PRINCETON. N. J. Lihrary of Dr. A. A. Hodge. Presented. BX 5340 .W5 1869 Williamson, Robert. Church government and church questions CHURCH GOVERNMENT AND CHURCH QUESTIONS. This Book is intended to he a Handbook on the Subjects of which it treats; not to discuss them ex- havstirehj. CHURCH GOVERNMENT AND CHURCH QUESTIONS. EY THE PvEV. EGBERT WILLIAMSON, ASCOG, ROTHESAY. 1 EDINBURGH: DUNCAN GRANT. LONDON : JAMES NISBET & CO. 1869. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. On the Identity of Presbyters and Bishops. The Argument from Scripture — From the Early Fathers — From the English Reformers, and the Early English Church, ...... CHAPTER II. The Ruling Elder — Subordination of Church Courts, CHAPTER III. Argument from the Cases of Timothy, Titus, and the Angels of the Seven Churches of A.sia, vi CONTENTS. CHAPTER IV. On the Eights and Standing of Presbyters in Con- ferring Ordination. PACK The Doctrine of the Church of England— Of the Scotch Episcopal Church — Archbishops Bancroft, Wake, Seeker, Usher, Potter, Howley ; Bishops Morton, Cosin, Wordsworth, &c., ..... 39 CHAPTER V. Important Difference in Doctrine between the Com- munion Office of the Chdkch of England and that OF THE Scotch Episcopal Church. The Scotch Communion Office — The Invocation Prayer — Eishops Innes, Rattray, JoUy, Torry, Forbes, Skinner, Gleig — Debate in Convocation in 1862 — The Bishops of Oxford, Lincoln, LlandafiF, . . . .51 CHAPTER VI. Sources from which the Scotch Communion Office has BEEN derived. The Missal — Eragmenta Liturgica — Principal Baillie — Hal- lam — Malcolm Laing — The Oriental Liturgies— The Greek Chiuxh, ..... 70 CONTENTS. vii CHAPTER VII. The Reformed Churches, and the Doctrine of the Sacraments. PAGE The Scotch Confession of 1560— Craig's Catechism, 1592— Synod of London, 1552 — Articles of the Church of England — Zwingle — Consensus Tigurinus — Cranmer— Ridley — Athanasius — Augustine — Communion Service of the Church of England for the Sick, . . 87 CHAPTER VIII. On Apostolical Succession. No evidence in support of from Scripture — Succession of Doctrine, not of Persons, founded upon by the most eminent of the early Fathers, and the most distin- guished Divines of the Church of England — Irenseus — TertulUan — Cyprian — Ambrose — Gregory Nazianzen — Augustine — Bradford — Jewell — Whi taker — Hoadly —Field— Stillingfleet—Whately, . . .103 CHAPTER IX. Conclusions Arrived at. Difiference of Opinion among Episcopal Authors — Council of Trent — Provincial Assembly of London in 1653 — Forbes of Carse — Bellarmine— Leighton's " Zion's Plea against Prelacy," ..... 124 viii CONTENTS. CHAPTER X. The Doctrine of the Royal Supremacy, and the Spiritual Independence of the Church. PAGE Debates in the Westminster Assembly — Coleman — Light- foot— Selden— Gillespie— The Thirty-Seventh Article of the Church of England — The Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth — The Irish Articles — Latimer — Cranmer — Usher— John Livingstone — Alexander Henderson — Sir Roundell Palmer— Dr Ball, . . .130 Appendix, 163 CHURCH GOYERMENT AND CHURCH QUESTIONS. CHAPTER I. ON THE IDENTITY OF TRESBYTERS AND BISHOPS. The Argument from Scripture — From the Early Fathers — From the English Keformers, and the Early English Church. " What was not in the times of the Apostles cannot be deduced from them. We say in Scotland, ' It cannot be brought but that is not in the ben ; ' but (not to insist on a liturgy, and things of that kind) there was no such hierarchy, no such difference betwi.xt a Bishop and a Presbyter in the times of the Aiiostles, and therefore it cannot hence be deduced ; for I conceive it to be as clear as if it were written with a sunbeam, that Presbyter and Bishop are to the Apostles one and the same thing ; no majority, no inequality or difference of office, power, or degree betwixt the one and the other, but a mere identity in all." " Notwithstanding all that is pretended from antiquity, a Bishop having sole power of ordination and jurisdiction will never be found in prime antiquity." — Alexander Hendersoti s Corre- spondence uoith Charles I. Letters of date 3d June 1646, and 17th June 1646. The efforts at present being made to bring about an union of the Eomau Catholic, Greek, and Anglican A 2 ON THE IDENTITY OF Churches* are professedly based on the ground that these three bodies possess in common what they are pleased to call the " threefold order of the ministry," viz., Bishops, Presbyters or Priests, and Deacons; and that they alone have a "Priesthood" and a "Sacrifice" In other words, their prelatic power as lords or governors in Christ's Cliurcli, and their priestly power, as alone authorised to adminis- ter the sacraments of the Church, are the two corner-stones which form the foundation on which they desire to rear the United Churcli. Their pretensions, as prelatic or diocesan Bishops, are based upon the assumption that they are, as an order in the Church, distinct from and superior to Presbyters, dc jure divino, or by express scriptural authority ; and that their descent I'rom the Apostles can be traced by a continued unbroken chain of episcopally-ordained men, and that without prelatic Bishops, there is, to make use of the language of Bishop Taylor, "no Priest, no ordination, no conse- cration of the sacrament; while no absolution, no rite, or sacrament can be legitimately performed in order to eternity." There are two pro230sitions evidently embodied in these claims : — 1st, That there exists a class of office-bearers in the Cliurch of Christ, viz., diocesan Bishops, superior, by Divine aiothority, to Presbyters or Elders, and therefore having a right to exercise jurisdiction over them ; and 2dly, That the spiritual descent of these office-bearers can be traced from * See Appendix. TEESBYTEES AND BISHOPS. 3 the Apostles by an unbroken chain of episcopally- ordained men. The second proposition manifestly and necessarily depends upon the first ; and there- fore with it we shall at present exclusively deal. Does there exist, then, by Divine authority, in the Church of Christ an order of office-bearers — diocesan Bishops — superior to Presbyters ? This question we are prepared to meet with an unqualified nega- tive. We unhesitatingly affirm that, whether we turn to the Scriptures, the early Fathers, or the dis- tinguished and learned Eeformers, who were instru- mental in framing and setting up the Church of England, we shall not find the shadow of reliable evidence to bolster up this pretentious claim ; but that, on the contrary, we shall find clearest evidence that it is an unwarrantable and groundless assump- tion. First, then, what say the Scriptures on this point ? " To the law and to the testimony : if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." That Bishops and Presbyters are one and the same, under different names, is clear to demonstration, from the following among other pas- sages : — 1st, Acts XX. 17-28, — where our readers will find, by referring to the passage, that those called " Elders " by the Apostle in the 17th verse are expressly designated " Overseers," or Bishops, in the 28th verse. 2d, Titus i. 5, 7, — where tliose called Elders in the 5th verse are called Bishops in the 7th. 3d, 1 Peter v. 1, 2, — where the Elders ad- dressed in the 1st verse are exhorted in the 2d to 4 ON THE IDENTITY OF feed the flock of God, taking tlie oversight thereof — episcopountes — expressly setting forth their stand- ing and authority as Bishops in tiie Church. 4th, Phil. i. 1, — where the Apostle, in addressing his epistle to the entire Church at Philippi, makes no mention whatever of a threefold order of the minis- try, but of a twofold order— Bishops and Deacons — Presbyters being included in Bishops, they being, as we have already seen, one and the same under dif- ferent designations. In the five instances in which the word Bishop is used in the New Testament, it is never employed to express or shadow forth any rule or oversight over Presbyters of the Church, but invariably over the flock of Christ. That the Bishops referred to by tlie Apostle Paul could not be diocesan, but parochial Bishops, is evident, for instead of exercis- ing lordship over an extensive diocese or territory, and jurisdiction over the Presbyters labouring therein, the Church at I'hilippi alone had several Bishops to itself, clearly showing that they were parochial Bishops, or Elders, doing the work of the ministry in the congregfition, and thus feeding the flock of God, over which the Holy Ghost had made them "Bishops," or "Overseers,"* not as "lords over God's heritage," but as " ensamples to the flock." It is thus evident that the names Bishop and Presbyter being employed in the Scriptures indif- ferently and interchangeably, the class of office- * The literal meaning of the Greek word translated Bishop is Overseer. PRESBYTERS AND BISHOPS. 5 bearers designated by them are one and tlie same. They have the same names, the same ordination, (Acts XX. 17-28; Titus i. 5, 7,) the same qualifica- tions, and the same duties, (1 Tim. iii. 1, 2; Titus 1. 5, 7.) Presbyters, moreover, are expressly men- tioned as sitting along with the Apostles as members of the Council at Jerusalem ; whilst no mention is made of Bishops, (Acts xv. