ot bishops from the time of the Apostles: 
 
 and he himself, as we h-a 
 I 
 " Clement 
 
 his certain personal knowi Ige. 
 
 Then q i Cle: 
 
 rinthians, foe 
 
 ' THE FACTS which 
 
 ne-t's E; 
 
 ted from St. 
 
 :. Paul is 
 •ccurred to 
 
 the Co- 
 
 •• He i aches * * i 
 
 
 H , .. w 
 
 ann- 
 
 ">: be mi 
 
 sun 
 
 lerstood. 
 
 for the divine nrsTrnn 
 
 riON an: the per? 
 
 ETUAL 01 
 
 1LIG 
 
 1TION rf 
 
 that form of eeeles 
 
 i a - ' 
 
 Ideal polity * * 
 
 ■ * 
 
 usually 
 
 den 
 
 ominated 
 
 Episcopal 
 
 ?s : 
 
 hp institution 
 
 udo: 
 
 n the san 
 
 ie d 
 
 urine au- 
 
 ity as the mattei 
 
 rs ; 
 
 rdained by Mo 
 
 ses 
 
 ac ? ' r iin ; 
 
 : t:> 
 
 the o ~. m- 
 
 mandment which h 
 
 E 
 
 Lad received fi 
 
 ■ ''iii 
 
 heaven ; 
 
 " he 
 
 lAwn «* 
 
 that (me great . jec 
 
 : : 1 
 
 ta^- mstitutaa 
 
 n w 
 
 as the i 
 
 rev- 
 
 ^n:::n of 
 
 schism and disorde 
 
 r, ~ 
 
 ^ * he speeifh 
 
 ?s tl 
 
 
 as 
 
 Apostles 
 
 WERE ORDAINED BY C 
 
 .' H R 
 
 1ST. SO THEY BY 
 
 HIS 
 
 AUTHORI 
 
 TY^ 
 
 ORDAINED 
 
 THEIR SUCCESSORS. t, 
 
 
 
 ing /' 9m 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "It La- bee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 re - •■' v± 
 
 Episcopacy, hav 
 
 
 ed thePresbvu 
 
 eriaJ 
 
 i form of 
 
 C h 
 
 L'.v-. o a. • T " 
 
 ernment that tl . 
 
 
 we Bishops am 
 
 7 P? 
 
 lESBYTEP.i 
 
 
 ■•-: idUrri- 
 
 . tl : t : i .'.''. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 TC" 
 
 din zentiv reso 
 
 
 . not to t 
 
 
 works :i 
 
 par::-..- :: either 
 
 sid 
 
 M . ■'-■'■ ^ ^ 
 
 
 r_e m:r.u 
 
 
 
 ity itself, and I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' .5-'0.'"« a,a 
 
 m. Lrenaeus, \ 
 
 IS "• 
 
 re have seen. - 
 
 
 ; a r e z u i 
 
 
 catal ] srue 
 
 Of tL r R D 
 
 
 Bishops, and 1 
 
 be a 
 
 
 
 avo './.>• a 
 
 eact. that each Chu 
 
 
 a ' - :.. - | 
 
 : sse 
 
 ssed a s' 
 
 
 
 g ie Episcopal Sue 
 
 see 
 
 aon. With IV 
 
 enae 
 
 us in Gi= 
 
 
 
 - i artiai . 
 
 L T 
 
 Pmr rarv. Ter 
 
 tuli" 
 
 ian in A 
 
 Eric 
 
 a ; for to 
 
 1 - une naked 
 
 Fact Iih alfla most 
 
 uneouivo-vV. 
 
 : T ; 
 
 •ears wit- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 " 8 '.?':: tore : rres 
 
 rar 
 
 ids wit:: 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 Dent that 
 
 the Apostles ordained 
 
 
 BEIP 
 
 : Success 
 
 
 ■ - ^ - I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 FACT* COW Tl 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 canonical 
 
 
 we find 
 
 
 
 :re 
 
 
 by the unequivocally ries." 
 
LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 469 
 
 "From the Crown we receive a legal sanction to exercise our 
 functions, whether as Bishops or Presbyters, within the limits 
 of certain regularly denned Dioceses or Parishes, but / am at a 
 loss to perceive how this circumstance either snaps the chain of 
 Apostolical Succession or causes our Church to be built upon 
 human sanctions alone."— {Difficulties of Romanism , Amer. edit., 
 pp. 253, 271.)* 
 
 Samuel C. Wilks — In his Essay on the Neces- 
 sity of a Church Establishment, published in 1841, 
 takes for granted the principles we maintain. The 
 Bishops are regarded as the proper pastors or rulers 
 of the Church : 
 
 " The second means alluded to by which our Bishops may 
 promote learning, piety, and Church Principles among the 
 clergy was the conscientious exercise of the power of ordination, 
 This is a Bishop's highest prerogative and most arduous 
 duty ; and in the wise and pious discharge of so peculiarly re- 
 sponsible and sacred a function must at all times rest the bright- 
 est hopes of a Christian Church." — (Page 325.) 
 
 We believe that if Mr. Wilks were now in New 
 York or Pennsylvania, and should publish sentiments 
 about the observance of order, and the carrying out 
 of " Church principles" like those in this Essay, he 
 would find some ready to denounce him as u with- 
 drawing the minds of Christians from their spiritual 
 life, and fixing them on outward forms ;" as " going 
 backward rather than forward with the spirit of the 
 age," and even of " encouraging infidelity !"f 
 
 " A third method by which our Bishops may promote reli- 
 gion and zeal for the safety and honor of the Church, is by 
 
 * Mr. Faber was one of those whose steadfastness was affected by the 
 Tractarian controversy, so far, at least, as that he expressed elsewhere 
 rather more doubtfully that which here he affirms so positively and 
 maintains so well. 
 
 j" Such are the descriptions publicly given by a Presbyter of our Church 
 of a Pastoral letter issued by his superior. In such sober and courteous 
 language, the Rev. Dr. Canfield reviews the production of his " dear 
 Bishop/' whuse "unfailing personal kindness" and " paternal spirit" he 
 acknowledges ! 
 
 40 
 
470 LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 
 
 maintaining its discipline. "We live in an age particularly op- 
 posed to every kind of restraint and interference. So that if 
 our forefathers wished in vain for the ' godly discipline' to be 
 restored, it would be doubly hopeless for us to expect it now." 
 
 " The economical discipline of a Church is essentially neces- 
 sary as a means to an end, and though not in itself one of the 
 weightier matters of the law, is of indispensable importance for 
 preserving the general fabric of its constitution, and, therefore, 
 mediately for the advancement of real religion. Forms and cere- 
 monies, rubrics and vestments, allotted times, seasons, and observ- 
 ances * * though trifles, when put in the place of something higher, 
 are yet necessary to be duly observed for the sake of their connection 
 with the general system to which, for the purposes of order and 
 discipline, they are appended." 
 
 " It sometimes happens that clergymen who are not deficient 
 in personal piety, or zeal for the spiritual welfare of their flocks, 
 yet from the absence of early discipline, or of a regular educa- 
 tion, or from not duly reflecting upon the subject, or, perhaps, 
 in some cases, from mere ignorance or inadvertence, are not 
 sufficiently sensible of the importance of undeviating conformity 
 to the minuter as to the more substantial forms and regulations 
 of the established Ecclesiastical polity * * * they suffer them- 
 selves to diverge into minor peculiarities, or, perhaps, even on 
 some occasions to innovate upon strict ecclesiastical regu- 
 larity." "A Bishop who is anxious for the welfare of his 
 Diocese cannot possibly be inattentive to points of this kind" — • 
 (pp. 309-311). 
 
 Thomas H. Horne. — Author of the invaluable 
 
 " Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures." 
 
 " Although the Church of England, in common with all other 
 Episcopal Churches, considers the uninterrupted Succession 
 of Bishops to be essential to the power of consecrating and 
 ordaining, yet she nowhere affirms that where the Ministry is 
 not Episcopal there is no Church nor any valid administration 
 of the Sacraments." 
 
 Mr. Home was quite correct — she does not "affirm" 
 
 anything of the sort ; but that by no means proves 
 
 that she acknowledges the contrary, or even that she 
 
 does not hold those very opinions. She nowhere 
 
 "affirms" that the doctrine of those called "Univer- 
 
 salists" is heretical ; but her silence will not readily 
 
 be granted as implying approbation of them. 
 
low-church divines, etc. 471 
 
 Charles Simeon : 
 
 " [Our Reformers] knew that it would be to little purpose to 
 provide suitable forms of prayer for every different occasion if 
 they did not also secure, as far as human wisdom could secure, 
 a Succession of men who, actuated by the same ardent piety as 
 themselves, should perform the different offices to the greatest 
 advantage, and carry on by their personal ministrations the 
 blessed work which they had begun. " — ( On Liturgy, page 61.) 
 
 The representation of Simeon's views, given in the 
 recent work of Eev. Abner Brown ; extorted from the 
 radical "Kecord" the acknowledgment that that good 
 man held opinions not now popular with those whom 
 it calls "Evangelical men!" 
 
 Professor Scholefield was for a time curate to 
 Simeon, and subsequently engaged for ten years in 
 editing the works republished by the Parker So- 
 ciety. He thus speaks of Apostolical Succession : 
 
 " The existence of this Succession itself and the general na- 
 ture of it, are distinctly stated in those words of St. Paul to 
 Timothy : ' The things which thou hast heard of me among 
 many witnesses, the same commit thou unto faithful men who 
 shall be able to teach others also.' We have here a chain of 
 Succession clearly marked out by the Holy Spirit himself, and 
 reaching probably as far as the close of the second century after 
 the birth of our Saviour. * * * This line of Succession was in- 
 tended to go on. There is no reason for supposing that the Holy 
 Spirit, who arranged it originally, designed it to be only tem- 
 porary, and that it should break at any subsequent period * * * 
 It seems in itself an arrangement so wise, so simple and obvi- 
 ous, so springing out of the very nature of things * * that upon 
 the face of it it commends itself to our judgment as formed to 
 extend onward to the end of the world." 
 
 And then, as if to silence those who are ready to 
 
 denounce the theory of a "tactual Succession," he 
 
 proceeds : 
 
 " There seems to be no reason why we should not understand 
 this law of Succession to include Order as well as doctrine, i. e. 
 that they to whom was committed the grand deposit of doctrine 
 should receive also the authority to preach it from the same per- 
 
472 LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 
 
 sons from whom they received the doctrines themselves." — 
 [Sermons on Union, pp, 81, 82). 
 
 The " Christian Observer 1 ' says of the learned Pro- 
 fessor : 
 
 " His views of Christian truth were strictly Evangelical." 
 " He was sincerely attached to his own Church, but, in stating 
 and maintaining his Church principles, the habitual moderation 
 of his mind kept him far aloof from the arrogant pretensions 
 of certain High-Church writers, which, to some minds, have 
 appeared so unreasonable as to lead them to the conclusion that 
 all Church views are either a figment or only another name for a 
 masked Romanism." 
 
 Bishop Charles Sumner — the present venerable 
 diocesan of Winchester — is quoted in the " Observer" 
 for 1834 as sanctioning the true doctrine of " Apos- 
 tolical Succession/' and adding to his enunciation of 
 it this important caution — "not to rest upon our 
 abstract title, however legitimate." 
 
 " To little purpose we trace our genealogy in its lineal descent, 
 unless it also be written in fleshly tables on the hearts of our 
 people. Our hereditary Succession must stand manifest before 
 the world * * in our Apostolical wisdom, our Apostolical pru- 
 dence, our Apostolical meekness, our Apostolical zeal and love." 
 
 Archbishop Sumner : 
 
 " If the Christian Minister boasts of deriving his commission 
 to preach the Gospel by an uninterrupted succession from the 
 hands of the Apostles, consistency requires that he should apply 
 to the same Apostles for the doctrines which he is to deliver." — 
 (On Apostolical Preaching, Amer. Ed., p. 22.) 
 
 "It is not the least among the many blessings conferred 
 upon the world by Christianity, that it provides for a Succes- 
 sion, set apart from others by character as well as station, and 
 furnishing to all a perpetual admonition that there is a world to 
 live for beyond the present." — (Ibid., 216.) 
 
 Joseph Jones, of New Church. — This judicious 
 and most excellent man, writing against the Oxford 
 Tracts, acknowledges that the English clergy, and 
 
LOW-CHURCH DIVINES; ETC. 473 
 
 especially that section or party to which he was at- 
 tached; had too much neglected the whole subject of 
 Church order; and he attributed this fact, first to the 
 defect of their education in that particular, and to 
 their zeal for what they held to be the weightier 
 matters of religion: 
 
 " In our attention to the great object of our ministry we 
 have left the Church, with regard to her regimen and ordi- 
 nances, or rather her rites, too much out of our own sight and 
 out of that of our people. Regarding almost exclusively the 
 salvation of souls, and wishing, perhaps, to avoid the charge of 
 bigotry ; or being unwilling to direct the minds of men to mat- 
 ters which might lead to unprofitable debate and divert them, 
 to their own great injury, from subjects of infinite importance, 
 we have been guilty of neglect. We have revered and loved our 
 Church, her regimen, ordinances and ritual ; but we have not 
 made them the matter of close study in private, or of express and 
 distinct declarations in public. * * * Having become habituated 
 to such a mode of thinking and acting, we never anticipated it 
 could, in any way, be productive of mischief. But we are not 
 so blind or prejudiced as not to admit, on the calm and serious 
 consideration of the subject, that such negligent conduct, so far 
 as we have been guilty of it, must prove injurious, both to our 
 people and ourselves." " There is undoubtedly such a thing as 
 that which I will venture to call a Church-spirit, which ought 
 to exist and to be kept alive and active in the breasts of all the 
 members of the Church. Plant it in the breast of the layman, 
 and then he will not only esteem and value his Church, but, to 
 use such an expression, he will be fond of her, faithful to her, 
 and awake whenever he joins in her holy services. Plant it in 
 the breast of the Minister, and it will animate him in his work 
 — it will materially contribute in giving life, energy, and 
 solemnity to the religious ordinances." — (On the Church, pp. 
 14, 15.) 
 