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23.) And Presbyters only are expressly said to ordain, (1 Tim. iv. 14.) " The Syriac translation," says Owen, " which is so very ancient, that it comes nearest in time to the original, useth not two words, one for Bishop, another for Presbyter, as our translation and tlie Greek, but it hath only 'ii^*p!i^ ; the word in Chaldee and in Syriac signifies Presbyters, (Titus i. 5, &c.) Consiitueres, Seniores in qucdihet Civiiaie, verse 7, debet enim, Senior esse irreprehcnsibilis. I have left thee in Crete to ordain Elders in every city, for an Elder (we say Bishop) rfitist he blameless. So in 1 Tim. iii. 1, — The office of a Bishop, as we render it out of the Greek. The Syriac reads it, the office of a Presbyter. Instead of Bishops and Deacons in l*liil. i. 1, the Syriac reads it Presbyters and Beacons. This is a strong proof that the distinction of Bishop and Presbyter was unknown when that translation was made, for it useth not so much as different names. " If there be any distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter, the pre-eminence must be given by the Scripture to the Presbyters ; for as our Bishops say their office, distinct from Presbyters, is 6 ON THE IDENTITY OF to rule and govern, and the office of a Presbyter is to preach and administer the sacraments. Now, tlie administration of the sacraments and preach- ing are more excellent works than ruling and governing. The Apostle saith expressly, that they that lahoiir in the Word and Doctrine deserve more honour than they that rule loell, (1 Tim. v. 17.) Moreover, the Apostles style themselves Presbyters, hut never Bishojys. St Peter calls himself Presbyter, hut never calls himself a Bishop. And therefore it is a Avonder the Pope, his pretended successor, and those that derive their canonical succession from His Holiness, should call themselves Bishops, unless it be by the divine disposal to show the fallibility of their foundations. " The Papists, who therein are imitated by some of our advei'sarius, do sa}', that the names are common, but the offices are distinct. Thus Spensoius, a Sor- bonist, objects, Noniinum quidem esse, sed nan rmin- erum confusioncm. "The instances mentioned above do clearly evince an identity of offices. When the Apostle bids the Presbyters of Bphesus talee heed to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them BishojK, he does not speak of the name, hut the office. And it is evident that St Peter speaks of the office, when he exhorts the Presbyters to feed the flock, and to perform the office of Bishops among them ; so that there were as many Bishops as there were Presbyters in Churches of the Apostle's planting. PRESBYTERS AND BISHOPS. 7 " How comes it to pass, when the Apostle reckons up the several sorts of ministers, which Christ had appointed in His Church, that he makes no mention of Siopcrior Bishojjs, if they be so necessary as some would have us believe ? He mentions Pastors and Teachers. The patrons of Episcopacy will not say Bishops are meant by Teachers, their proper work being ruling; nor can they be meant by Pastors, for Presbyters are Pastors, and exhorted to feed the flock. Our learned writers against Popery think it a good argument to disjirove the Pope's Headship, that he is not mentioned in the list of Church officers reckoned up in the New Testament ; no more is a Bishop superior to Presbyters so much as named in those places. If any say it is omitted, because he was to succeed the Apostles, he hath the Pope ready to join with him in the same plea for his office." * The conclusion to which tlie New Testament shuts us up — that Bishops and Presljyters are iden- tical — is in perfect harmony with the judgment of the early Fathers, and of the learned lieformers, who Avere instrumental in laying the foundation of the Church of England. In proceeding to examine into the evidence of the early Fathers, and of the English Eeformers, it will be necessary to bear in mind the exact state of the question. The question is not. Is there any evidence in the writings of the early Fathers, and * Owen, " Plea for Scripture Ordination," 1693. Second Edi- tion, 1707, pp. 14, 15. 8 ON THE IDENTITY OF of the English Eeformers, to prove the existence of diocesan Bishops in the Church (at the time they respectively wrote) by ecclesiastical authority, as a matter of mere human appointment, on the ground of expediency and Church order ? But, Is there any evidence in their writings to prove that they believed in the existence of prelatic or diocesan Bishops as an order superior to I'resliyters, dejure clivino, tliat is by express Avarrant and authoritative appointment of Christ in His Word ? That is the real and only question ; and it is necessary that it be kept distinctly in view, becaiise by doing so it will be seen and found that the quotations from and references to the early Fathers and Beformers by High Churchmen and Buseyites are altogether irrelevant, inasmuch as they bear upon a totally different question from that to prove which they unwarrantably adduce them. Bearing in mind, then, the exact state of the question, we affirm, without hesitation, that the judgment of the early Fathers, and of the English Eeformers, in regard to the existence of diocesan Bishops, dejure divino, is in entire harmony with tlie judgment of Scripture. Two fragments have come down to us from apos- tolic times, the genuineness of which has been admitted both by Bresbyterians and Episcopalians — viz., the First Epistle of Clemens Eomanus to the Corinthians, and the Epistle of Bolycarp to the Church at Bliilippi. Clement is generally, and on fair authority, supposed to have been the companion of the Apostle Baul, (see Bhil. iv. 3), and Bolycarp PEESBYTERS AND BISHOPS. 9 was the friend and disciple of the Apostle John ; so that both of them held personal intercourse with the Apostles. In his Epistle to the Corinthians, Clement speaks of two orders of ofhce-bearers only — Bishops or Presbyters, and Deacons. So evident is this, that Lord Harrington, in his " jNIiscellanea Sacra," says, " Bishops with St Clement are always the same with Elders or Presbyters, as any one must see if they read the epistle, or, if they can doubt of it, must be fully convinced by the notes of the learned Mr Burton upon it."* Eaber admits that beyond "all possibility of misapprehension," " no more than two orders are specified by Clement, the word Bishops being used as equivalent to the word Presbyters." f "Whatever may have been the cause," says Dr Hawkins, in his discourse on the Apostolical Succession, as also in his Bampton Lectures, " the Church of Corinth appears, as I con- ceive from the Epistle of Clement, not to Iiave had its Bishop, as well as its Presbyters and Deacons." In his epistle, Clement speaks of the " flock of Christ with the Presbyters, who are set over it," and of the happiness of those "Presbyters" who had finished "their Episcopacy," before the dissen- sions arose in the Church, on account of whicli he rebr;ked tliem, thus clearly proving that Presbyters and Bishops were one and the same — Episcopacy, or the office of being overseers over the flock, being common to both. Bishop Croft's testimony, as * Vol. ii., p. 154. Ed. 1770. + The Ancient Vallenses, p. 558. 10 ON THE IDENTIT\ OF given in his " True State of the Primitive Church," is clear and decided. " In this epistle," says Bishop Croft, " Clement particularly sets forth the con- stitution of the Church by the Apostles, and what ministers tliey ordained in the Church — to wit, Bishops and Deacons ; he names no others, which seems to me as full an evidence as can be that there were no other orders in the Church in those days but those two ; and yet we are sure that there were then Presbyters in the Church, for St Peter calls them Presbyters to whom he wrote his epistle ; so that if there Avere but two orders — to wit. Bishops and Deacons — Presbyters must be one and the same with Bishops or with Deacons ; not with Deacons, therefore one and the same with Bishops — one order called by two names promiscuously in Scripture, as hath been showed before."* We come now to the testimony of Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John, and called by Irenii;us " the blessed and apostolic Presbyter." In his epistle to " the Church of God which is at Philippi," he makes mention only of Presbyters and Deacons, and no mention whatever of Bishops, or of any order superior to Presbyters. When Paul addressed his epistle to the Church at Philippi, there existed only two orders of office-bearers in that Church — "Bishops and Deacons;" and now seventy years after the death of the Apostles, when Polycarp addresses his epistle to the same Churcli, we find two orders only still existing. The threefold order * Scott's Col. of Tr., vol. vii., p. 298, quoted by Smyth. PRESBYTERS AND BISHOPS. 11 of the ministry, in the prelatic sense, is nowhere to be found. We say in the prelatic sense, for in the Presbyterian Church there is, in the twofold order of office-bearers, a threefold distinction, (grounded upon 1 Tim. v. 17, and Acts iv. 1-7) — viz., the Elders or Presbyters, "that rule;" the Presbyters, "who labour in word and doctrine;" and the Deacons, who " serve tables," attending to the financial and secular affairs of the Church. " So far, then," says the late lamented Principal Cunning- ham, " as concerns the only two apostolic men, of whom it is generally admitted that we have their remains genuine and uncorrupted, it is evident that their testimony upon this point entirely concurs with Scripture — that they furnish no evidence whatever of the existence of Prelacy, and that their testimony runs clearly and decidedly in favour of Presbyterial government ; and if so, then tliis is a blow sti uck at the root or foundation of the whole alleged prelatic testimony from antiquity. It cuts off the first and most important link in the chain, and leaves a gap between the Apostles and any subsequent Prelacy which cannot be filled up." We shall now examine the alleged testimony of Ignatius — the sheet-anchor of Episcopalians — and the testimony of the great English Reformers. I. The testimony of Ignatius, who was contem- porary with Polycarp. Of the fifteen epistles at one time ascribed to him, eight have hang ago been set aside as forgeries. Archbishop Usher, who devoted not a little time and labour to an examination of 12 ox THE IDENTITY OF these epistles, and who published a Latin transla- tion of seven of them, admits that of the twelve epistles rejected by Salmatius, and other learned divines, he has " certain proof tliat six of them are counterfeits, and that the remaining six are cor- rupted hy interpolations in very many places." Of the six or seven epistles whose genuineness Bishop Pearson and others have laboured hard to establish, fonr ha^'e been, on most sufficient grounds, struck off the list by Dr Cureton, who has satisfartdrily shown tliat only the three letters contained in the Syriac MS. are entitled to be considered as, in any respect, genuine ; and we may add that, as regards these three, there is no reason to conclude that they are free from interpolations. Dr Goode, Dean of Piipon,* than whom no divine of tlie Cliurch of England is more conversant witli patristic literature, affirms tliat no works have been more extensively mutilated and corrupted than those of the Fathers, so much so that " above one hundred and eighty treatises, professing to be written by authors of tlie first six centuries, are repudiated by the more learned of the Eomanists themselves as most of them rank forgeries, and the others as not written by those whose names they bear. But, what is worse, we have also to guard against the con-uptions intro- duced into the genuine works of the Fathers, an evil which has been growing since the very earliest times." And, then, quoting from Anastasius Sinaita, he goes on to say, " There was a certain Augustan prefect, * Since the above was WTitten, Dr Goode has died. PRESBYTERS AND BISHOPS. 13 (at Alexandria,) a follower of Severus, who for a long time had fourteen amanuenses of like mind with himself, to sit down at his command and falsify the books containing the doctrines of the Fathers, and especially those of the holy Cyril." — Goode's Rule of Faith, vol. i., pp. 194-6. Three epistles, then, only remain, and along with the spurious ones disappear the " mass of stuff about Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, with which the former editions were crammed." Of the one and only passage which is left, and which occurs in the Epistle to Polycarp, c. 6, Dr Cunningham justly affirms that " there is certainly nothing in the least resembling it, either in language or in spirit, in the New Testament, or in Clement and Polycarp, and it may fairly be regarded as an interpolation." Dr Killen, in liis " History of the Early Church," sets aside the Ignatian Epistles, one and all, as en- tirely spurious ; and we believe that Episcopalians will have considerable difficulty in meeting the argu- ments on which he grounds his judgment regarding them. But even supposing the Epistles of Ignatius to be genuine, the language contained in them regarding Presbyters is such as to preclude the possibility of any lordship over them by Bishops, de jura divino. In his Epistle to the Smyrnians he says, " See that ye follow the Presbyters as Apostles." In his Epistle to the Magnesians he says, " The Presbyters preside in the place of the Council of the Apostles." In his Epistle to the Trallians he says, " Be yc subject to 14 OJf THE IDENTITY OF your Presbyters as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope." " Let all reverence the Presbyters as the Sanhedrim of God, and College of Apostles." If the epistles, therefore, bring before us a class of office- bearers in the Church, exercising lordship over " Presbyters who preside in the place of the Council of the Apostles," and who constitute " the Sanhedrim of God and College of the Apostles," they neces- sarily shut us up to the conclusion tliat, if genuine to any extent, they are self-contradictory, have been interpolated, and are therefore not reliable. Their utter worthlessness, for High Church purposes, can- not be better expressed than in the deliverance come to regarding them by one of the greatest de- parted ornaments of the Church of England, the learned Bishop Stillingfleet. " In all those thirty- five testimonies," says Stillingfleet, in his Irenicum, " produced out of Ignatius's Epistles for Episcopacy, I can meet vith Imt one whicli is brought to prove the least resemblance of an Institut ion of Christ for Ej)iscopacij ; and if I be not much deceived, the sense of that place is clearly mistaken too." * The learned historian, Bingham, is a high autho- rity v^^ith Episcopalians, and he justly says of Jerome, the most learned of the Latin Fathers — " St Jerome will be allowed to speak the sense of the ancients." We conclude, therefore, the evidence from the early Fathers, with that of Jerome, of whom Augustine declared that a more learned man never lived. What then says Jerome in regard to the * Irenicum, p. 309, Ed. 1GG2. PRESBYTERS AND BISHOPS. 15 identity of Presbyters and Bishops ? He says " Presbyters and Bishops were formerly the same. And before the devil incited men to make divisions in religion, and one was led to say, ' I am of Paul, and I of Apollos,' churches were governed by the common Council of Presb}i;ers." And, after refer- ring to the Epistle to the Philippians, the Acts of the Apostles, and the First Epistle of Peter, he says, " These passages we have brought forward to show that, with the ancients, Presbyters vmtc the same as Bishops. But that the roots of dissension might be plucked up, a usage gradually took place that the chief care should devolve upon one. Therefore, as the Presbyters know that it is by the custom of the Church that they are to be subject to him who is placed over them, so let the Bishops know that they are above Presbyters rather by custom than hy Divine appointment, and that the Church ought to be ruled in common," (Note on Titus i.) Nor did Jerome stand alone in holding this opinion. No. " I be- lieve," says Stillingfleet, in his Irenicum, " upon the strictest inquiry, Medina's judgment will prove true, that Hieron, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, were all of Aerius's judgment as to the identity of both name and order of Bishops and Presbyters in the Primitive Church."* We have thus the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers, Clement and Polycarp, that, in their day, there were only two distinct orders of office-bearers in the Church — viz., Presbyters or * Irenicum, p. 276. 16 ON THE IDENTITY OF Bishops and Deacons ; and we have also the express testimony of Jerome, who flourished in the fourth century, and who was the most learned of the Latin Fathers, that Bishops and Presbyters were originally one and the same ; but that a usage gradually took place, that the chief care should devolve upon one ; and, therefore, he would have the Bishops remem- ber that they are above Presbyters, not " by divine appointment," but " by custom," and, therefore, " that the Church ought to be ruled in common." II. So much, then, for the testimony of the early Fathers. Let us now endeavour to ascertain what testimony the learned Eeforming Fathers of the Church of England have left in regard to this point. " I boldly assert," says Wickliffe, " that in the Primitive Church, or in the time of Paul, two orders of the clergy were sufficient — that is, a priest and a deacon. In like manner I affirm, that in the time of Paul, the Presbyter and Bishop were names of the same office. This appears from the third chapter of tlie First Epistle to Timothy, and in the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus. And the same is testified by that profound theologian, Jerome."* Now in this judgment, the framers of the formu- laries and authoritative standards of the Church of England un(pialiliedly concur. In 1537, a con- vocation of Archbishops, Bishops, and learned Divines was held, at which Cromwell, the King's Vicar-General, was present, as his Majesty's repre- sentative. ■ A document was drawn up by them, * "Life of Wickliffe," (Vaughan's), vol. i'., p. 275. Ed. 1831. PRESBYTERS AND BISHOPS. 