 The venerable writer proceeds to reason against 
 the idea that Church polity is a thing left free to 
 men's own counsels or wills, and thus concludes : 
 
 "If it be Scriptural or Apostolical, it immediately assumes a 
 sacred character, and I do not see how men are justified in 
 refusing or in tampering with a divine legislation." 
 40* 
 
474 LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 
 
 And as to the objection, that there is no COMMAND 
 to maintain any one form, he says : 
 
 " There certainly is no permission — no intimation given us of 
 a plurality of Churches, or of our being at liberty to frame and 
 rule the Church according to our own counsels and wills. The 
 least thing that can be said is, that it is safe to follow Scripture 
 and Antiquity, and that it is not a little perilous to refuse to be 
 taught and governed by them. I must, therefore, maintain that 
 what does not identify itself with Scripture and the primitive 
 Church must be regarded as the invention of man, and not as 
 the legislation of CHRIST, and thus I look upon it as being 
 without warrant and authority."— (P. 23.) 
 
 "I cannot but look upon Episcopacy as standing upon an 
 undeniably scriptural basis ; and this, I think, is proved by 
 Antiquity. I therefore regard this as the true system — as that 
 which would have been universal and perpetual, if the Church 
 had preserved that unity in which she began her course — as 
 that, also, which will be universal when men shall lay aside 
 their crude, ultra, and partial views, and establish the Church 
 on proper ground, that is, on principles and laws that are un- 
 equivocally scriptural and primeval. But, in the maintenance 
 of this doctrine, I would cherish most kindly feelings towards 
 those who think differently from myself." — (P. 121.) 
 
 " The doctrine of Apostolical Succession, though true and 
 sound in itself, is not, I apprehend, entirely free from obscurity, 
 when we come to the full application of it." — (P. 122.) 
 
 " That Christ instituted an Order of men, which has been 
 perpetual from the Apostolic times to the present day, as Min- 
 isters of the New Testament; that we are directly in the line 
 of Ecclesiastical descent, and that He uses us for the fulfil- 
 ment of his gracious purposes, is the doctrine we maintain." — 
 (P. 143.) 
 
 "We look upon the Church as God's Ordinance, from the be- 
 ginning. * * * As to the Clergy, we consider them as an Order 
 ecclesiastically descended from the Apostles ; and to them, exist- 
 ing in different Orders, belong the several duties which the 
 Church requires to be performed." " We ascribe to the first 
 Order of the Clergy the sole right of ordaining." — (P. 142.) 
 
 This is a long extract from one writer, but none too 
 long, considering its value. We wish every member 
 and minister of the Church would read the whole 
 work from which it is taken. 
 
low-church divines ; etc. 475 
 
 Charles Bridges : 
 
 "We are led to observe the primary weight of the Ministerial 
 Office. This gives validity to the sacramental dispensation. 
 
 * * The Baptismal commission was not only linked with teach- 
 ing, but limited to those among his disciples whom he had before 
 separated for the express office of teaching. To the other ordi- 
 nance, as standing upon the same ground of authority, the same 
 principles must obviously be applied, so that, as Calvin justly 
 observes, * since the Sacraments are annexed as appendages to 
 the mysteries of Christ, it follows that the Ministers of the 
 Word are the legitimate dispensers of them.' Nor do the ex- 
 treme cases which our great Hooker feels himself constrained to 
 admit, * * * in any degree invalidate the ministerial authority, 
 or license a departure from divine order in a self-constituted 
 administration. What God will admit in absolute necessity 
 
 * * is one thing ; what He has appointed as the general rule of 
 His Church is another. The rule, not the exception, is our 
 
 STANDARD." 
 
 " We are not always to condemn others, but to assure our- 
 selves. * * * Yet we must not undervalue the Order, even 
 admitting that the essence of the Church may be preserved 
 without it. We are far from merging our own distinctness of 
 authority in the loose generality of professedly Christian teach- 
 ing. We are bound to magnify our office in the thankful 
 acknowledgment of a divinely delegated commission, received 
 through a divinely constituted Order. We gather this con- 
 viction * * * from the identity of our Church principles with 
 those naturally inferred from the Ministerial Epistles, and from 
 the comparison of our Episcopal Constitution with the Christian 
 Church from the Apostolic down to the Reformation era. And 
 we deem the intelligent apprehension of this conviction to be im- 
 portant, not to cherish a proud and selfish bigoti'y, but to give 
 assurance to our Sacramental administration, and to humble us 
 under the deep weight of our responsibility." 
 
 " Apostolical Succession (like its kindred term, Baptismal 
 Regeneration), rightly understood, involves a true and important 
 doctrine. With Romanists, and with Romish Protestants, it 
 means only the Succession of the Order, upon which, as if it 
 were the foundation of the Church, the whole weight is laid. 
 Our Reformers, more soundly, insisted upon a two-fold Suc- 
 cession of Order and of Doctrine — the external and the spiritual 
 line. That a Succession, combining both these points, was in- 
 tended by the Divine Head of the Church, is manifest from the 
 terms and extent of the promise." "The inspired testimony con- 
 ducts this Succession through four continuous stages, without 
 any intimation of a stop in the descent. Viewing it, therefore, 
 
476 LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 
 
 as THE PERPETUAL ORDINANCE OF THE CHURCH, 
 we cannot conceive of a defect or break i/i either part, without 
 injury to Us efficient operation." — (Sacramental Instruction, pp. 
 
 133.) 
 
 Bishop Daxiel TTilsox, of Calcutta.— In his 
 sermon on the Apostolical Commission, after speak- 
 ing of the powers committed to the Apostles, and 
 by them to others, such as Timothy, Titus, &c, pro- 
 ceeds thus : 
 
 " Nor can it be doubted whether this order of ecclesiastical 
 government was designed, in its general features, to continue 
 as the Apostles left it. For to suppose that an order of things, 
 enjoined by men inspired to regulate the Church of Christ, is 
 not binding upon us (unless, indeed, it be abrogated by an 
 authority equal to that by which it was enacted — which is not 
 pretended in the present instance), goes to sap the whole foun- 
 dation of faith. A regulation made by divinely authorized per- 
 sons, in a society that teas designed to be perpetual, is, of course, 
 perpetual, unless it be otherwise expressed. 
 
 "Accordingly, it is confessed that, in point of fact, for fifteen 
 centuries after the time of the Apostles, no government of the 
 Church obtained but that which was administered by Ministers, 
 who received, in direct Succession from them, the EXCLUSIVE 
 eights oe superintendence and ORDIXATIOX." 
 
 After such an array of evidence from the standard- 
 bearers of the "Evangelical party," we are at no loss 
 to understand why the still more Evangelical Shimeall 
 accuses them of Popery ! His accusation may stand 
 side by side with this acknowledgment from the 
 Methodist advocate, Mr. Powell. Speaking of the 
 Oxford Tract writers, he says : 
 
 <; Many of the clergy of the Established Church are strongly 
 opposed to the errors of these men, and they have spoken out 
 manfullv in the pages of ' The Christian Observer/ They 
 seem, however, to be very tender of this doctrine of Apostolical 
 Succession. [And now mark the charitable surmise.] They 
 perhaps think it is calculated to add importance to their Ministry 
 in opposition to the Methodists and Dissenters (!) A Spirit of 
 exclusivenes- iff, indeed, vert general among the Clergy of the 
 
LOW-CHUKCH DIVINES, ETC. 477 
 
 Established Church. An opinion, too, of the Divine right of 
 Episcopacy has spread extensively in the Church of England ; 
 most of its Clergy seem willing to believe it (/ /) [Mr. Goode 
 says the number was never so small as it is now.] Hence, 
 generally speaking, they are not the men from whom a refutation 
 of this doctrine of Apostolical Succession is to be expected. 77 
 
 No ! they certainly are not — at least, while true to 
 the principles and constitution of their own Church 
 — and, therefore, Mr. Powell was at liberty to bring 
 his own battery to bear upon it. 
 
 We will now come to the western side of the At- 
 lantic, and show that our American Low-Churchmen 
 have been as sound upon the doctrines in question 
 as their English brethren. Some, it will be remem- 
 bered, were quoted in the last chapter. 
 
 Bishop Gblswold : 
 
 " Christ did not promise that the working of miracles should- 
 continue to the end of the world, but that he would always be 
 with the office ; that, while the world endured, there should be 
 continued an uninterrupted Succession of such officers in his 
 Church, endued with these ecclesiastical powers, and commis- 
 sioned to transact with mankind the momentous concerns of 
 their eternal salvation. The name of Apostle was not long 
 continued. * * * After their death, their Successors in office, in 
 honor of the first Apostles, modestly, by general consent, as- 
 sumed the name of Bishops." "i/ God has set three Orders in 
 the Church, I know not who is authorized to reduce them to one, 
 or to say that all are Apostles, having equal authority, or all 
 Prophets or Presbyters." "Much cause have we to bless God 
 that his promise of a Christian Ministry has not failed — that 
 these streams of his mercy have descended to us, and are 
 watering this, our favored country." " Being about * * to ad- 
 vance one to a higher grade in this ministry, I thought it might 
 be satisfactory, and, I hope, not unprofitable to the people 
 present, to show, briefly, by what authority we do this, and who 
 gave us this authority. Should there be any here who think 
 differently on this point, they will not, I trust, regret having 
 heard what we think on a subject which so much concerns us 
 all. Nothing will tend more to unite Christians in love, than 
 candidly hearirig from each other the hope that is in them." — 
 (On the Apostolic Office.) 
 
47S LOW-CHURCH DIVINES ; ETC. 
 
 Dr. W. H. Wilmer: 
 
 " We find the Apostles, early after their commission, going 
 forth and ordaining others to offices co-ordinate with their own, 
 and giving form and order to the Church over which the Holy 
 Ghost had made them overseers. From their Acts and Epistles, 
 it is manifest that ordination was never performed but by the 
 higiier Order, although the Presbyters, or second Order, as- 
 sisted, as in the case in ordination, by our Bishops/' "Al- 
 though it is the usage of our Church to have three Bishops at 
 the ordination of a Bishop, yet one only is the ordainer. We 
 look upon this as essential to the conveyance of 'due authority, and 
 the addition of others is a circumstance founded upon discretion 
 and made venerable by usage." — [Episcopal Manual, p. 45.) 
 
 John A. Clark, a former Eector of St. Andrews, 
 Philadelphia, and one of the editors of the "Epis- 
 copal Eecorder" : 
 
 " When the Ministers of our Church place the wearing of a 
 surplice, or the observance of Christmas, or even the use of a 
 Liturgy, on the same ground with Episcopacy, they exceedingly 
 weaken our cause and strengthen prejudice against us. Epis- 
 copacy is an essential element in our Church organization. We 
 deduce its origin from the will of Christ and the arrangement 
 of his inspired Apostles. Here we go to the Scriptures for our 
 warrant. This is a distinctive feature in our ecclesiastical con- 
 stitution. Without this we immediately become assimilated 
 with the Non-Episcopal Churches around us. * * * The use 
 of a Liturgy, the observance of Christmas, and the wearing of 
 a surplice are matters of mere expediency. No one in his senses 
 would pretend that these were of Divine appointment." — [Letters 
 on the Church, 1839.) 
 
 Bishop McIlvaine, of Ohio : 
 
 " Is not Ordination always now performed by man? True. 
 And therein it differs circumstantially from that of the Apos- 
 tles, which was performed immediately by the hands of Christ 
 himself. But the Presbyters at Ephesus, whom Paul addressed 
 at Miletus, were ordained by only human hands, quite as much 
 as are Presbyters now ; and yet St. Paul declared that the Holy 
 Ghost had made them overseers of the flock of God. So that, 
 under the laying on only of human hands, men may receive 
 their ministry from God, if they who ordain them minister in the 
 name and by the authority of God. Give us, then, the case of 
 an Ordination performed in that name and by virtue of that 
 authority, and it matters not by how long a line of descent the 
 
 
LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 479 
 
 commission lias descended, by how long a chain of communication 
 it is connected with the personal ministry of Christ. If no link 
 be wanting, the last link is as truly fastened to the throne of 
 God as the first; and he who receives his ministry by such Succes- 
 sion, is ordained of Christ and called of God, as was Aaron.'' 1 
 
 " That it is the doctrine of our Church that the line of Succes- 
 sion has been through a ministry consisting of three Orders, 
 and through the highest Order of the three, the Bishops of the 
 Church, needs no illustration." 
 
 "As to imparity, or, in other words, * divers Orders of Min- 
 isters/ the doctrine of the Church is, that this feature of the 
 ministry is of Divine appointment. You need no stronger evi- 
 dence of this than in the declaration, in so many words, con- 
 nected in the office for the ordination of Priests: i Almighty 
 God, who by thy Holy Spirit hath appointed divers Orders of 
 Ministers in thy Church. ; This declaration the Church has 
 taken pains to insert, also, in the collect for the ordination of 
 Deacons, and in the office for the consecration of Bishops ; of 
 course, expecting her Ministers to join heartily in those prayers 
 and so to express their belief. Then, as to when this imparity 
 began, and on what evidence the belief of it is based, the pre- 
 face to the [Ordinal] speaks explicity : ' It is evident unto all 
 men diligently reading Holy Scriptures and ancient authors, 
 that from the Apostles' times, there have been these Orders of 
 Ministers in the Church of Christ — Bishops, Priests and Dea- 
 cons/ From this declaration, it is clearly the doctrine op 
 the Church, that not only ancient authors, but Holy Scriptures, 
 teach the Apostolic origin of an Episcopal Ministry, in the three 
 Orders just named. And, since it is by none pretended that 
 there were of right two descriptions of ministry in the Apostles' 
 time — the one such as has been mentioned, the other of an 
 essentially diverse kind — it is evidently the doctrine of the 
 Church, that from the Apostles' times and by the evidence of 
 Scripture, there was no other Ministry than that which subsisted 
 under the several gradations of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon." 
 
 " And then, in evidence of the great stress laid by the Church 
 on the NECESSITY of Episcopal Ordination, the Preface to 
 the Ordination Office proceeds : ' To the intent that these offices 
 shall be continued * * * or hath had Episcopal Consecration or 
 Ordination/ These words require no comment to make them 
 plainer/' 
 
 " Thus far speaks the Church and no further. How the belief 
 of these views should affect our opinion as to the validity of any 
 Non-Episcopal Orders; whether, Avhilst we must consider them 
 irregidar, because wanting Apostolic precedent, we should con- 
 sider them also as in all respects, invalid, the Church speaks 
 
480 LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 
 
 not, but leaves the question for private judgment, and alike 
 nourishes in her bosom those who affirm and those who deny." 
 " According to this * * * when a candidate for Orders pro- 
 fesses attachment to the doctrines, as well as discipline and 
 worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church, he is considered as 
 professing fully to believe in the Apostolical origin of Episco- 
 pacy — to believe, also, that such origin is apparent from the 
 Scriptures, as well as from ancient authors ; and, as a necessary 
 consequence, that Episcopacy is the only form of church order 
 contained in the Scriptures, and manifest from ancient 
 authors ; and, consequently, whether a Church should now be 
 Episcopal or not, is a question not to be settled upon considera- 
 tions of mere expediency, but of deference to the model of the 
 primitive Church, as it was constituted by the Apostles under 
 the guidance of inspiration ; so that no one ought to be ac- 
 counted a lawful Minister in the Church, nor suffered to 
 execute any functions of the ministry, unless he hath had 
 Episcopal Ordination." — [Ordination Sermon at Gambier, 
 1839.) 
 
 We have given this long extract from Bishop 
 Mcllvaine, notwithstanding its repetitions, &c, be- 
 cause of the important position he occupies as the 
 acknowledged leader of the " Evangelical" party in 
 the United States. 
 
 Bishop Elliott, of Georgia, [one of the Vice- 
 Presidents of the Evangelical Knowledge Society, 
 A. D. 1862], thus expounds and defends the "mon- 
 strous" theory of Apostolical Succession: 
 
 " Nor is this an idle matter : — for it involves no less than the 
 whole question, whether there be any ministry at all. If the 
 authority which Christ left with his Apostles has been suffered 
 to expire, whence hath it been renewed ? and if hath not been 
 renewed, where is the ministry? What right hath one man, 
 more than another, to baptize, to preach, to administer the 
 sacraments, or to absolve from sin ? Why may not each say to 
 his neighbor, ' Come and baptize me V or ' Come and consecrate 
 the [sacramental] elements, and give me to eat and drink of the 
 body and blood of our Saviour V This seems preposterous — 
 nay, even blasphemous. And yet if there has not been a Suc- 
 cession in the ministry from the time of the Apostles — if the 
 golden chain has ever been broken at any point or at any time, 
 this very thing must have occurred, and, having occurred all 
 
LOW-CHUECH DIVINES, ETC. 481 
 
 MINISTERIAL AUTHORITY HAS CEASED, FOR AN ASSUMED AUTHORITY 
 
 can NEVER be rightful, through how many links soever it 
 may have been transmitted. Unless each Minister can trace up 
 to the Apostles, he must reach a point at which the authority he 
 exercises was usurped, and that usurpation must yitiate all 
 that succeeded." — (Sermon at Consecration of St. John's 
 Church, Savannah, 1853.) 
 
 " The Episcopal Observer" was a periodical pub- 
 lished at Boston, in imitation of the London magazine 
 from which we have quoted. It was conducted by 
 Mr. Warren and the present Bishop Clarke, of Ehode 
 Island, and afterwards by Eev. Drs. Butler and Spear. 
 The character of its teachings will appear from the 
 following extracts : 
 
 " For ourselves, we abhor the brute radicalism which would 
 wrench from the ministerial character its honorable distinction 
 and rob the ambassadors for Christ of the divine function 
 wherewith God hath clothed them."— (Vol i., p. 359.) 
 
 " England, properly speaking, reformed the Church. In Ger- 
 many and other countries, it was in a sense destroyed, and a 
 new one formed as accident directed. " " They crushed the 
 Church, and compelled it to give back the holy flame it con- 
 cealed, which they must enclose in a vessel formed by their hands/' 
 " The radical principles which the work of destruction begets, are 
 likely to be employed in demolishing future forms of government, 
 and to be satisfied with nothing less than a disorganizing reign 
 of infidelity." — (405, &c.) 
 
 " The chief points in which we Episcopalians differ from 
 other denominations is in the Ministry. We believe that our 
 Saviour set in the Church three ministerial Orders, which 
 Orders are now known by the names of Bishop, Presbyter or 
 Elder, and Deacon ; that after his resurrection from the dead 
 he solemnly invested with the highest office the eleven disciples. n 
 # * * tt Q ur s av i our delegated to them full authority to take the 
 oversight of his Church * * * As he was sent by the Father to 
 ordain them, so they were sent by him to ordain others. It was 
 to the Apostles thus raised to the highest office, and to their suc- 
 cessors, that the rite of confirmation was entrusted. This was 
 one of the divinely appointed prerogatives of their office." — 
 (431.) 
 
 Another article in the same volume (from the pen 
 
 41 
 
482 LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 
 
 of the editor) distinctly affirms the Divine right 
 of Episcopacy, but broaches the singular idea that, 
 in the jure divino Episcopate, there are no inherent 
 rights or powers — so that if a General Convention 
 should determine to restrict Bishops to the mere 
 preaching of the Word, they would have no right 
 to ordain ! For such a theory, or anything like it, we 
 find no justification in any Church authority. We 
 set much more value upon the writer's statements 
 than his notions. 
 
 " Nevertheless it is a Divine right, and not the less that he 
 derives it from the Head through the body of which he is a 
 member."— (Page 200, &c.) 
 
 Bishop Henshaw : 
 
 11 On the subject of the Constitution of the Christian Church, 
 many loose and unscriptural opinions are entertained, not only 
 by the community at large, but also by many sincere followers 
 of Christ. Yea, there are multitudes who undertake to preach 
 the gospel, and transact sacred offices between man and his 
 Maker, without being satisfied that they have a divinely origi- 
 nated commission, or even thinking it a matter of sufficient im- 
 portance to be calmly and thoroughly investigated." — [The- 
 ology for the People, page 193.) 
 
 " If we depart from the fundamental principle that the Church 
 of Christ is a Divine institution, distinguished by a faith, min- 
 istry, and ordinances emanating from His authority, and 
 believe that he has left it to the discretion or caprice of men to 
 form Churches, Ministers, and Sacraments for themselves — then 
 we must admit that the followers of any ignorant enthusiast 
 who has presumption or pride enough to form a sect, may con- 
 sider themselves entitled to the character and privileges of the 
 Church of Christ. * * * But how monstrous would be the con- 
 sequences of such an admission. The Church would then ap- 
 pear like a Babel of confusion, rather than like a city which is 
 at unity in itself." — (Page 195.) 
 
 " All branches of the Christian Church agree and are one in 
 the belief of the great doctrines of the Christian faith, as con- 
 tained in the Apostles' Creed, in submission to the Ministry 
 which the Lord Jesus Christ instituted, and which has been 
 
LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 483 
 
 transmitted by regular Succession from the Apostles, and in 
 the observance of the Sacraments which He hath appointed to 
 be the signs and seals of his covenant, and channels through 
 which the influences of His grace are to be communicated to 
 the souls of his people." — {Ibid, page 197.) 
 
 "The Episcopal Kecorder" published (in 1840), 
 during the Puseyite controversy, some letters signed 
 "J. W. M.," which its editor introduced, and endorsed 
 thus : 
 
 " We have had for a few weeks in our possession a very valu- 
 able series of articles, the publication of which we now com- 
 mence. The great respectability of their source * * entitles 
 them to especial attention, whilst the very impartial spirit which 
 they display ought to convince all who read them that they are 
 written without prejudice. They will be found worthy of entire 
 confidence" 
 
 The contributor, after condemning the principles 
 of the Tract writers, says : 
 
 " Few Episcopal readers of the Tracts can hesitate to approve 
 the avowed design of the writers, at the commencement of the 
 series, or to acknowledge that there are many things in them 
 deserving of the warmest commendation. There are certain 
 fundamental principles recognized precious in themselves, and 
 highly valuable and conservative when carried only to their 
 legitimate results, which, however they may be presented as no- 
 velties, or as old truths long buried and forgotten, the Church- 
 man will recognize as familiar elements of his Creed, which 
 have always formed essential parts of the constitution of his 
 Faith. If the writers had confined their discussions to the Di- 
 vine institution of the Ministry, the Apostolical Succession, 
 the defence of liturgical services, an exposure of the evil of 
 Schism, and the modern rationalistic theology." * * * " My 
 thorough Church principles would have prompted me to bid 
 them God speed/ ' 
 
 In the same paper containing this declaration, there 
 appeared at the head of the editorial column, a notice 
 that the Key. Messrs. May, Clarke, Suddards, and 
 Tyng were the editors and proprietors of the paper. 
 
 Dr. Stephen H. Tyng. — In a sermon preached be- 
 
484 LOW-CHURCH DIVIXE3, ETC. 
 
 fore the Diocesan Convention of Pennsylvania in 1844, 
 this very prominent Low-Churchman spoke thus : 
 
 ; * We have unitedly received, and we earnestly adhere to a 
 Ministry which we unfeignedly believe Christ oar Lord esta- 
 blished for his Church : and which his Apostles, beyond all 
 reasonable dispute, maintained and transmitted in opening the 
 privileges and blessings of this Church to mankind. We uni- 
 tedly believe it unlawful for us to subvert or annul an organi- 
 zation which the Lord hath constituted as the laic of His House. 
 We could not. therefore, feel justified in ministering under or 
 acknowledging any professed authority which does not conform 
 to this Apostolic standard, and derive itself from this Apostolic 
 appointment." "No imputation could be more unjust than 
 that of looseness of adherence to this Church, or of indifference 
 to the privilege and blessing of her manifestly valid and regular 
 Ministry" 
 
 A little farther on. he gives a long extract from 
 Bishop Wilson, in which the following appears : 
 
 "The Church is the means by which God upholds and pre- 
 serves his Truth among mankind. It furnishes a Succession 
 of men to expound and inculcate the Gospel." 
 
 The reverend gentleman next speaks of the assaults 
 made upon the Church from vrithout, and of the at- 
 tempt to divide it by setting one party of Churchmen 
 against another : 
 
 o 
 "Its failure, and the clear evidence thus furnished that, in 
 the points at issue between us and them, there is but little va- 
 riety of judgment, and no readiness of concession, among any 
 of our Ministers, have led to an unmasked and unrelaxing 
 hostility to the Church itself. It is now a warfare with Epis- 
 copacy, and by that name. It has ceased to distinguish between 
 different theories of Episcopacy. It will grant peace upon no 
 terms, other than an entire renunciation of the claims which 
 we make to a Scriptural Ministry, and of our derived right 
 thereto, through an appointed SUCCESSION from the Apos- 
 tles. This is a point which we can never with a good con- 
 science yield. We are therefore left, I fear, with but little 
 hope of toleration in this quarter. We believe ourselves con- 
 tending fur the faith in the Ministry which the Lord esta- 
 blished And precious and desirable as is peace abroad to us, 
 as to all Christians, we cannot make shipwreck of faith and a 
 
LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 485 
 
 good conscience to obtain it. This resulting position of neces- 
 sary separation from many Christians around, whom we highly 
 esteem, is much to be regretted. But it appears inevitable, 
 and it is not we who have sought it, nor can the blame of it 
 rest upon us."* 
 
 Bishop Alfred Lee, of Delaware : 
 
 " Another important solemnity of this day, is the ordination 
 of our brother to the sacred Ministry. This cannot but be a 
 matter of deep interest to those who look upon the Ministry as 
 instituted by Christ himself, and with a promise of his continued 
 presence and assistance even to the end of the world, who un- 
 derstand its object as an instrumentality for the spiritual and 
 eternal benefit of man, and who view the Ministerial trust as 
 having been transmitted in an uninterrupted Succession from 
 the days of the Apostles until now. n 
 
 "It is probably well known to those who hear me, that our 
 views respecting a Scriptural and authorized Ministry are 
 regarded by many around us as peculiar and objectionable. 
 Our Church is daily denounced in no measured terms by those 
 who call upon the common Lord, and towards whom we would 
 cherish no feelings but those of kindness. Never was there a 
 time when reproach was heaped upon us more unsparingly 
 than at present. A wide prejudice is awakened against us as 
 bigoted and exclusive, and against the Church to which we ad- 
 here, not from motives of caprice, or mere hereditary attachment, 
 or party spirit, but from conscience toward God." * * In holding 
 to a Ministry of three orders: Bishops, Presbyters, and Dea- 
 cons, to the first of whom alone is committed the power of 
 ordaining men to the sacred office ; in maintaining the Succession 
 of this Ministry from the Apostles downwards, and in believing 
 it a matter of conscience to recognize those only who are thus 
 ordained as our pastors, we are only acting upon the opinion — 
 the unanimous opinion — of the Christian Church for the first 
 fifteen hundred years of its existence. We agree with the great 
 majority of those who call themselves Christians throughout 
 the world to-da} r . It is not, therefore, a new or strange doc- 
 trine." 
 