17 and in that document, to quote the words of Bishop Burnet regarding it. Bishops and Priests are spoken of as one and tlic same offi.ce. The document itself is entitled the " Institution of a Christian Man." It is also known as the " Bishop's Book." In that document we have " A Declaration made of the fixnctions and Diviue Institution of Bishops and Priests." The following extracts on "The Functions and Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests," will show clearly the vieAvs of its framers in regard to the office of the ministry : — " As touching the Sacraments of the Holy Orders, we will that all Bishops and Preachers shall instruct and teach our people committed by us unto their spiritual charge — "First, How that Christ and His Apostles did institute, and ordained, in the New Testament, certain ministers, or officers, which should have spiritual power, authority, and commission, under Christ, to preach, &c., and to order and consecrate others, in the same room, order, and office, where- unto they he called and admitted themselves ; and, finally, to feed Christ's people, like good pastors and rectors," &c. " Item, That this office, this ministration, this power and authority, is no tyrannical power, hav- ing no certain laws or limits within the wliich it ought to be contained ; nor yet none absolute power ; but it is a moderate power, subject, deter- mined, and restrained unto those certain limits and B 18 ON THE IDENTITY OF ends for the which the same was appointed by God's ordinance." " Item, That this office, this power and authority- was committed, and given by Christ and His apostles, nnto certain persons only, that is to say, tmto Priests, or Bishops, Avhom they did elect, call, and admit thereunto by their prayer and imposition of their hands." And then, after stating that " albeit the Holy Fathers of the Church did also institute certain inferior orders, or degrees," it concludes with this clear and decided judginent : " Yet the truth is, THAT IN THE New TESTAMENT there IS no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in orders, hut only of Deacons or Ministers, and of Priests or Bishops." In this authoritative document of the Church of England, signed by Thomas (Lord) Cromwell, (the King's Vicar- General), by Cranmei', Archbishop of Canterbury, by the Archbishop of York, by the Bishops of London, Durham, Lincoln, Bath, Ely, Bangor, Salisbury, Hereford, Worcester, Eochester, and Chichester, along with upwards of twenty of the most eminent " Doctors of Laws, and Doctors of Divinity," in England, — in this document in which the Church of England formally lays down and declares "the functions and divine institution of Bishops and Priests"- — tluit is, Presbyters, it is expressly taught and affirmed, that, by the New Testament, Bishops and Presbyters are one and the same order and office, and that, by commission PRESBYTERS AND BISHOPS. 19 under Christ, the " spiritual power and authority " of Bishops and Presbyters " to preach, &c., and to order and consecrate others in the same room, order, and office whereunto they be qalled and admitted themselves," are equal, being one and the same. In 1543, "The King's Book," otherwise called, " The Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man," was published by royal authority. Fuller and Burnet inform us, that the able and learned divines who drew it up, were authoritatively appointed for the purpose. It was read and approved of by the Lords spiritual and temporal, and the Lower House of Parliament ; and Dr Laurence, in his Bampton Lec- ture, informs us, that, " before its publication, it was approved of by the Convocation then sitting, in which it was examined in parts, as appears evident from the minutes of that Assembly, in Wilkins's Concilia} Macjnce Brittanim, v. 3, p. 868." Xow, this Book, drawn iip by a Committee of Bishops and Divines, appointed by the Crown for the pur- pose, examined and approved of by the Convocation then sitting, read and approved by both Houses of Parliament, and constituting, therefore, one of the highest legal standard authorities of the Church of England, lays down the doctrine,, that Presbyters and Bishops are, by God's law, one and the same ; that " of two orders only, that is to say, Priests and Deacons, Scripture maketh express mention;" that " Christ sets them all, (viz., ministers), indifferently, 20 ON THE IDENTITY OF AND IN LIKE POWER, DIGNITY, and AUTHORITY ; and that all lawful authority and powers of one Bishop over another were to be given to them by the con- sent or ordinance, and positive laws of mm only, AND NOT BY ANY ORDINANCE OF GOD IN HOLY SCRIP- TURE." We thus see, that whether we appeal to the Word of God, the early Fathers, or the founders of the Church of England, " Presbyters and Bishops are one and the same office that, originally, there was no difference between them ; and that the superiority which Bishops obtained over Presbyters after the Apostolic period, in the third or fourth centuries, as well as in the Church of England, was not by a divine ordinance, but by mere human appointment, on grounds of expediency and Church order ; and that " the threefold order of the minis- try," of which the Eoman Catholic, Greek, and Anglican Churches boast as their exclusive heritage and peculiar possession, is not a doctrine of tlie Word of God, hut an invention of man. To the learned Pveformers of the Church of Eng- land, might be added a catalogue of names, the most celebrated in divinity, church history, and literature of which the world has ever heard. Melancthon, Calvin, Beza, Vitringa, Erasmus, Claude, Grotius, Bochart, M. Flacius lUyricus, Blondell, Milton, Zanchius, &c., &c., all held that the superiority of Bishops to Presbyters is not by divine appointment, but by mere ecclesiastical arrangement; while the most eminent modern PRESBYTEES A\D BISHOPS. 21 biblical critics in our own day, as Alford, EUicot, Bloomfield, &c., have come to the same conclusion as Whitaker, Jewell, Eeynolds, Cranmer, Field, Usher, Mosheim, Burnet, Stillingfleet, Whitby, Scott, and Neander — himself a host — that, in the New Testament — in the Acts of the Apostles, the 1st Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus — Bishops and Presbyters are one and the same, the terms being " applied incUffcrenthj to the samei^crson." "Without entering," says Bishop Ellicot, "into any description of the origin of Episcopacy gener- ally, it seems proper to remark that we must fairly acknowledge with Jerome, that in the pastoral epistles, the terms Episcopos and Presbyteros are applied indifferently to the same person." In commenting on Paul's address to the Elders at Ephesus, Dean Alford says, "Tlie English version lias hardly done fairly in this case with the sacred text, in rendering Episcopous, ver. 28, ' overseers,' whereas it ought there, as in all other places, to have been ' Bishops,' that the fact of Elders — or Presbyters — and Bishops having been orujinally and apostolically synonymotis, might be apparent to the ordinary English reader, which now it is not." If then, the doctrine of the superiority of diocesan Bishops to Presbyters, by express appointment of the Word of God, was unknown in the Church of England in the days of the Eeformers wlio drew up her Articles and Formularies, when, it may be asked, was the doctrine first taught within her pale ? We believe it will be found that it was not till 22 ON THE IDENTITY OF about half a century after the " Declaration of the Functions and Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests," had been emitted ; and then, merely by an individual — Dr Bancroft. In a sermon preached at Paul's Cross, on the 9th of February, 1588, referring to the case of Aerius, Dr Bancroft evidently intended that his hearers should draw the conclusion, that to teach that there was no difference, by divine right, between a Bishop and a Presbyter, was heresy. This doctrine fell with startling effect upon the ears of those who heard it. It was strange doctrine to them ; and it occasioned so much surprise, as being altogether different from the teaching of the Peformers down to that time, that Sir Francis Knollis wrote to Dr Eeynolds, who was reputed to be the most learned divine in the Church of England at that period, to aslc his opinion regarding it. The doctor wrote him in reply, that tlie doctrine laid down by Bancroft was untenable ; refers him to the controversy which Bishop Jewell had with the Jesuit llavding upon the same point, and to the bishop's triumphant demolition of the Jesuit's assertions, citing Chrysostom, Austin, Hierome, Ambrose, &c., &c., to sliow that they all held and maintained views entirely opposed to those of Harding, which were the same as Ban- croft's. And after citing many eminent authorities, in addition to those brought forward by Jewell, Dr Eeynolds concludes by affirming tliat, for five hundred years previous, all who had been actively in favour of reforming the Church, have been of PRESBYTERS AND BISHOPS. 