 * Recent events and publications indicate a change of opinion on the 
 part of Dr. Tyng and one other of the parties here quoted. But with 
 their inconsistencies, we, at least, have nothing to do. They were mature 
 men, holding important positions in the Church (one a Bishop, and the 
 other a candidate for the Episcopate), when they so plainly and boldly 
 avowed their Church principles. We have the right, therefore, to print 
 their own deliberate declarations as a sufficient condemnation of their 
 novel notions. 
 
 41* 
 
486 LOW-CHURCH DIVINES, ETC. 
 
 M We are told that the Succession of ordained Ministers comes 
 to us through the Church of Rome, and must have been so cor- 
 rupted by this channel of transmission as to have lost all value. 
 We answer that the Succession is derived to us through the 
 British Church, and we admit that there was a period of that 
 Church's history during which it was brought under the usurped 
 dominion of Rome, and drawn away by this untoward influence 
 from the simplicity of the gospel. But we would ask the ob- 
 jector through what channel he receives the Bible and the 
 Sacraments? Have they lost their value by coming to us 
 through this impure medium? If not, why should the Ministe- 
 rial Succession become worthless and contemptible from the 
 same cause." — [Sermon at Ordination of Mr. John Long, 1843.) 
 
 Bishop Burgess. — Long as our list is, we cannot 
 
 forbear giving a paragraph from the pen of the 
 
 learned and judicious Bishop of Maine. In his 
 
 tract, " The Stranger in the Church," he says : 
 
 " Against one charge, he discovers elsewhere that the Episco- 
 pal Church can make no defence. It is said to be on one point 
 exclusive; and he discovers that on that point it is exclusive. 
 It allows great freedom of judgment, it shuts out no believer 
 from its communion, but it admits no Minister to its pulpits ex- 
 cept THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ORDAINED BY A BlSHOP. This Was 
 
 a rule when there were none but Episcopal Churches in the 
 whole world. The Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, the 
 Baptists, the Friends, the Methodists, all went out from it one 
 after another, at different times, within the last three hundred 
 years. They gave up what it possessed — a Ministry of Bishops 
 brought down in regular Succession through all the time of 
 Papal corruption, indeed, but from a time when the Bishop of 
 Rome was no more than any other Bishop, except as Rome was 
 a more illustrious city. There were Bishops in the land of our 
 fathers as soon as there were any Christians there. The Epis- 
 copal Church is the same Church which they planted. At one 
 time it was Romanized — and it has been reformed. It believes 
 that there is a value in this regular Succession of its Ministry. 
 Whether this value be greater or less, the stranger frankly ac- 
 knowledges that it is not to be expected from the Episcopal 
 Church that it will abandon its ancient rule from regard to 
 those who have voluntarily relinquished what it has itself pre- 
 served." 
 
 Here then we close our case. The evidence is 
 complete. If any man will venture to say, with such 
 
SUMMING UP. 487 
 
 principles as those publicly avowed by such men, 
 that Mr. Groode's theory is not an innovation — a 
 thing foreign to our Church — he must be proof 
 against all evidence that could be produced from now 
 till the day of doom. We have quoted here none 
 but divines of acknowledged standing in what is 
 known as the Low-Church party or Evangelical sec- 
 tion of the Episcopal Church, and they all testify to 
 their belief in a Divinely instituted Ministry consti- 
 tuted in theee Orders, and transmitted by a series of 
 Episcopal Ordinations /rom the Apostles to us. He, 
 then, who looks upon Episcopacy as a thing of ex- 
 pediency, who talks of parity between Bishop and 
 Presbyter, and who denounces " Apostolical Suc- 
 cession" as a monstrous theory, has no place among 
 them. He is not a Low-Churchman — he is not an 
 Episcopalian in any proper sense at all. 
 
 summing up. 
 
 The investigation has now been pursued fully and 
 fairly through all its branches. Information has 
 been sought in all the proper sources — the Formula- 
 ries, the Laws, the Practice, and the Literature of the 
 Church — and we confidently leave it to the reader to 
 decide whether from all, or any of these, a single 
 particle of evidence has been produced in favor of the 
 Latitudinarian doctrine advocated by the Eev. Mr. 
 Goode. 
 
 He, and those who accept and re-echo his state- 
 ments, have declared that our Church has " recog- 
 nized" Presbyterian Orders ; and he tries to establish 
 this. What then has he been able to present in the 
 
4^5 SUMMING UP. 
 
 way of proof? Ifi there a word to that effect in our 
 Articles or Ordinal? Xot one! On the contrary, it 
 is expressly stated that in Christ's Church there 
 have always been the three Orders of Ministers, 
 Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ; and that among us 
 no man shall be held to be a lawful Minister in any 
 of these Orders,, who has not been Episeopally or- 
 dained. We have found that to avoid the force of 
 this decisive sentence, the Reverend gentleman changes 
 his ground, and pleads that such a statement is not 
 totidem verbis a declaration of the invalidity of Pres- 
 byterian ordination ! That may well be granted. 
 Neither is it totidem verbis a repudiation of lay ordi- 
 nation (if we may use- such a term), or a recognition 
 of Roniish Orders. But it involves both, and the 
 Reverend gentleman knows it well. 
 
 As has been repeatedly said, the Church is not 
 fond of dealing in negatives, or in denunciations. 
 Her positive statements answer every purpose. But 
 our author tries to prove that this is not the case, 
 and that in its purpose or effect the declaration re- 
 ferred to is not exclusive ; of this, however, he 
 makes but sorry work. He asserts,, but does not 
 convince. Every Non-Episcopalian differs with him. 
 Every ''sober and orderly son of the Church" differs 
 with him. Common sense is against him : the logic 
 of facts is against him. In all the world he has no 
 one to support such an opinion, but the few ultraists 
 who accept the argument from love of the conclusion, 
 and some others whose partizan zeal has beclouded 
 or warped their judgment. 
 
 But suppose that he were not totally wrong on 
 this point — suppose he could show that in the Pre- 
 
SUMMING UP. 489 
 
 face to tlie Ordinal, Presbyterian Orders are not in 
 any wise discountenanced or excluded ? What then ? 
 Would he not have a great length to go before he 
 would reach the point he seeks to gain ? To show 
 that the Church does not stigmatize a particular doc- 
 trine or practice is one thing, but to show that she 
 recognizes or approves of it is quite another. The 
 Eeverend gentleman himself will acknowledge that 
 our Church nowhere declares that the Pope shall not 
 preach in her Pulpits, or celebrate Mass in her Chan- 
 cels ; but does it follow that she thereby " recognizes" 
 the right of His so-called Holiness to do either one 
 or the other ? 
 
 In support of his own notion, our author affects to 
 make an examination of the Formularies. But he 
 takes no notice whatever of the 36th Article, of the 
 Ordination Services, or any other portion of the 
 Book of Common Prayer, than the Preface just 
 mentioned, and the 23rd Article ; and in direct oppo- 
 sition to fact, he describes the latter as the only one 
 of the 39 that bears upon the subject. For authentic 
 expositions of this 23rd Article he resorts to 
 Eogers, whom he totally misrepresents; then to 
 Burnet, Tomline and Hey, passing by all other ex- 
 positors, and departing from his own rule of inter- 
 pretation, which required appeal to be made ex- 
 clusively to the writings of the very men who drew 
 up the document. 
 
 Again, to gain a measure of warrant for his own 
 theory, he quotes part of the Eeplies of 1540, giving 
 them as the Opinions of Eeformers, and even in- 
 cluding "Bloody Bonner" among the divines of 
 " Our Church ;" yet these very Eeplies he does not 
 
490 SUMMING UP. 
 
 give in full, and lie asserts or insinuates contrary to 
 fact that those which he withholds are not against 
 hirn. 
 
 He proceeds in the next place to examine the 
 Laws of the Church, and in all the Code, from all 
 the Canons, injunctions, and so forth, from the days 
 of the Reformation down, he can only find fouk 
 words that he ventures to produce as favoring his 
 theory ; and to make them serve his purpose, he 
 describes a Church that had its Archbishops and 
 Bishops, as " Presbyterian" — just as the Church of 
 Scotland is now ! 
 
 After this he takes up the Practice of the Church, 
 and to substantiate the extraordinary statement, that 
 for a hundred years Presbyterian Ministers were re- 
 ceived and employed in the English Church, on the 
 same footing as those who were Episcopally ordained ; 
 he points to ONE fact, viz., that a license was given 
 by Archbishop Grindal to a man who had been 
 " ordained" in Scotland, and who (for anything that 
 Mr. Groode can show to the contrary) may have been 
 as good an Episcopalian as Bishop Sage himself! 
 This case has been effectually disposed of, and other 
 fact he has none to show. 
 
 He then takes up the writings of Bishops and 
 Clergymen, and quotes passages containing charitable 
 or friendly references to Foreign Protestants. But 
 what do all these amount to? Let them be con- 
 sidered well — what is their value in this discussion? 
 just nothing. These opinions are not the Voice of 
 the Church ; they bind no one ; and after all they 
 are no more than amiable expressions and apolo- 
 gies or pleas for the Continental Churches, on account 
 
SUMMING UP. 491 
 
 of the circumstances which compelled them to do with- 
 out an Episcopate. If the Eeverend gentleman could 
 give another hundred, or thousand of such quo- 
 tations, it would not help his case; for he has to 
 show that our Church recognizes Presbyterian* 
 Ordination as such, and not that she judges chari- 
 tably of those who by stress of circumstances may be 
 obliged to act as if they were Presbyterians in prin- 
 ciple. What may be done under hard NECESSITY 
 is one thing ; what is regular and lawful under ordi- 
 nary circumstances is another. Yet among all that 
 the Reverend gentleman has quoted, there is not even 
 one plain declaration from any Episcopal Divine that 
 Presbyters have the right to ordain. When arguing 
 against "exclusiveism," he insists upon direct state- 
 ment — explicit language. So then do we with refer- 
 ence to " recognition." Where is this found ? There 
 is none. Even those who appear most favorable to 
 his theory, say expressly that for Presbyters to un- 
 dertake Ordination in a free State, and while the 
 Church is at peace, would be " over-great presump- 
 tion," " Schism," and a "great sin." So that he 
 really receives neither aid nor comfort, even from 
 his own witnesses. They all declare for a divinely 
 constituted Ministry of three Orders — so do we. 
 They say they do not wish to anathematize the For- 
 eign Churches — we say the same. They say they 
 are not prepared to deny that there may be validity 
 in the* ministrations of persons so situated — we say 
 the same. They say the grace of God is not withheld 
 from them — we readily and thankfully confess that it 
 is not. But what of all this ? Does it prove that 
 our Church recognizes Presbyterian Orders, or that 
 
432 SUMMING UP. 
 
 the Congregationalists and Methodists of America, 
 to-day, are on the same footing with the Beformers 
 of Saxony or Geneva ? To propose such a question 
 is almost an insult to the reader's understanding. 
 
 We claim, then, that Mr. Goode has utterly and 
 ignominiously foiled to establish his theory, even in 
 a single point. He has offered much in the way 
 of evidence that no judge would think of receiv- 
 ing, but he has not, among it all, produced one item 
 that would warrant either his sweeping conclusions 
 or his bold assertions. 
 
 On the other hand, we have gone through the whole 
 subject with patience and care, and have shown, as 
 we believe, beyond all possibility of denial, that from 
 the first year of its existence as a free Church to the 
 present time, the Church of England has held the 
 doctrines of Episcopacy by divine right and Apostol- 
 ical Succession, and that our American Church 
 having received them from her, maintains them still, as 
 consistent with sound reason, the practice of the pri- 
 mitive Church, and the infallible Word of God. 
 
 Doctrines of a contrary character have been advo- 
 cated by a few Episcopalians, such as Hoadley, Croft, 
 Arnold, and Whately, some of whom were as crotch- 
 ety as they were gifted, and others so loose in their 
 theology as to make it doubtful whether the epithet 
 " Latitudinarian" was not too flattering for them. 
 Their denial of Apostolical Succession, etc., has been 
 re-echoed by some whose general orthodoxy we have 
 no desire to impeach. This, as we have shown, is 
 the result of partyism, When Xewman, Pusey, and 
 Manning began to press their peculiar tenets, giving 
 to Church polity more than its due measure of im- 
 
SUMMING UP. 493 
 
 portance, others felt bound to give it less. The one 
 extreme provoked the other. Those demanded more 
 than ever the Church had claimed. These, then, 
 began to doubt what she had always maintained. 
 From doubt to denial was an easy step, and soon 
 taken ; and what they denied they denounced. 
 Zeal for Episcopacy was regarded as concealed Eo- 
 manism ! Thus they yielded up point after point until 
 they had nothing left ; and differed from other Pres- 
 byterians in this only, that they chose to remain in 
 the Church whose distinctive principles they had 
 abandoned. Had they been content to occupy this 
 anomalous position in silence, we should have been 
 silent too. 
 
 And now, that we have done with the subject, we 
 feel not only at liberty, but actually hound, to say 
 something respecting the real character of this widely 
 circulated and much vaunted "Essay on Orders," by 
 the Rev. William Goode. We have conducted this 
 discussion calmly and courteously. We did not, at 
 any time, however strong the provocation, denounce 
 the author, or accuse him of palpable and wilful vio- 
 lation of truth. He has not been sparing of such lan- 
 guage towards others, even when he furnished no 
 proof to sustain it — we have preferred to give the 
 proof and withhold the language. We desired that 
 the evidence should accumulate so as to establish the 
 the point, and thus prepare the reader for what other- 
 wise would have appeared a harsh and unjust judg- 
 ment. But with the proof here given, we need no 
 longer hesitate to speak plainly; and now we declare 
 that though we have read even Jesuit books of con- 
 troversy, this " Essay on Orders" is by far the most 
 42 
 
494 SUMMING UP. 
 
 dishonest — the most manifestly and shamefully dis- 
 honest — production that we have ever seen, of its size. 
 Another man might have set forward the same state- 
 ments, or given the same extracts (as some of Mr. 
 Goode's American followers have done), without any 
 dishonorable intent ; but no sane person would think 
 of excusing him on the score of ignorance or mis- 
 take. We scout the idea. The writer of that Essay 
 (to say nothing of other works), is a man of extensive 
 reading, and of too acute a mind for either plea to be 
 admitted. He has offended where offence must have 
 been intentional, and has done it so often and so 
 grossly, that, henceforth, we could not be induced to 
 accept a single statement or quotation on his au- 
 thority. What he has said of others is eminently 
 true of himself, namely, "that he parades with un- 
 blushing effrontery, the names of divines who have 
 directly and clearly opposed his views, as advocates 
 in his favor," and that he has been "guilty of other 
 inconsistencies and offences against truth." As we 
 utterly despise such arts, so we despise the man who 
 resorts to them, whatever may be his name, his party, 
 or his pretentions. 
 
 And now it remains to be seen whether the grave 
 and Eeverend Seigniors who were so ready to com- 
 mend and circulate his book, will, after this expo- 
 sure, continue to give it their confidence and applause. 
 Some, we know, tvill do so, for such is the blinding 
 power of partyism, that those who become its sub- 
 jects steel themselves against fact and reason. They 
 do not want to be set right. They shut their eyes 
 and ears to what is against their cause ; we trust, 
 however, that none will go so far as to say, "per fas 
 aut nefas — let that cause be served." 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 A. — CATENA OF ATTACKS AND ADMISSIONS. 
 
 It would seem a work of supererogation to offer proof of the 
 assertion that the distinctive principles of the Reformed English 
 Church have been well known from the very beginning of its 
 career to the present time ; but, in these days, no one can tell 
 what is or is not unnecessary. We sometimes hear the most 
 notorious facts denied, and the most truthful statements cavilled 
 at. It may, therefore, be well to fortify our assertions. 
 
 The question of Protestantism is not before us. We have 
 then only to prove that the Episcopal character of the Church 
 of England has always been maintained — that there has been 
 no deviation from the principles and practices adopted at first. 
 This we shall show in a series of extracts from non-Episcopal 
 writers : 
 
 A. D. 1549. — In this year, as all acknowledge, the Church pronounced 
 it "evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scriptures and ancient 
 authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of 
 Ministers in the Church of Christ : Bishops, Priests, and Deacons," etc., etc. 
 
 Here then begins the testimony of non-Episcopalians : 
 
 A. D. 1550. — " Holy Orders, as they are commonly called, had been a 
 subject of grave consideration." " The ^>opish notion o/ three orders 
 was maintained." — {Hist. British Non-conformity, P. 372 ; London, 1831.) 
 
 A. D. 1573. — Dr. Whitgift [afterward Archbishop] issued his Defence 
 against Cartwright, the Puritan, wherein he ''plainly claimed in the right 
 of all Bishops, a superiority belonging to them over all the inferior clergy 
 from God's own ordinance, to the Popish injury of her Majesty's supreme 
 Government." — (Sir F. Knolly's Letter to the Lord Treasurer.) 
 
 A. D. 1558, — " Prelacy was put in serious danger by the political non- 
 conformity of the Popish Bishops, and difficulties arose respecting the 
 preservation of that Holy Order !" — (History of British Non-conformity.) 
 
 " The Church then adopted, and has not yet renounced, the incon- 
 sistent and absurd opinion that the Church of Rome, though idolatrous, 
 is the only channel through which all lawful power of ordaining Priests, 
 of consecrating Bishops, and validly performing any religious rite, flowed 
 from Christ through a Succession of Prelates down to the latest ages 
 of the world." — (Sir James Mackintosh's Hist, of Eng. t v. iii, page 16.) 
 
 (495) 
 
496 APPENDIX. 
 
 A. D. 15SS. — u Dr. Bancroft [afterward Archbishop of Canterbury] 
 preached his memorable sermon at St. Paul's, 'in which/ says an oppo- 
 nent, ' he maintained that the Bishops of this realm had superiority over 
 all the inferior clergy, otherwise than by and from her Majesty's authority, 
 namely jure diciiio: '' — [Puritan Tract against "Superiority of Bishops") 
 
 A. D. 1589. — Dr. Bridges, Dean of Sarum, having published 
 a reply to the attacks of the Puritans, was assailed by " Martin 
 Mar-Prelate/' thus: 
 
 " Our Bishops are proud, presumptuous, Popish, paltry, pestilent, and 
 pernicious Prelates." " They are cogging and cozening knaves. They 
 are lambs of Anti- Christ. They will lie like dogs." " They usurp their 
 authority." " They claim this authority over those [i. e. Presbyters] who, 
 by the ordinance of God, are to be under no pastors, because they are 
 equal with them." — {Martin's Answer to Bridges ; see Strype's Whitgift, 
 Book iii, chap. 22.) 
 
 "None were deemed properly inducted into the sacred office unless they 
 were ordained by a Bishop ; and the Ministers of those Churches which 
 have no Bishops were declared to lack the qualifications necessary for 
 their office, and to be [quoad hoc] inferior to the Popish Priests." — (Mos- 
 heim'sEccles.Hist.: Murdoch's Translation, London, 1859, page 670.) 
 
 A. D. 1590. — Anthony Martin, a member of Queen Elizabeth's 
 Court, called by Strype, "a man of good learning, and peacea- 
 ble principles/' wrote modestly in behalf of Episcopal govern- 
 ment, with a design to reconcile all clergy and pastors of the 
 Church to a perfect unity. Of him the Puritan Knollys says : 
 
 "In the first degree, he claimed for Bishops a superiority of govern- 
 ment from God's own institution." But " if their superiority were first 
 from God, then Bishops were not under-governors to her Majesty." "In 
 short, this, in his opinion, was ( the highway to Popery!'" — (Strype's 
 Whitgift, fob, page 351.) 
 
 A. D. 1636. — A Puritan tract called " News from Ipswich," 
 written by Prynne, and published this year, says of Diocesan 
 Prelates : 
 
 " They are devils. ' Divell-Bishops/ And yet they will needs be Lord 
 Bishops jure divino, by the Holy Ghost's own institution." 
 
 About the same time appeared another Puritan libel, entitled 
 " A Looking-glass for Lordly Prelates." The writer of which 
 says, in reference to their claim to Divine right and Apostolical 
 Succession: 
 
 " They are so far from being sons or Successors of Christ and his Apos- 
 tles, or of Divine institution, that they are of their father the Divell I" 
 
APPENDIX. 497 
 
 The pious author then proceeds to draw a parallel between 
 Bishops and Satan ! 
 
 A. D. 1637. — Bastwick, Prynne, Burton, and Leigh ton, for 
 writing books in which, with much scurrility, they " denied the 
 Divine right of Prelatical Episcopacy, and insisted on the equal 
 official rank of all Christian pastors " as well as for sedition, 
 were tried in the Star Chamber, condemned, and (very cruelly) 
 punished. — (See NeaVs Puritans, vol. ii. ; also Vaughan's His- 
 tory, vol. i, page 472.) 
 
 " But the thing which the defendant desireth the Honorable Courts to 
 take notice of, is the contumacy of the Prelates, for they call their hier- 
 archy and the Orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons sacred, which, if 
 it bee graunted and bee so indeed, then the Prelats ore from God, and 
 not from the King, of whom they have no depence." — (BastwicJc's Answer.) 
 
 A. D. 1662. — The Presbyterians offered to accept or submit 
 to Episcopacy if it were declared to be a human institution or a 
 matter of expediency. They were, of course, unable to gain 
 their end; and in their " Memorial" to the King, they said 
 [pages 13, 15,] : 
 
 "The Bishop for whom your Majesty here declareth, is not Episcopus 
 prseses, but Episcoptjs prustceps, endued with the sole power of ordination 
 and jurisdiction." " The Prelacy which we disclaim is that of Diocesans, 
 upon the claim of a superior Order to Presbyters, assuming the sole power 
 of Ordination," etc., etc. 
 
 A. D. 1664. — A Non-Conformist publication of this date called 
 a " Christian and Sober Testimony, " attempts to prove entire 
 agreement between the English Church and that of Borne. 
 Among other such things, it says : 
 
 " The Priests of Rome must first be Deacons ere they are Priests : so 
 must the Priests of England." " The Priests of Rome must be ordained 
 to their office by a Lord Bishop or his Suffragan, so must the Ministers 
 of England." 
 
 Again, at page 28, the writer, referring to Church authori- 
 ties, speaks of their " late practice whereby they have declared 
 the nullity of a Ministerial office received from the hands of a 
 Presbyterie, in thrusting out of doors several hundreds of Minis- 
 ters so ordained." The author of this very " Christian and 
 Sober Testimony/' says of Diocesan chief pastors : 
 
 " Their office is the neck of the Popish Hierarchie come out of the bot- 
 tomless pit of hell I" 
 42* 
 
498 APPENDIX. 
 
 Thus far then, even from the acknowledgments or the bitter 
 invectives of opponents, we prove that the Church's position 
 has been well known and wholly unchanged. It will not be 
 imagined that any change has taken place since 1662 ; there- 
 fore we might stop here. But it is as well to show from non- 
 Episcopal witnesses of the present generation, that neither the 
 Church of England, nor the American branch of it, has aban- 
 doned any principle, or wandered to the least extent from its 
 original ground. 
 
 From " Apostolical Succession Examined" (pages 14-21, etc., 
 etc. ; London, 1834,) we take a sentence or two, which speak 
 for themselves: 
 
 " The Apostolical Succession vaunted by the English clergy, has not 
 the smallest intrinsic value." " The English establishment entirely ex- 
 cludes from even an occasional use of its pulpits, all persons not ordained 
 by a Prelate, even such as may be well known to have been for years 
 most useful pastors among English Dissenters, or in the established Kirk 
 of Scotland, or in the Protestant Establishments of the Continent." "But 
 as a contrast to the present exclusion of Protestants, it may surprise the 
 reader to be informed, that if one of the Roman Catholic clergy should 
 seek admission unto the Establishment as a Minister, the Bishop would 
 not be required, nor (it is believed) permitted to ordain him afresh, since 
 the touch of some Popish Prelate had already given him this dignified 
 blessing of Apostolical Succession." 
 
 From " A Plea for Christian Communion," we learn page 
 
 83]: 
 
 " That not a single Protestant Church on the Continent of Europe is 
 founded upon the principles of ecclesiastical polit/y which DISTINGUISH 
 the Church of England. They are all, without exception, constituted on 
 principles which render them Dissenters when any of their members, ichether 
 Clergymen or laymen, visit this country." 
 
 Again [page 86] the same writer says, it " ought never to be 
 forgotten that there is not at this time any Protestant commu- 
 nion on earth founded on the same exclusive principles of 
 Church polity as those of the Church of England." He speaks 
 also of the ''groundless assumption" that "the Church of Eng- 
 land is the true Church of Christ;" and adds, " it is certain 
 that upon this principle the compilers have framed all the parts, 
 services, and offices of the Common Prayer and Liturgy." Ex- 
 pressly agreeing with the writer last quoted, he says, on page 98 : 
 
APPENDIX. 499 
 
 " Holy Orders, as they are called * * * are required to be obtained by 
 every one who officiates in any the least public service. And no clergy- 
 man of any other Protestant communion on earth * * * * however vene- 
 rable he may be for personal sanctity, profound in learning, and honored 
 in his Ministry by the presence and blessing of God, would be permitted 
 to enter the pulpit or desk in the Church of England in the character of 
 a Minister of Jesus Christ I" 
 
 An essay on the " Moral and Spiritual Influence of the Church 
 of England/ 7 published in London, 1834, says : 
 
 "The Church of England, in her present Protestant character, has 
 existed about three hundred years." " She is a communion, making 
 high and exclusive pretensions." "She seriously boasts of being the 
 most venerable, the most Apostolical, and the purest Church in Christen- 
 dom. Her Bishops are recognized, in their respective communities, as 
 (with the exception of the [Roman] Catholic Prelates) the only genuine 
 Successors of the Apostles. Her Clergy, alone, are represented as truly 
 reverend, and duly authorized and qualified to be efficient Ministers of the 
 Gospel." "She looks with contempt on every other religi >us institution, 
 and she treats the dissenting Minister as an incompetent intruder into 
 Holy Orders, and his charge as a conventicle of unsaved and unsanctified 
 fanatics." 
 
 Again [p. 279] : 
 
 u She treats all the Ministers of Christ, besides her oxon and the Roman 
 Catholic Priesthood, as destitute of the qualifications and authority requisite 
 for the valid discharge of pastoral duties. She recognizes no denomina- 
 tion as Christians, but her own ; all besides are schismatics, heretics and 
 unbelievers." " Her dogmas for subscription are of the like exclusive 
 and sectarian cast." 
 