23 opinion " that all pastors, whether called Bishops or Presbyters, have, according to the Word of God, like power and authority." Down to this time, the Eeformers in England, Scotland, and on the Continent were agreed on all essential points ; but this sermon threatened to dig a gulf between them ; and the novel and unscriptural character of Dr Bancroft's views were so conclu- sively shown, that he himself afterwards modified them, and acknowledged the validity of the orders of the foreign churches in which Episcopacy had no place. We have thus dwelt upon the apostolic identity of Bishops and Presbyters, in order to make it clear to our readers, that the threefold order of the ministry, in the prelatic sense of diocesan Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, has no place in the Word of God, had no place in the Primitive Church in the days of the Apostolic Fathers, and had a place given to it in the Church of England, not on any alleged ground of divine right, but solely on grounds of expediency and Church order, and in consequence of the High Church tendencies and predilections of Henry and Elizabeth. The only Bishops of which the New Testament knows anything, are Presbyters or Elders — Bishops parochial, not diocesan — in other words, Bishops, not of a diocese, but of a congrega- tion, " over which the Holy Ghost hath made them 'overseers,' to feed the Church of God which He hath purchased with His own blood ; " " taking the oversight {episccypoimtes) thereof, not for filthy lucre. 24 ON THE IDENTITY OF but of a ready mind ; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." It is right that, in these days of priestly preten- sions, when Episcopacy is lifting up its head loftily among us, our Presbyterian readers should know that our doctrine in regard to the government of the Church is " founded on the Word of God, and agreeable thereto;" that it is Episcopalians, not we, who require to give a reason for their Church polity ; that Scripture, the early fathers, and the concurrent testimony of the greatest Protestant divines of the Ee formation period throughout the world, are as clearly in our favour, as they are opposed to the extravagant and unwarrantable pretensions of Scotch Episcopacy and English Tractarianism. The appointment of congregational Bishops or overseers, by the Holy Ghost, over the Jloch of Christ, we can prove by express reference to tlie Word of God. The entire bench of BishojDS might safely be challenged to cite one passage from the same divine source — the only infallible rule of doctrine and of government — to prove the appointment of diocesan Bishops, by the Holy Ghost, as overseers over the ministers of Christ. Such evidence never has been produced, and never will It does not exist, and therefore cannot be found. That the doctrine of Jerome and of the English Eeformers was also the doctrine of the early English Church, is evident from the Canons of Elfric to Bishop Wulfin, of date 957 ; also from Archbishop Peckham's Constitutions, of date 1281. Both enu- PRESBYTEES AND BISHOPS. 25 merate the seven orders appointed in the Church as follows:—!. The Ostiary. 2. The Lector. The Exorcist. 4 The Acolyth. 5. The Sub-deacon. 6. The Deacon. 7. The Presbyter. The order of Bishop is not specified, being in- cluded in, and identical with, that of Presbyter. " There is no more difference," says Elfric, " between the Mass-Presbyter and the Bishop, but that the Bishop is appointed to ordain, to hallow Churclies, and to see to the execution of tlie laws of God, which, if every Presbyter should do it, would be committed to too many. Both, indeed, are one and the same order, although the part of the Bishop is the more honourable.* That the celebrated Anselm, Archbishop of Can- terbury, was of the same opinion, is clear from his Commentary on tlie first chapter of Titus, and the first chapter of the Epistle to the Philippians. As regards the early Scottish Church, it has been clearly shown by writers from the earliest times down to authors of our own time, as Dr M'Lauchlan and Hdl Burton, that Diocesan Einsco'pacy was un- known in it, and the same may be said of the early Irish Church. Bede admits that in loua the Bishops were subjected to the Presbyter Abbot, who was at the head of the institution.-f- Hill Burton * Johnston's Canons and Constitutions of the Church of Eng- land since the Conquest, and before the Reformation. Ed. 1720. Canones, &c., a Laur. Howell, pp. 66, 67. Ed. 1708. + Habere s jlet ipsa insula rectorem semper Abbatem Presby- terum, Cujus Juri et oimiis Provincin, et ipsi etiam Episcopi, 26 ON THE IDENTITY OF clearly shows that the Bishops of the eavly Irish Church were parochial or congregational, not dio- cesan Bishops : — " The Bishops consecrated by St Patrick alone were counted by hundreds. One of the more mode- rate estimates makes them three hundred and sixty- five — just one for every day in the year. Whether or not we believe all that is said about their multi- tudinousness, it is beyond doubt titat the early BisJiojys trcre so nitmerous, that the most resolute ehampions of diocesan Episcopacy cannot find for them 20Tovinces ivith corporations of Presbyters over ivhom they held diocesan rule." — (Hill Burton, vok i., p. 269.) He adds that, when the Papacy extended its influence to Ireland, these Bishops were converted into rural deans. It is evident tliat St Patrick's Bishops were simi- lar to the Chorepiscopi, or rural Bishops of the Primitive Church, whose Bishopric was but a single congregation, as has been ably shown by Lord King in his " Inquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, Unity, and "Worship of the Primitive Church." "It is no marvel," says Lord King, (Ed. 1713, p. 40), " that we find Bishops not only in cities, but in country villages, there being a Bishop consti- tuted wherever there were believers enough to form a competent congregation : For, says Clemens Bo- ordine iniisitato debeant esse subjecti, juxta Exemplum Primi Doctoris illius, qui non Episcopus, sed Presbyter extitit et Monachus. Bed. Hist. iii. 4. PKESBYTERS AND BISHOPS. 27 iiin/u's, the Apostles going forth, and preaching both ill uiuatry and city, constituted Bisliopsand Deacons tliere. Much to which purpose Cyprian says. Per omnes provincias, et per urhes singulas orclinuti sunt Episcopi. Bishops were ordained throughout all provinces and cities. Hence, in the Encyclical Epistle of the Synod of Antioch, it is said that Patihis Samosatenus had many flatterers amongst the adjacent city and country Bislwps ; of this sort of cou7itry Bishops was Zoticus, Bislwp of the villarje of Comane. And we may reasonably believe that many of those bishops who in the year 258 were assembled at Carthage to the number of fourscore and seven, had no other than obscure villages for their seats, since we find not the least notice of them in Ptolemy or any of the old geographers." To the testimonies already cited from Scripture, the apostolic Fathers, and the Keformers of the Church of England, in proof of the scriptural iden- tity of Bishops and Presbyters, might be added the testimony of the most distinguished among the Schoolmen, and the Canonists, and also that of Pope Urban II. The Master of the Sentences saith, " Apud veteres iiclevi Episcopi et Preshyteri fueruntj' He adds, " JExcellenter Canoncs duos tantum sacros ordincs Ajjpcllari censent, Diaconatus, &c., et Pres- byteratus, qicia hos solos primitiva Ecclesia legitur hahuissc et de his solis prcecepttim Apostoli hahemvs," (Lib. iv., dist. 24.) Bonaventure, in 4 sent. dist. 24, Q. 1, A. 1, Bpiscopatus deficit ah ordine, &c., includit necessario ordinem perfectissiinum, &c., 28 ON THE IDENTITY OF PRESBYTERS AND BISHOPS. sacerdotium. With whom agree Durand, Dominic, Aureohis, &c., who all comment upon Lombard's text. — See Aquinas's Supplem., quajst. 37, art. 2. Gratian's judgment is thus expressed: — " Sacros ordines dicimus Biaconatum et Presbyterahtm, hos quidem solos Ucdcsia primitiva hahuisse dicitur." Johannes Senncca, in his Gloss on the Canon Law, affirms that Bishops and Presbyters in the Primi- tive Church, both as respects their names and offices, were identical ; but that in the age succeeding that of the I'rimitive Church, the names and the offices began to be distinguished. Nomina crant communia, et officium crat commune, sed in secunda primiiiva CJEperunt distiiigui, et nomina, et offtcia, (quoted by- Owen, in liis J'lca for Scripture Ordination-) who also sliows that in the Council of A ir la ClmprJlc, and the Council of Risjmlis, the identily ol' I '.i -hops and Presbyters was acknowledged ; while in the Councils of Const((nrr and Bdsil, after long debate, it was concluded that Presbyters sliould have de- cisive suffrages in councils, as well as Bishops, be- cause, by the law of God, Bishojos loerc no more than Presbyters, and it is expressly given them (Acts. xv. 2Z)— Owens Plea, pp. 108-9. CHAPTER II. THE RULING ELDER — SUBORDINATION OF CHURCH COURTS. In the preceding chapter it is stated that in the Presbyterian Church, there is, iu the twofold order of office-bearers, a threefold distinction — ^viz., the Elders' or Presbyters "that rule," the Presbyters, " who labour in the woi-d and doctrine," and the Deacons, who " serve tables," attending to the financial and secular affairs of the Church. That the Presbyters were divided into two classes — those who only ruled, and those who not only ruled, but also laboured in the word and doc- trine — is evident from Eoni. xii. 6, 7, 8, where the Euler is distinguished from the Teacher and Ex- horter ; from | Cor. xii. 28, where " governments," or those invested with the power of ruling, are dis- tinguished from the Prophets and Teachers ; and from 1 Tim. v. 17, where the Euling Elder is expressly distinguished from the Elders who not only rule, but also labour in the word and doctrine. 