 It will not be wondered at, that this writer regards the " un- 
 charitable" principles thus displayed, as a "reason why the 
 Redeemer withholds any great measure of success from her min- 
 istrations I" 
 
 These works last quoted were issued by a society of English 
 Dissenters, and so they have a much greater significance than 
 if the writers were alone responsible for the assertions they 
 maintain and the spirit they display. But with the latter we 
 have, at present, nothing to do. Let us hear a witness of 
 another kind. 
 
 About the year 1828, the Rev. J. S. Baker, Assistant Curate 
 at Staines, near London, seceded from the Church, and pub- 
 lished his reasons for so doing. Speaking of the " sectarian 
 principles " of the Church he had left, he says : 
 
500 APPENDIX. 
 
 u She holds no communion with any other Protestant Church. As one 
 of her ministers, however much I might wish to admit into my pulpit a 
 pious Presbyterian Minister of the established Church of Scotland, or a 
 pious dissenting Minister of this country, I dare not do it." 
 
 The amiable writer then goes on to say, that it would " rejoice 
 his heart to see the Church of England give up this unscriptural 
 principle." 
 
 From " An Essay on Apostolical Succession/' by Thomas 
 Powell, Wesley an Minister, London, 1840, we take the follow- 
 ing sentence : 
 
 "All attempts to make Ministers Lords over G-od's heritage is treason 
 to the peace of the Church, and leads to Antichrist. Episcopacy by 
 divine right is such an attempt. It is unscriptural, intolerant and anti- 
 Christian. It sets up, as we have before said, Anglican Popery, with 
 many heads, in place of Roman Popery, with one." 
 
 This writer is very severe upon " the exclusive scheme of 
 Episcopacy, jure divino" and the " figment of Episcopal Ordi- 
 nation and Succession." 
 
 Let us now come to this side of the Atlantic, and here we 
 shall find the most prominent men in the Non-Episcopal 
 Churches testifying to the consistency of ours. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Samuel Miller, of Princeton, wrote a great 
 deal against our system. A single sentence, however, from his 
 Letters on the Christian Ministry, will serve our present pur- 
 pose: 
 
 You have seen that the Church of England, and those Churches 
 which have immediately descended from her, stand absolutely alone in 
 the whole Protestant world, in representing Bishops as an Order of Clergy 
 superior to Presbyters ,* all other Protestants — even those who adopt a sort 
 of Prelacy — having pronounced it to be a mere human invention !" 
 
 It will not be necessary to quote from the books of Dr. "Wood, 
 or Messrs. Smith & Shimeall, or the many others whose accusa- 
 tions contain the evidence we desire. Enough has already been 
 given; but we will add one more testimony, viz., that of the 
 venerable Albert Barnes, of Philadelphia. Speaking of Epis- 
 copalians, he says : 
 
 " According to their belief, the correct organization of the whole 
 Church was dependent on the observance of the distinction between this 
 ' superior grade' and an inferior grade in the Ministry, and there could 
 be, in fact, no properly organized Church, unless there was an order of 
 
APPENDIX. 501 
 
 men who should be properly 'the Successors of the Apostles.'" u The 
 validity of all Ordinations everywhere, depended on this, and no one 
 could be authorized to preach the Gospel, unless there had been laid on 
 him the hands of those who were properly the * Successors of the 
 Apostles.'" — (On the Apostolic Church, pp. 59, 60.) 
 
 Again, speaking of the right of Non-Episcopal Churches 
 " to be accredited as true Churches of the Lord Jesus, having a 
 valid Ministry and valid Ordinances," he says : 
 
 "Is there any recognition of the Ministers of other denominations as 
 having a right to preach the Gospel? Is there any introduction of them 
 to the pulpits of Episcopal Churches ? Would such an introduction by 
 any of the inferior Clergy be tolerated or connived at by the diocesan 
 Bishop ? To ask these questions, is to answer them !" — (page 245.) 
 
 B. — TESTIMONY OR CONCESSIONS OF FOREIGN REFORMERS AND 
 OTHER NON-EPISCOPALIANS. 
 
 Martin Luther. — We have elsewhere quoted the Augsburg 
 Confession, in which Luther for himself and associates, professes 
 that it was the cruelty, &c, of the Bishops [who were all Eomish] 
 that compelled them to do without the Episcopal Order, when 
 they reformed the Church. 
 
 " If they would cease to persecute the Gospel, he and those of his com- 
 munion would acknowledge them as their fathers, and willingly obey 
 their authority, which we find supported by the Word of God." — (Chand- 
 ler's Appeal Defended, page 239 ,• Bowden's Letters, vol. ii. page 173.) 
 
 Philip Melancthon : 
 
 " I would to God it lay in me to restore the government of Bishops. 
 For I see what manner of Church we shall have, the Ecclesiastical Polity 
 being dissolved. I do see that hereafter will grow up a greater tyranny 
 in the Church than ever was before." — (Apolog. Augs. Confess., page 305; 
 Bowden, vol. ii., 174. 
 
 " By what right or law may we dissolve the Ecclesiastical Polity if tho 
 Bishops will grant us that which in reason they ought to grant. And if 
 it were lawful for us so to do, yet surely it were not expedient. Luther 
 WAS EVER OF this opinion." — (History of Augs. Confess. Ibid.) 
 
502 APPENDIX. 
 
 Prince George of Akhalt: 
 
 *' I would to God those which bear the name of Bishops, would show 
 themselves to be Bishops indeed. Oh. how willingly, and with what joy 
 of heart would we receive them for our Bishops, reverence them, obey 
 them, and yield to them their jurisdiction of Ordination which we always 
 and Luther, both in words and in his writings very often hath professed." 
 —Jbid.) 
 
 John Caltin, in his letter to Cardinal Sadolet: 
 
 "If they [the Romanists] would exhibit to us such a hierarchy, where- 
 in the Bishops shall so rule as that they refuse not to submit themselves 
 to Christ, * * * then surely if there shall be any who will not submit to 
 this hierarchy, I confess that there is no kind of Anathema of which they 
 are not worthy." — (Ibid.) 
 
 In a letter to Cartwright, he uses similar language about the 
 English Church : 
 
 "I had always a great reverence for the Bishops of your Church, to 
 whom I gave inward reverence as well as outward respect, and would 
 gladly have served them in settling of the English Church. And my 
 judgment is, if we can have such a hierarchy in which the Bishops so 
 excel others, that they refuse not subjection to Christ, but would depend 
 upon Him as their only head, * * * in such a case I denounce him 
 worthy of all curses who does not observe such a hierarchy with all re- 
 verence and obedience. And I would to G-od such a succession had 
 CONTINUED TO THIS DAY, it should easily have obtained from us the obedience 
 that it deserves." — [Gaidar on Succession, pp. 122, 123.) 
 
 The strongest proof that the sober judgment of the Genevan 
 Reformer was not opposed to Episcopal polity as described in 
 the New Testament, and as it existed in England, is found in 
 the fact that he wrote a letter offering to accept it. That some- 
 thing of this kind had been proposed, appears to have been 
 known, but the evidence of it was not full until the days of 
 Archbishops Abbott and Usher. The former says : 
 
 "Perusing some papers of our predecessor, Matthew Parker, we find 
 that John Calvin, and others of the Protestant Churches of Germany and 
 elsewhere, would have had Episcopacy, if permitted. And whereas John 
 Calvin had sent a letter in King Edward YI/'s reign, to have conferred 
 with the Clergy of England about some things to this effect two [Popish] 
 Bishops, Gardiner and Bonner, intercepted the same, whereby Mr. Calvin's 
 overture perished. And he received an answer as if it had been from the 
 Reformed Divines of those times, wherein they checked him and slighted 
 his proposals. From which time John Calvin and the Church of England 
 
APPENDIX. 503 
 
 were at variance in several points, which otherwise, through God's mercy 
 had been qualified, if those papers of his proposals had been discovered 
 unto the Queen's Majesty, during John Calvin's life. But being not dis- 
 covered until (or about) the sixth year of her Majesty's reign, her Majesty 
 much lamented that they were not found sooner; which she expressed 
 before her Council at the same time, in the presence of her great friends, 
 Sir Henry Sidney and Sir William Cecil/' — (Stryjyes' Parker, 8vo, Edit., 
 vol. i. page 140.) 
 
 Martin Bucer, in his book De Regno Christi, writes to this 
 effect : 
 
 " We see by the constant practice of the Church, even from the time 
 of the Apostles, how it hath pleased the Holy Ghost, that among the 
 ministers to whom the government of the Church is specially committed, 
 one individual should have the chief management both of the Churches 
 and of the whole ministry, and should in that management take prece- 
 dence of all his brethren ; for which reason the title of Bishop is employed 
 to designate a chief spiritual governor." 
 
 "Bucer on all occasions expressed his anxiety that those Churches 
 which enjoyed an Episcopal constitution should not, without sufficient 
 reason, relinquish this advantage; nor obliterate by excessive change their 
 resemblance to the Christian communities founded by the Apostles." — 
 (Sinclair on Episcopacy, page 6.) 
 
 Henry Bullinger has been already quoted ; but to show the 
 concord of opinion among these Divines, we give another sen- 
 tence or two from his pen. Speaking of the various propositions 
 or heads of the puritan fabric, he says : 
 
 " That the civil magistrate has no authority in ecclesiastical matters, 
 and * * * that the Church admits of no other government than that of 
 Presbyters or the Presbytery, these two I say they hold in common with 
 the Papists. * * * I wish there was no lust of dominion in the origina- 
 tors of this Presbytery ! Nay, I think the greatest caution is necessary 
 that the supreme power be not placed in this Presbytery, much more that 
 it be not an exclusive government. Of the names and authority of 
 Bishops, and also of the election of ministers, our friend Gaulter has 
 fully written to the Reverend Lord Bishop of Ely, Master Cox, you may 
 if you choose ask him for the letter." — (Letter to Bishop Sandys ; Zurich 
 Letters, vol. i., page 458.) 
 
 Rodolph Gualter, in the letter just mentioned, to which 
 Bullinger referred Sandys, treats thus of the Episcopal office : 
 
 " I wonder that they entertain such an aversion to the name of Bishops, 
 which they cannot but know was in use in the time of the Apostles, and 
 always too retained in the Churches in after times: we know too that 
 
604 APPENDIX. 
 
 Archbishops existed of old, whom they called by another name — Patri- 
 archs. And if in later times they [i. e. Prelates] have occasioned so 
 much offence by reason of their tyranny and ambition, that these titles 
 are. not without reason, become odious to the Godly: I do not yet see 
 what is to hinder that on the removal of the abuse, those persons may 
 be Bishops, and called such, who. placed over a certain number of Churches, 
 have the management of such things as appertain to the purity of religion 
 and doctrine." * * * "What was done by Paul is well known, who, for 
 this cause, left Titus in Crete, that he might ordain Elders and teachers 
 in every city. The same Apostle too, commands that all things be dune 
 decently and in order, and I do not see how this can be the case without 
 a certain distinction of ecclesiastical offices." * * * * " We also ourselves 
 condemn that primacy which is connected with ambition and a desire of 
 domination; but the Apostle has also taught us that there is a certain 
 order among the ministers of the Church, when he says that some are 
 appointed Apostles, some Prophets, and some Pastors and Teachers ; 
 and as he makes a distinction of gifts and abilities, so does he also of ad- 
 ministrations. " — (Letter to Bishop Cox ; Zurich Letters, v. i., pp. 442, 447.) 
 
 Zanchy, in his well-known letter to Queen Elizabeth against 
 the clerical vestments, says : 
 
 "Your Majesty should rather * * * employ all your consideration, 
 authority and influence to this end, that you may have in the first place 
 Bishops truly pious, and well instructed in sacred learning, as by the 
 blessing of God you already possess very many. * * * The Elders in 
 like manner, and Deacons, are to be admonished that every one be dili- 
 gent in his office. * * * For these three Orders of men are the 
 
 NERVES OF THE CHURCH, UPON WHICH ITS SAFETY OR DOWNFALL DE- 
 PENDS." — (Zurich Letters, vol. i., 379.) 
 
 Theodore Beza, writing to Archbishop Whitgift, warmly 
 eulogizes the Church polity of England : 
 
 " Let England enjoy by all means that special benefit of God, and God 
 grant that it may be perpetual unto her." " If there be any who reject 
 altogether Episcopal jurisdiction (a thing I can hardly be persuaded of), 
 God forbid that any one in his senses should give way to the madness of 
 such men." — (Sinclair, as before, page 7.) 
 
 Archbishop Bancroft, in his Survey of the Pretended Holy 
 Discipline, quotes the following from Continental Divines of his 
 own age, and that which preceded it — [Bowden's Letters, v. ii., 
 pp. 176, 177] : 
 
 Osiander : — " Although in the primitive Church, when she flourished 
 with miracles, there were divers degrees and Orders of Ministers, some 
 Apostles, si>me Prophets, some Evangelists and some Pastors and Doctors, 
 
APPENDIX. 505 
 
 yet as now, the state of the Church is, the ministers may be divided 
 into three Orders or degrees, viz: Deacons, Pastors and Superin- 
 tendents." Hemingius : — " There are grades in the ministry, and that 
 partly by the law of God, and partly by the approbation of the Church, 
 * * * the purer Churches following the Apostles' times, ordained some 
 Patriarchs, some Bishops, etc. — the Reformed Churches have their 
 Bishops, Doctors, Pastors, etc." Hombergus : — "God himself hath ap- 
 pointed degrees of Ministers in the Church." 
 
 After specifying the common duties of Bishops and Ministers, 
 he sets down those which are peculiar to Bishops, viz., excom- 
 munication, confirmation, and ordination. To the same pur- 
 pose the Archbishop quotes Heerbrandus, Jacobus, Andreas, 
 Haylbronner, and Hunius, who says : " That God doth require 
 that there should be Orders and degrees of Ministers, ut alii 
 prozsint alii subsint" 
 
 In the Book of Ecclesiastical Canons agreed upon by the 
 Reformers of Poland and Hungary (A. D. 1623), the following 
 oath of canonical obedience was required of every candidate 
 for admission to Deacon's Orders : 
 
 "'I, , swear before the Living Grod, the Father, the Son, and 
 
 the Holy Ghost, and before His Holy Angels, that I shall yield unto the 
 Bishop, and Presbyters, all due obedience as unto my superiors. So 
 help me God/ Another Canon recognizes the three Orders, and states 
 the authority for them/' — (Sinclair on Episcopacy, pages 7, 8.) 
 
 " Respecting the I^theran Churches of the North, throughout 
 Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, we need here observe no more than 
 that they adopted and acted upon the Episcopalian principles of the 
 Augsburg Confession." — (Ibid.) 
 
 When Carleton, Davenant, and Hall, went to the Synod of 
 Dort, they found there among the Dutch Reformed Divines, 
 none who were opposers of Episcopacy, but many who volun- 
 tarily professed their regret at the loss of it. When Bishop 
 Carleton spoke openly in the Synod of the Episcopal regimen, 
 its authority, and its benefits, and showed how their troubles 
 might be traced to the want of it, Bogerman, the President, 
 replied, " Domine. Nobis non licet esse tarn beatis — My Lord, 
 we are not permitted to be so happy. " — (Bowclen, Vol. i., 219. 
 Bishop Hall, Vol. ix.) 
 
 The Remonstrants did not differ from this judgment. 
 Probably their greatest man was Hugo Grotius, 
 43 
 
50(3 APPENDIX. 
 
 "The celebrated Lawyer and Statesman, the acute Metaphysician 
 and Divine, well-known to all the Christian world, as an able defender 
 of the Faith." 
 
 He thus sums up the argument between the Episcopalian 
 writers and their adversaries, in his time : 
 
 " So light and foolish is what the latter have put forth in answer to 
 the former, that to have read the one is to have already refuted the 
 other; especially touching the Angels of the Churches, concerning whom, 
 that which the Disturbers of Ecclesiastical Order bring, is so absurd and 
 contrary to the sacred text itself, that it deserves not confutation/' 
 " The Bishop is of approved Divine right." " Those who think Epis- 
 copacy repugnant to God's will, must condemn the whole Primitive 
 Church of folly and impiety." — (Sinclair ut Supra, p. 12.) 
 
 Again, in his " Annotations on the Consultation of Cassander" 
 (Art. XIV.), he says: 
 
 " Bishops are the heads of the Presbyters ; that pre-eminence was fore- 
 shown in Peter, appointed by the Apostles wherever it could be done, 
 and approved by the Holy Ghost." — (Be Veritate, Le Clerc's Edition, 
 Ajypendix, p. 289.) 
 
 " Nor had he only a good opinion of the Church of England himself, 
 but also advised his friends in Holland, who were of his party, * * * 
 to take Holy Orders from our Bishops. * * * He addressed his brother 
 in these words, ' I would persuade them (that is, the Remonstrants,) to 
 appoint some among them to a more eminent station, such as Bishops ; 
 and that they receive the laying on of hands from the Irish Archbishop 
 [Bramhall], who is there, and that when they "are so ordained, they 
 afterward ordain other pastors/ " — ( Testimonies attached to the De Veri- 
 tate, ut Supra, p. 310.) 
 
 When the Puritan party had full sway in England, they 
 took, in 1643, as is well-known, their so called " Solemn League 
 and Covenant," the second article of which pledged them, 
 "without respect of persons, to endeavour the extirpation of 
 Popery, Prelacy, that is Church Government by Archbishops, 
 Bishops, their Chancellors," etc., etc. But this radical oath 
 did not bind them against Apostolical Succession, for in 1647 
 they published their " Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici," in 
 which the Divine right of a ministry is maintained, and the 
 principle of Succession plainly avowed. They employed the 
 learned Blondel to justify them in their course as Presby- 
 terians, and his book has been the magazine for all writers 
 against Episcopacy ever since : 
 
APPENDIX. 507 
 
 "It closed with words to this purpose: 'By all that we have said to 
 assert the rights to Presbytery, we do not intend to invalidate the 
 ancient and Apostolical Constitution of Episcopal pre-eminence, but 
 believe that wheresoever it is established conformably to the ancient 
 canons, it must be carefully preserved ; and, wheresoever, by some heat 
 of contention or otherwise, it hath been put down, or violated, it ought 
 to be reverently restored." 
 
 " This raised a great clamor, and the conclusion was suppressed. On 
 the report getting about, John Blondel, then residing in London, wrote 
 to his brother David, who acknowledged it was true." — (See JDu Moulin' f 8 
 Letter to Durell. — Bishop Home.) 
 
 John Le Clerc, of Amsterdam, in his edition of " Grotius de 
 Veritate/' says: 
 
 " There are now two forms of government, one of which is that 
 wherein the Church acts under one Bishop, who alone has the power of 
 Ordaining Presbyters, * * the other is that where the Church is governed 
 by an Equality of Presbyters. They who without prejudice have read 
 over the most ancient Christian writers that now remain, know that the 
 former manner of discipline, which is called Episcopal, * * prevailed 
 everywhere in the age, immediately after the Apostles, whence we may 
 collect that it is of Apostolical institution. The other, which they call 
 Presbyterian, was instituted in many places of France, Switzerland, 
 Germany, and Holland, by those who, in the 16th Century, made a 
 separation from the Church of Rome. * * * This latter form of Govern- 
 ment loas instituted FOR this reason only, that the Bishops would not 
 allow to them who contended that the doctrine and manners of Christians 
 stood in need of necessary amendment, that those things should be reformed, 
 which they complained were corrupted" — (Clarke's Translation, p. 272.) 
 
 Daille, a French Protestant Divine, author of the well-known 
 work on the "Right Use of the Fathers/' speaks plainly thus: 
 
 " Calvin himself honored all Bishops that were not subjects of the 
 Pope, etc., such [Bishops] as were the Prelates of England. We con- 
 fess THAT THE FOUNDATION OF THEIR CHARGE IS GOOD AND LAWFUL, 
 ESTABLISHED BY THE APOSTLES, ACCORDING TO THE COMMAND OF CHRIST."' 
 — (Bingham's French Church's Apology for the Church of England / also, 
 How' 8 Vindication, p. 193.) 
 
 De Le Angle, another Divine of the same Church, in a 
 letter to Dr. Brevint, uses the following strong language : 
 
 "I cannot tell what these haters of the peace of the Church mean, 
 that prattle up and down as if the French Churches were great adver- 
 saries of the Episcopal Order. God forbid, Sir, that we should have 
 such a perverse and rash opinion. I am sure that neither Monsieur 
 
508 APPENDIX. 
 
 Daille. nor Monsieur Ainiraut, nor Monsieur Bochart, nor any of my 
 colleagues of Rouen ever approved of ft." — {How, p. 199.) 
 
 P. Du Moulin, in his memorable correspondence with Bishop 
 Andrews (to which we have referred elsewhere), confessed that 
 he was withheld from publicly testifying in favor of Episcopacy, 
 by two considerations. The first was that he would then 
 utterly condemn his own Church and Congregation, excluding 
 them from hope of salvation. Andrews assured him that in 
 this respect he was greatly mistaken, as the defenders of Epis- 
 copacy were not in the habit of anathematizing others, nor in 
 any way required to "damn" any individual [see page 342]. 
 Du Moulin's second objection was, that if among those who 
 had rejected Episcopacy, he should defend it as of divine 
 right, he would be driven away or starved. To this we know 
 not what reply could be made. 
 
 Du Bosc, Casaubon, and others have also declared their re- 
 gard for Episcopacy, and their belief in its divine authority. 
 Lectius, of Geneva, says : 
 
 "We maintain that those are true and lawful Bishops whom St. Paul 
 describes in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus, and we do not 'deny that 
 there were such formerly in that great kingdom of Great Britain, and 
 that at this day there are such Bishop's there/' — (Durell's View of For, 
 Bef. Churches, pp. 169-170; Sow's Vindication, 194.) 
 
 "We come now to Britain. There we find that the leaders of 
 the various Schismatic movements learned the error -of their 
 ways, and returned to the Church they had so deeply injured. 
 
 Robert Browne, the founder of the Brownists or Congrega- 
 tionalists, was one of these ; he conformed many years before 
 his death, and, in consequence, he is now painted in very dark 
 colors by the descendants of those whom he led astray. As a 
 separatist, Browne was, of course, a saint ; but as soon as he 
 gave up his schism and sought forgiveness and peace in the 
 Church, he became (if they are to believed) a very reprobate, 
 drunken, immoral, &c, &c. 
 
 Even Thomas Cartwright, the Coryphaeus of Puritanism, 
 returned to the mother he had deserted and opposed. He 
 acknowledged the great kindness of Archbishop Whitgift, not- 
 withstanding all the provocation he had given him, and he 
 served the Church in quietness and contentment till his death. 
 
APPENDIX. 509 
 
 "He seriously lamented the unnecessary troubles he had caused in the 
 Church by the schism he had been the great fomenter of, and wished he 
 was to begin his life again, that he might testify to the world the dislike 
 he had of his former ways. And in this opinion he died." — (Strype's 
 Whityift, FoL, p. 554.) 
 
 We have seen elsewhere, that several prominent Puritans of 
 the age of Cromwell and Charles II., were reconciled to the 
 Church. One or two even became Bishops, while others, who 
 never worked regularly as Church Clergymen, received Episco- 
 pal Ordination, "to make all sure/' Such were Manton, and 
 Richard Baxter. * 
 
 John Wesley ought never to be classed with the wilful 
 dividers of the Church, for, notwithstanding some inconsis- 
 tencies, he was, all through his long life, a lover of the Church, 
 a firm believer in its' divine authority, and a plain asserter of 
 the sinfulness of Schism. Yet, as his followers have unfortu- 
 nately placed themselves among Presbyterian bodies, he, as the 
 founder of the Society or Denomination, is popularly judged as 
 having approved of the course which they pursued. This error 
 must be corrected. As to Ordination, he says : 
 
 " We account it of divine institution, and that by it a ministerial com- 
 mission is conveyed." 
 
 When asked by what authority he exercised his Ministry, he 
 replied : 
 
 "By the authority of Jesus Christ, conveyed to me by the (now) Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, when he laid his hands upon me and said, ' Take 
 thou authority/ &c., &c." 
 
 When it was said that, at least in case of necessity, Baptism 
 might be performed by women, or Jews, Wesley answered : 
 
 "No! Our Lord gave this commission only to the Apostles, and to 
 their Successors in the Ministry." 
 
 In his sermon on the " Catholic Spirit," he says : 
 "I believe the Episcopal form of Church Government to be Scriptural 
 and Apostolical." 
 
 And, in 1789, in the 87th year of his age, he closes a most 
 important letter with these words : * 
 
 " I declare, once more, that I live and die a member of the Church of 
 England, and that none who regard my judgment or advice, will ever 
 seperate from it. — John Wesley." — {Bishop Henshaw.) 
 ,43* * . ■ 
 
510 APPENDIX. 
 
 Charles Wesley never faltered in his allegiance to the 
 Church. "When his brother was persuaded, in his old age, by 
 Coke and others, to set up for a Bishop (sine consecratione) , and 
 even to assume a power which no single Bishop could canoni- 
 eally claim, the whole matter was kept carefully concealed from 
 Charles until the evil step had been taken, and then his remon- 
 strances were full and decisive. We have not room for more 
 than a word or two of what he wrote upon the subject: 
 
 " I can scarcely yet believe it, that, in his S2d year, my brother, my 
 old intimate friend and companion, should have assumed the Episcopal 
 character — ordained Elders, consecrated a Bishop, and sent him over to 
 ordain our lay preachers in America. I was then in Bristol, at his elbow 
 — yet he never gave me the least hint of his intention. How was he sur- 
 prised into so rash an action ? He certainly persuaded himself that it was 
 right. Lord Mansfield told me, last year, that Ordination was Seperation 
 This my brother does not and will not see; nor that he has renounced the 
 principles and practices of his whole life ; that he has acted contrary to 
 all his declarations, protestations and writings ; robbed his friends of their 
 boastings, realized the Nag's Head Ordination, and left an indelible blot 
 on his name, as long as it shall be remembered." * 
 
 It is a comfort to know that the venerable Patriarch learned 
 to regret his course, and even reprimanded the quasi " Bishops" 
 of the American Methodist Society, for assuming that name. 
 
 John "Whitehead, M. D., was a prominent preacher of the 
 Methodist Society, and one of Mr. "Wesley's intimate friends. 
 The latter appointed him, in conjunction with Dr. Coke and 
 Henry Moore, his Literary Executor. In his Lives of the 
 "Wesley s [which the Methodist Conference has always discoun- 
 tenanced, and endeavored to suppress], he bears the testimony 
 of an honest man to the original Constitution of the Society, 
 and condemns, unhestatingly, the course which Coke and others 
 caused its venerable founder to adopt. He says that, from 
 reading Lord King's Enquiry, Wesley had accepted the theory 
 advocated by him [and by Mr. Goode], that the Bishop differs 
 from the Presbyter only in degree, not in Order ; but the act of 
 
 * Charles Wesley's pungent lines are too good to be omitted: 
 
 " So easily are Bishops made, 
 By man or woman's whim ; 
 Wesley his hands on Coke has laid, 
 But who laid hands on him ?" 
 