30 THE RULING ELDER— In his " Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland," Gillespie shows, at great length, that the office of Euling Elder has existed in the Church from Apostolic times, and cites numerous aiithori- ties in proof from the early Fathers, and the most eminent Protestant Divines. (See Part I, chaps, vii. to xiii.) In the " Form of Presbyterial Church Govern- ment, agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, with the assistance of Commissioners from the Church of Scotland," it is affirmed that it is lawful and agreeable to the Word of God that the Cliurch be governed by several sorts of Assem- blies, wliich are " congregational," (kirk sessions) " classical," (Presbyteries) " and synodical," and also " that there be a subordination of congrega- tional, classical, provincial, and national assehiblies, for the government of the Church," (see Matt, xviii. 15-20; 1 Cor. v. 4, compared witli 2 Cor. ii. 6 ; Acts xiii. 1, in connection with Acts xv. 1-31), in which passages we have clear warrant for congregational, Presbyterial, and Synodical or General Assemblies, for the government of the Church, hearing and deciding causes, admonishing, censuring, excommunicating impenitent scandalous offenders, and restoring penitents. In the loth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles we have an account of a difficulty which arose in the Church at Antioch. After no small dissension and disputation in the Court, or congregational assembly at Antioch, it was " determined that Paul SUBORDINATION OF CHURCH COURTS. 31 and Barnabas, and certain other of them," should go up to Jerusalem to submit the case to a General Assembly there. The Assembly met. The case ■was fully heard ; and, after reasoning, a judgment was come to and recorded, and an extract minute was sent to the Church at Antioch, which had the effect of satisfactorily disposing of the question. The case was one of false doctrine arising in the Church, in consequence of which the members of the Church were troubled, and their souls in danger of being subverted ; and the authoritative juridical acts of the Council, corresponded to the " threefold power of jurisdiction," competent to Church Courts, viz., the dogmatic, the diatadic, and the critic — " 1. Affaiiisi the hcrcsic hrocwlicd — viz., tliat they must be circumcised, and keep the ceremonial law of Moses, or else they could not be saved (Acts XV. 2.) The Synod put forth a dogmatiquc imccr, in confutation of the heresie, and clear vindication of the truth, about the great point of justification hy faith without the works of the law, (Acts xv. 7-23.) " 2. Against the schism, occasioned by tlie doctrine of the false Teachers that troubled the Church, (Acts XV. 1, 2), the Synod put forth a critich, or censuring power, stigmatising the false Teachers Avith the infamous brands of trouUing the Church ivith words, sidjverting of soids, and (tacitly, as some conceive from that expression. Unto luhom wc gave no such commandment, v. 24) of belying the Apostles 32 THE RULING ELDER, ETC. and Elders of Jerusalem, as if they had sent them abroad to preach this doctrine. " 3. Against the scandcd of the weak Jews, and their heart-estrangement from the Gentiles, who neglected their ceremonial observances ; as also against the scandal of the Gentiles, A\'ho were much troubled and offended at the urging of circumcision, and the keeping of the law as necessary to salva- tion, (ver. 1, 2, 19, 24), the Synod put forth a diatacUck ordering or rcr/u/a/inf/ pofrr, ii-aming practical rules or constitutions, for the liealing of the scandal, and for prevention of the spreading of it, commanding the brethren of the several Churches to abstain from divers things that might any way occasion the same." * * Jus Divinnra Regimmis Ecdesiastici. By Sundry Ministers of Christ within the City of London. Edition 1654, pp. 246-47. CHAPTER III. ARGUMENT FROM THE CASES OF TIMOTHY, TITUS, AND THE ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES. It has been asserted by Prelatists, in support of their system of Church government, that Timothy and Titus were Bishops in the prelatic sense, — the one of Ephesus, and the other of Crete. The evi- dence on which this assertion is founded is 1 Tim. i. 3 : " As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine." And Titus i. 5, " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." At the period referred to in the foregoing passages, in which Paul delivers these instructions to Timothy and Titus, the foundations of the New Testament Church were being laid. The builders had to do, not with an ecclesia constituta — a Church formally settled and put in order — but with an ecclesia con- 34 ARGUMENT FROM THE CASES OF TIMOTHY, TITUS, stituenda — a Church in course of being formed ; and, therefore, extraordinary officers were needed to meet the exigencies of an extraordinary tinre. Just as at the Keformation in Scothind, in 1560, when super- intendents were appointed over dioceses or provinces, who received instructions to set in order the things which were wanting, to plant Churches, and ordain Elders over them, but who, nevertheless, were not considered to belong to an order different from that of the other Presbyters ; but, in their Presbyteries and Assemblies, were on a footing of perfect equality, ordinary ministers being frequently elected as Mode- rators of the General Assembly, when the superin- tendents were present simply as members. All Christian missionaries, in gatliering out and build- ing ixp Churches in heathen lands, have to perform the same duties as fell to Timotliy and Titus to discharge, viz., " to set in order tlie things that are wanting," to plant Churches, and ordain Elders over them ; but the performance of these duties does not, in any way whatever, exalt them to an order in the muiistry of a higher nature, jure divino, than that of the Presbyterate. Although Timothy received miraculous gifts by the imposition of Paul's hands (for the Apostles had power to confer such gifts), yet Ids ordination was by " the keying on of the hands of the Preshytery." As for Titus, so far from being a Bishop, in the prelatic sense of the term, the Apostle, when giving him instructions as to the way and manner in which he was to perform his duties in Crete, does AND THE ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES. 35 SO ia language which clearly demonstrates that Bishops and Presbyters are one and the same order of ecclesiastical office-bearers, making use of the terms interchangeably, thus plainly teaching Titus that, in ordaining Elders, he was ordaining Bisliops, inasmuch as they were identical. Dr Whitby, one of the ablest Episcopal divines, confesses, " that, in regard to the great controversy whether Timothy and Titus were indeed Bishops, the one of Ephesus and the other of Crete, he can find nothing of that niatter in any writer of the three first centuries, nor any intimation that they bore that name." He also admits that " there is no satis- factory evidence of Timothy having resided longer at Ephesus than was necessary to execute a special and temporary mission to that Church."* While another aljle defender of .Episcopacy, the erudite Dodwell, afhrnis that they were itinerating, and not resident officers, who aided the Apostles in founding and settling Churches. And this is in perfect har- mony with the description given by Eusebius of the special duties of an evangelist, when he says that he was appointed to "lay the foundations of the faith in barbarous nations, to constitute them pas- tors, and having committed to them the cultivating of those new^ plantations, to pass on to other countries and nations." It is hardly necessary to inform the reader that the postscript to the Second Epistle to Timothy and the postscript to the Epistle to Titus, form no part * Commentary on Titus, preface. 36 ARGUMENT FROM THE CASES OF TIMOTHY, TITUS, of the Holy Scriptures ; that they are mere inter- polations added several centuries after the epistles were written ; that in several of the oldest versions of the original Scriptures — including the Codex Vaticanus, published at Rome, under the editorial care of Cardinal Mai — these postscripts are not to be found ; and that, in short, they i:)Ossess no value or authority whatever. Not a little has been attempted to be made in support of the scriptural authority of diocesan Bishops, from the epistles to the seven Churches of Asia. These epistles are addressed to the angels of the Churches ; and these angels, it is contended, must have been Bishops. Congregational, or in other words, parochial or scriptural Bishops they may have been, but not a shadow of evidence can be brought forward to warrant their being transformed into prelatic Bishops. From the scope and language of the epistles, the expression would seem to be em- ployed in a collective sense, including the entire body of the ministry, represented by their Moderator or President ; but whether in a collective or in a singular sense, there is nothing whatever in the language employed that makes it more suitable to Bishops than to Presbyters, — to a diocesan Bishop, than to the Moderator of a Kirk Session or Presbytery. The Christian Church was formed, not after the model of the Jewish temple, but of the Jewish synagogue. This is unanswerably shown by Grotius, Lightfoot, Vitringa, StiUingfleet, Neander, Rosen- miiller, &c. AND THE AXGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES. 37 " St John, a Jew, calls the ministers of particular or parochial Churches tlie angels of the Churches, in the style of the Jewish Church, who called the public minister of every synagogue TlD'^rrW — Sheliach Tsibbor — the Angel of the Church. They called him also or Bishop, or superintendent, of the congregation. Every synagogue, or congrega- tion, had its Bishop, or Angel, of the Church. Now, the service and worship of the Temple being abolished as being ceremonial, God transplanted the worship and public adoration used in the syna- gogues, which was moral, into the Christian Church, to wit, the public ministry, public prayers, reading God's Word, and preaching, &c. Hence the names of the ministers of the gospel were the very same, the Angel of the Church and the Bishop, which be- longed to the ministers in the synagogue. We love Bishops so well, that we could wish we had as many Bishops as there are })arishes in England; as the Jewish synagogues had to wliich St John alludes, when he calls them. Angels of the C/Lurches." — Given s Plea, p. 37. " If many things," says Stillingfleet, " in the epistles be directed to the Angel, but yet so as to concern the whole body, then of necessity the Angel must be taken as representative of the body, either of the whole Church, or which is far more probable, of the Conccssus, or order of Presbyters of that Church." — Irenicum, p. 290. The Apostle John, through whom the messages to the Churches were delivered, frequently makes use 38 AEGUMENT FEOM THE CASES OF TIMOTHY, ETC. of the expression Presbyter, or Elder, both in the Apocalypse and in his epistles, but never of Bishop; and hints, as has been well said, at no primacy, except the attempted primacy of Diotreplies, which he indignantly denounces and refers to as a beacon to warn us of what is to be avoided, not as an example to be imitated. CHAPTER IV. ON THE RIGHTS AND STANDING OF PRESBYTERS IN CONFERRING ORDINATION. The Doctrine of the Church of England— Of the Scotch Episcopal Church — Archbishops Bancroft, Wake, Seeker, Usher, Potter, Howley — Bishops Morton, Cosin, Wordsworth, &c. "A Bishop at his first erection was nothing else but Primus Presbyter, or Episcopus Praeses (as a Moderator in a Church Assembly, or a Speaker in a Parliament,) that governed communi condlio Prcshyter'orum, and had neither power of ordination, nor of jurisdiction, but in common with his Presbyters. Ambrose, upon 1 Tim. iii., saith, 'That there is one and the same ordination * of a Bishop and a Prcshijter ; for both of them are Priests, but the Bishop is the first.' Even according to the judgment of antiquity. Presbyters have an intrinsical power and authority to ordain Ministers, and when this power was restrained, and inhibited, it was not •propter lerjis necessitatein, but only propter honorem sacerdotii ; it was not from the canon of the Scriptures, but from some canons of the Church." — The Divine Right of the Ministry of Enrjland, 1654. HzVViNG established the identity of Bishops and Presbyters from Scripture, the Apostolic Fathers^ * Episcopi et Preshyteri una est ordinatio ; uterq^. enim sacerdos est, sed episcopus primus. 40 ON THE EIGHTS AND STANDING OF and the Founders of the Church of England, we have now to point out the difference between the Church of England and the Scotch Episcopal Church, respecting the validity of ordination by Presbyters, and the rights and standing of Presbyters in conierriug ordination. In the Church of England Presbyters are ordained by the Bishop, along witli the Presbyters, the presence of at least three Presbyters being necessary, — the right of Presbyters to take part in that solemn act being expressly recognised and provided for. In the Scotch Epis- copal Church the Bishop alone ordains, and the Presbyters are entirely excluded from taking any part whatever.* In the first canon of the Scotch Episcopal Church it is expressly declared, that " the right of consecration and ordination belongs to the order of Bishops only ; " while in the Church of England it is ordered that the Bishop, with the Presbyters present, shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth the order of the Presbyterate, the Bishop saying, " Ee- ceive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest" — that is, Presbyter — "in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of OUR hands," — the right and competency of the Presbyters to take part in the act of conferring ordination being acknowledged as distinctly as that of the Bishop. We have already shown that, although the three orders of Bishops, Presbyters, * In direct antagonism to Canons ii. aad xx. of the Council of Carthage. PRESBYTERS IN CONFERRING ORDINATION. 41 and Deacons, are specified in the formularies of the Church of England, the distinction between Bishop and Presbyter was not held by the Fathers of that Church to be by Divine right, but merely on grounds of expediency and ecclesiastical arrange- ments; and, accordingly, we find that, in the original book for ordaining Presbyters and Bishops, which was drawn up in the reign of Edward VI., there is no difference whatever in the words of the service for ordaining a Bishop to distinguish his office from that of a Presbyter. For upwards of a hundred years, in the Church of England, the ordi- nation service for Bishops and Presbyters was one and the same, — the same portions of Scripture were referred to as the ground upon which the service was based ; thus clearly proving that, in the opinion of the early Eeformers of the Church of England, there was no difference between the order of Bishop and Presbyter, by Divine institutio7i, but simply by ecclesiastical arrangement. The change in the ordination service was made in the reign of Charles II., in 1662, by the Bishops who revised the service, at a time when High Churchism had begun to appear, and the Church had drilled away from the Scriptural views of the great and good men, who, under God, laid her foundations, and framed her formularies. The celebrated Archbishop Usher, altliough pre- ferring the Episcopal form of government, says, " I have ever declared my opinion to be, that Ejriscopiis ct Prcshytcr (/radio tanium diffcrunt non ordinc." 42 ON THE EIGHTS AND STANDING OF Bishop Morton, characterised by Dr Goode as one of the most eminent and able divines of the Church of England, and who was Bishop successively of Chester, Lichfield, and Durham, thus speaks, — " Where the Bishops degenerate into wolves, there the Presbyters regain their antient right of ordaining {consecrancli.) I call it antient, because that the Episcopate and the Presbyterate are, jure divino, the same, is laid down by Marsilius, Gratian," &c. Bishop Cosin also held, that Presbyters have the intrinsic power of ordination in actv, prima, and "that the power of ordination was restrained to Bishops, not by any absolute precept that either Christ or His Apostles gave about it, but rather by apostolic practice (?) and the perpetual custom and canons of the Church." * The language of Dr Field, one of the greatest authorities among English divines on this point, is very explicit. " It is most evident," is the conclusion he arrives at, "that wherein a Bishop excelleth a Presbyter, is not a distinct power of order, but an eminency and dignity only, specially yielded to one above all the rest of the same rank for order sake, and to preserve the unity and peace of the Church." In other words. Bishops are superior to Presbyters, not by * Archbishop Potter, while asserting the s iperiority of the order of Bishop to that of Presbyter, admits, that "the Presbyters of Koine governed that diocese a whole year," (without a Bishop) " between the death of Fabianus and the ordination of Cornelius.'' Post obitum S. Fabiani sedes vacat per unius anni, mensium iv. ac dierum xv., spatium, &c. — Annales Cijprianicae, (by Bishop Pearson.^ — Potter on Church Government, p. 224. PRESBYTERS IN CONFERRING ORDINATION. 