APPENDIX. 511 
 
 Ordaining implies superior right or superior authority, while, 
 as regards Coke, who was himself a Presbyter, Wesley had 
 neither. 
 
 "His Episcopal authority was a mere gratuituous assumption of power 
 to himself, contrary to the usage of every Church, ancient or modern, 
 where the Order of Bishop has been admitted. There is no precedent, 
 either in the jSTew Testament or in Church history, that can justify his pro- 
 ceeding in this affair. And as Mr. Wesley had received no right to exer- 
 cise Episcopal authority, either from any Bishop, Presbyter or people, he 
 certainly could not convey any right to others. His Ordinations, 
 
 THEREFORE, ARE SPURIOUS AND OF NO VALIDITY." 
 
 "But I willingly quit a subject which is very unpleasant and most 
 sincerely wish that both the practice of ordaining, among the Meth- 
 odists, and the memory of it, were buried in oblivion; and were the 
 practice, which, in my view of it, is pregnant with mischief, totally to 
 cease, never to be revived, I would tear the memory of it from these 
 pages as soon as they are printed." — {Life of Wesley, Amer. Ed., 1845, 
 
 pp. 532-533.) 
 
 f 
 
 Dr. Adam Clarke was by far the greatest scholar that the 
 Methodists have ever had among them, and one of the most 
 learned and excellent men of Christendom, in his generation. 
 In his Commentary, he repeatedly affirms the divine institution 
 of Episcopacy. For instance : 
 
 "Deacon, Presbyter and Bishop existed in the Apostolic Church, and 
 may, therefore, be considered of divine origin." 
 
 In other writings he distinctly disclaimed any intention or 
 desire to invade the proper ministerial office. He describes 
 himself as simply a Preacher "without Holy Orders, without 
 pretended Holy Orders, and without pretensions to Holy Or- 
 ders/' After this the reader will hardly require to be informed 
 that Dr. Clarke's works are not regarded as standards by the 
 body to which he brought so much honor. The conservative 
 man is never in favor with the radical. 
 
512 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 C. — APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 
 
 We have already pointed out the two different senses in which 
 the word Succession has been employed by theologians. (1) A 
 Succession of Bishops in one Diocese — i. e. the Succession of 
 persons in places. (2) A transmission of Ministerial or Episco- 
 pal authority in regular order from one generation to another. 
 
 The distinction between these can be made more evident by 
 illustration. Let us take the Archdiocese of Canterbury since 
 the Reformation. Its Succession has been as follows : 1, Cran- 
 mer ; 2, Pole [Romanist] ; 3, Parker ; 4, Grindal ; 5, Whitgift ; 
 6, Bancroft ; 7, Abbott ; 8, Laud ; 9, Juxon ; 10, Sheldon ; 11, 
 Sancroft; 12, Tillotson; 13, Tenison ; 14, Wake; 15, Potter; 
 16, Herring; 17, Huttpn ; 18, Seeker; 19, Cornwallis ; 20, 
 Moore; 21, Sutton; 22, Howley ; 23, Sumner; 24, Longley. 
 
 This table shows that the present Metropolitan succeeds in 
 his place or office the martyr Cranmer. But it tells no more. 
 
 Let us now trace the descent of the Episcopal commission 
 from Cranmer: 
 
 Archbishop Thomas Cranmer consecrated Robert Parfew, 
 Robert Parfew consecrated John Hodskins, 
 
 John Hodskins 
 Matthew Parker 
 Edmund Grindal 
 John Whitgift 
 Richard Bancroft 
 George Abbott 
 George Monteigne 
 William Laud 
 Matthew Wren 
 Gilbert Sheldon 
 Henry Compton 
 William Sancroft 
 Jon at. Trelawney 
 John Potter 
 Thomas Herring 
 Fred. Cornwallis 
 
 Matthew Parker, 
 Edmund Grindal, 
 John Whitgift, 
 Richard Bancroft, 
 George Abbott, 
 George Monteigne, 
 Wifliam Laud, 
 Matthew Wren, 
 Gilbert Sheldon, 
 Henry Compton, 
 William Sancroft, 
 Jonathan Trelawney, 
 John Potter, 
 Thomas Herring, 
 Frederick Cornwallis, 
 John Moore, 
 
APPENDIX. 513 
 
 John Moore consecrated Charles M. Sutton, 
 Chas. M. Sutton " William Howley, 
 
 William Howley " Christopher Bethell, 
 
 Chris. Bethell " John Bird Sumner, 
 
 J. Bird Sumner " Charles T. Longley. 
 
 This list shows that the present Archbishop has been validly 
 consecrated to his high office in direct Succession from the first 
 Protestant incumbent of it. 
 
 The former is a list of the Episcopal Succession in the Pro- 
 vince of Canterbury. The latter is a list tracing the Apostoli- 
 cal Succession from Archbishop Cranmer to Archbishop 
 Longley. 
 
 The former is of comparatively little importance. It is not 
 a note of the Church, because it cannot be found everywhere. 
 For instance, within this year we have in our American Church 
 three of four Bishops ordained, to exercise jurisdiction where 
 there has been but one predecessor. The Succession in Ne- 
 braska begins with Bishop Talbot. He had no Succession to 
 point to. Now this is the " Succession" of which several Eng- 
 lish divines have spoken in an indifferent or disparaging manner. 
 And when Mr. Goode or Mr. Gallagher quotes such passages, 
 they quote what they ought to know has no bearing upon 
 that specially styled " Apostolical Succession." For instance, 
 Jewel says : 
 
 "Have these men their own Succession in so safe record? Who was 
 then the Bishop of Rome next by Succession unto Peter? Who was the 
 second? Who the third? Who the fourth? Irenseus reckoneth them 
 together in this order: Petrus, Linus, Anacletus, Clemens. Epiphanius 
 thus : Petrus, Linus, Cletus, Clemens. Optatus thus : Petrus, Linus, 
 Clemens, Anacletus. Clemens saith that he himself was next unto Peter. 
 * * * Hereby it is clear that of the four first Bishops of Borne M. Harding 
 cannot certainly tell us who in order succeeded others. And thus talking 
 so much of Succession, they are not well able to blaze their own Succes- 
 sion." — (Defence of Apology, page 326.) 
 
 "Because we will grant somewhat to Succession, tell us hath the Pope 
 alone succeeded Peter ; and wherein, I pray you ?" 
 
 "We have departed from him to whom we were not bound, and who 
 had nothing to lay for himself, but only I know not what virtue or power 
 of the place where he dwelleih, and a continuance of Succession." — (Apology.) 
 
 In the same spirit, Pilkington says ; 
 
 " If succeeding in place be sufficient to prove them good Bishops, then 
 
514: 
 
 the Jews and Turks hare their good Bishop? ar Jerusa- 
 
 lem. Constantinople, and elsewhere, for there they dwell where Hi 
 
 . . i : and haTe their synagogues, Bishops. Priests, and Levites after 
 - : rt.** " Succession of good Bishops is a great grace 
 because God and his truth hangs not on man nor pi r nan** 
 
 on the undeceirable truth of God's TFord, in all doubts, than on any 
 Bishops, place, or man." 
 
 : rain, and Archbishop Laud 
 also, as we have seen already. Thr lail 
 
 "For in the general, I shall say this : It is a great happiness 
 
 where it may be had 'visible* and ' continued* * * but I do not find any 
 one of the ancient fathers that makes local, personal, visible, and con- 
 tinued Succession a necessary sign or mark of the true Church any- 
 
 Such a Succession is, indeed, of comparatively little value. 
 But Pilkington points ont the true one where, he says: 
 
 "A Succession of Bishops or Ministers we grant has been in tie world, 
 rather than in any one See or Country, which succession we say we HATJB, 
 
 AXD FOLLOW BETTER THAN THEY." 
 
 I i - is the " Apostolical Succession" of which we have treated 
 ■ :ji:s ^::k, iiii :: :>:::: 5r t1: ;■"::. vr± ±- 
 writers citing passages which refer not to continuance of 
 or transmission of authority, but to "personal and local Succes- 
 si:n" -~--J. 
 
 -here stated tha: n : n-E i^:opal bodies hold the 
 ■Bering from us only as to the line in which the 5u - 
 cession is to be traced. Proof of this has been furnish e 
 much more can be given. For instance, the Prest T:erian work 
 
 "This government in the Church is jure divino ; for of those gorern- 
 .5 well as of Apostles, Prophets, and teachers, it is said God hath 
 set them in the Church. * * * Now if they have heen set in the Church, 
 and God hath set them there, here is a plain jus divinum for government 
 in the Church.** "What was said to the Apostles touching preaching 
 and baptizing, remitting and retaining sins, was said to all the Apostles' 
 essors to the end of the world." 
 
 -:anee of true Ordination remaining at that time in the 
 Church of Rome, cannot be annulled and evacuated by those hum a- 
 ruption* that were annexed or superadded thereto, no more th 
 
 i of the Church of Rome is to be accounted null and void, there 
 being the same ground for the one as for the other. Schism, here e 
 
APPENDIX. 515 
 
 scandal in the Church of Corinth did not destroy that Church ; nor do 
 superstitious additionals or mixtures with ordinations in the Church of 
 Rome destroy Ordination itself." — (Jus Divinum and its Appendix, as quoted 
 by Bishop Henshaw.) 
 
 The same general doctrine is avowed by Dr. Doddridge, by 
 Thomas Boston, and other such Divines. 
 
 The work of Dr. Lathrop, a Congregationalist, on Apostolical 
 Succession, is well known, having been reprinted and edited by 
 the late Bishop Wainwright. But Dr. Hopkins, (the founder 
 of Hopkinsianism,) a far more prominent Congregationalist, has 
 spoken out in as clear a tone : 
 
 " It is said, if the Church have no authority or right to constitute or 
 ordain their own officers, then there must be an uninterrupted succes- 
 sion of Ministers from the Apostles to the end of the world; and if this 
 chain of Succession h^once broken it cannot be renewed again, but the 
 Succession must necessarily cease, and then there can be no Ministers 
 and officers in the Church to the end of the world. To this it may be 
 answered, that if this be an appointment of Jesus Christ * * that his 
 Church shall be furnished with Ministers by such a Succession from one 
 to another, then He will take care that it shall never be interrupted," etc., 
 etc. 
 
 "But to this it has been said that we have no evidence that such Suc- 
 cession has not in fact been interrupted many times; and not one Minister 
 or Elder at this day can prove or have any evidence himself that he has 
 been ordained by one or more, who have received this right and power to 
 ordain by an uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles. * * * Besides, 
 if this Succession could be proved, it must be brought down through the 
 hands of the Pope and the false Anti- Christian Church, * * which neces- 
 sarily interrupts the Succession." 
 
 " Upon this, the following things are to be observed : 1, If there be 
 evidence from Scripture that such an Order and Succession of men * * 
 has been established by Christ, and is implied in the commission which 
 he gave to his disciples : ' Go ye and teach all nations/ etc., etc.; ' and lo 
 I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.' " " This is SUFFI- 
 CIENT, POSITIVE PROOF that such a Succession of Ministers does in fact take 
 place in the visible Church of Christ; and that this commission has been 
 transmitted from one to another from that time to this day; and that this 
 Succession has not been interrupted, and will not be to the end of the 
 world." 
 
 If our space would admit of it, we would add to this the no 
 less emphatic testimony of the celebrated Dr. J. M. Mason, of 
 
 New York. 
 
 r 
 
 is V 
 
 U U 
 
516 APPENDIX. 
 
 D. — " TITE SIX OF QUOTATION." 
 
 It was our intention to have given, under this head, an expose* 
 of the manner in which some opponents of Apostolical Succes- 
 sion conduct their share of the controversy; but we cannot 
 afford space for more than a few words. Some of the parties 
 referred to sin wilfully. Others follow them without intending 
 to deceive, and thus untruth is propagated, little as the agents 
 may suppose it. The only way in which this evil can be pre- 
 vented, is by avoiding the system of general or loose quotation, 
 and that which the " Episcopal Recorder" calls " parrot-like 
 repetitions." Take one or two examples. Dr. Canfield copies 
 from some previous writer what purports to be a quotation from 
 Strype. He does not indicate the work, the book, chapter or 
 page, but gives the paragraph with inverted commas. We 
 have been at some pains to search for it in the place where 
 such a passage might be found. It is not there ; but something 
 of a different character is. Mr. Gallagher mentions " Mason's 
 Vindiciae" as a work of special importance, and professes to 
 quote a portion of it, which appears very favorable to his 
 cause. He gives the very page from which he has taken it. 
 We turn to that page and there is xo such passage there. We 
 knew there was not, before we looked, as any one might have 
 done who had an}* knowledge of the subject. In this, we be- 
 lieve, the Reverend gentleman did not intend to misrepresent 
 Mason. He only made his quotation from a work which, in 
 all probability, he never saw. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 3085 1 
 
<* ** *** * 
 
 ^ • 
 
 WKNW o>*tr -I 
 
 '* .f 
 
 1* o'' 1 . 
 
 
 - -SIS'." » ^ • 
 
 v slZL?* <^ 4.0 .;••♦ *> v 
 
 
 
 
 
 ** ** 'iSfe- ^ -^ ^ 
 
 •■ *° % '" 
 
 p.. 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
 111 Thomson Pa 
 
 Oanberrv Township. ?A 16066 
 
 (724)779-21-- 
 

 ** v \ 
 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 017 452 728 3