43 Divine right or appointment, but by ecclesiastical arrangement, on grounds of Church order and ex- pediency. And hence the validity of the orders of the foreign Eeformed Churches, which were not Episcopal, was admitted and contended for, not only by the learned Divines of the Church of England to whom we have already referred, but also by Dean Sherlock, Bishop Andrews, Dr Sharp, Archbishop of York, Archbishops Sancroft, Wake, and Seeker, and down to 1835 and 1841 by Dr Howley, the then Archbishop of Canterbury. In a letter to the London Gtiardian, referring to the recent visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury to Inverness, and reproduced in the December number of the organ of the Scotch Episcopal Church, it is affirmed that the Church of England looks upon Presbyterian ministers in the " light of private lay- men." That the Scotch Episcopal Church does so, needs no proof — the first Canon of that Church being sufficient to establish the affirmation; but that the Church of England holds the same intoler- ant, presumptuous, and unscriptural view, is abun- dantly disproved by the testimonies cited in defence of the validity of the orders of the Foreign Re- formed Churches. Not only did Dr Tenison, Arch- bishop of Canterbury, affirm, in the debate on the Union with Scotland in 1707, that the narrow notions of all Churches had been their ruin, but, also, " that he believed the Church of Scotland to be as true a Protestant Church as the Church of England, though he could not say it was as perfect." 44 ON THE EIGHTS AND STANDING OF And SO late as 1835, a letter was addressed by Archbishop Howley, in the name of himself and his " brother lishops" to the " Moderator of the com- pany of pastors at Geneva, expressing their hi[/h respect for the Protestant Churches on the Continent" and speaking of the Genevan Reformation as "a noble achievement, which brought light out of dark- ness, and rescued their Church from the shackles of Papal domination, and the tyrannical imposition of a corrupt faith and a superstitious ritual, wrought by illustrious men who, under the direction of Al- mighty God, were the instruments of a happy deliverance, an event not less glorious to Geneva, than conducive to the success of the Eeformation."* Besides, by the 55th Canon of 1604, the clergy of the Church of England are requ.ired to pray, in the bidding prayer before the sermon, for the Church of Scotland, which was then, as now, Presbyterian ; " consequently," says Dr Goode, the Dean of I{ipon,t " the very men who are now protesting against the recognition of any ordinations as valid but Epis- copal, and contending that it is the doctrine of the Cliuvch of England that there is no such thing as a valid ministry but through an apostolically de- scended episcopate, are by Canon bound solemnly to recognise in their prayers every Sunday the existence of a valid ministry without any such ordination. For, a prayer for the Presbyterian ' Church of Scotland,' clearly involves such a recog- nition ;" and then he (Dr Goode) proceeds to cite * Goode's Rule of Faith, vol. ii., p. 323. t Now deceased. PRESBYTERS IN CONFERRING ORDINATION. 45 the well-known case of a licence having been granted in April 1582, by the Vicar-General of the Archbishop of Canterbury, with express consent and command of said Archbishop, " to John Morrison, who had only Presbyterian orders according to the laudable form and rite of the Eeformed Church of Scotland," " to celebrate divine offices, to minister the sacraments, &c., in any convenient places in and throughout the whole province of Cantei'bury." Moreover, it is notorious t^hat, between the Eeforma- tion and Kestoration, many were admitted as minis- ters by the Church of England who had only Pres- byterian ordination, and who, according to the testimony of Bishop Hall, " enjoyed spiritual pro- motions and livings, without any exception against the lawfulness of their calling." The validity of Presbyterian ordination is not denied in the formu- laries and Articles of the Cliurch of England ; but, since the Picstoration the Act of Uniformity renders Episcopal ordination necessary, in order to legal institution to benefices in Ewjland ; but the legal conditions necessary in order to institution do not in any way whatever alter the doctrine of the Church in regard to ordination. " The old Church of England did not require re- ordination, as now done. In King Edward the Sixth's time, Peter Martyr, Martin Bucer, and P. Fagius, had ecclesiastical preferments in the Church of England ; but Cranmer, whose judgment of Epis- copacy we have seen before, never required re- ordination of them. He was most familiar with 46 ON THE RIGHTS AND STANDING OF Martyr, neither did he censure M. Bucer for writing that Presbyters might ordain. " John h Lasco, with his congregation of Germans, was settled in England by Edward the Sixth's patent, he to be superintendent, and four other mmisters with him ; and though he wrote against some orders of the Churcli (of England), was with others called to reform our ecclesiastical laws. " In Queen Elizabeth's time ordination by Presby- ters was allowed, as appears by the Statute of Ee- formation, &c., 13 Eliz., cap. 12. It cannot refer to popish ordinations only, if at all. For — 1. The words are general : Be it enacted — that every per- son — which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest, or minister of God's holy AVord. The title of minister of God's holy Word is rarely used among the Papists, and in connnon use among the Eeformed Churches. The ministry, witli the Papists, is a real priesthood, and therefore they call their Presbyters Priests. And it is an old maxim, " Non est distinguendum ubi Lex non distinguit." 2. The subscription seems to intend those that scrupled traditions and ceremonies, which the Papists do not." * A deputation of learned and distinguished divines of the Church of England was sent to the Synod of Dort, and took part in its deliberations ; and four years before (in 1614), Eoyal Letters were sent by King James I. to the National Synod of the French Churches to evince his solicitude for their peace and preservation. Hooker, althougli a zealous Episco- * Owen's Plea for Scripture Ordination, p. 118. PEESBYTERS IN CONFERRING ORDINATION. 47 palian, makes the following concession : — " Whereas some do infer that no ordination can stand but only such as is made by Bishops which have had their ordination likewise by other Bishops before them, till we come to the very Apostles of Christ them- selves — in which respect it was demanded of Beza at Poissie, by what authority he could administer the Holy Sacraments, being not thereunto ordained by any other than Calvin, &c. ? .... To this we answer that there may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination made without a Bishop." * When Charles I. asked Archbishop Usher, " where- ever he found in antiquity that Presbyters alone or- dained any ?" Usher replied, " I can show your Majesty more, even where Presbyters alone successively ordained Bishops ; and instanced in Hierome's Avords, Epist. ad Evagrium, of the Presbyters of Alexandria choosing and making their own Bishops from the days of Mark till Heracles and Dionysius." Again, he says, " A Presbyter hath the same order in specie with a Bishop : ergo, a Presbyter hath equally an in- trinsic power to give orders, and is equal to him in the power of order." Further, he says, " 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 at the hands of the Erench ministers if I were in Charentone." f * Book vii., chap. xiv. II. Ed. Keble. + Judgment of the late Archbishop of Armagh, 110-127 ; Life of Baxter by Sylvester, fol. lib. i., part ii., sect. 63, p. 206 ; Dr John Edward's Discourse on Episcopacy, chap, xiv., quoted by Powell. 48 ON THE EIGHTS AND STANDING OF The same testimony was borne by one of the most distinguished divines of the Scottish Episcopal Church, John Forbes of Corse, (Professor of Divinity in King's College, Aberdeen, in 1619, and ejected in 1 640,) the learned author of " Instructiones His- torico-Theologicse de Doctrina Christiana," and well known throughout Europe as one of the most accomplished theologians of his time. In his " Irenicum amatoribus veritatis et pacis in Ecclesia Scoticana," he says, " Valida est ordmatio, quse peragitur per Presbyteros in eis Ecclesiis, in quibus non est Episcopus .... habent Presbyteri de jure divino ordinandi, sicut prgedicandi et baptizandi, potestatem : quamvis haec omnia exsequi debeant sub regimine et inspectione Episcopi in locis ubi est Episcopus." * The Cyprianic age has been reckoned by Epis- copalians to be their stronghold ; but even then, M'hen the rights of Presbyters were being infringed upon, Presbyters, in the absence of the Bishop, discharged all his functions. Hence we find Cyprian during his exile writing to the Presbyters, and ex- horting and requesting them " to discharge their own and his office too, that so nothing might be wanting either to discipline or diligence" (Fun- gamini illic et vestris partibus ac meis, ut nihil vel ad disciplinam, vel ad diligentiam desit, (Epist. v., s. i., p. 15.) And again, in another epistle, he asks them, in liis stead, (vice mca) to perform those offices which the ecclesiastical dispensation requires. * Iren., lib. ii., c. xi. 13. PRESBYTERS IN CONFERRING ORDINATION. 49 In an Epistle to Cyprian from Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea, and who was also president of the Council of Antioch, he says, " All power and grace is constituted in the Cliurch, where Elders preside, who have the power of baptizing, confirming, and ordaining." Qui et baptizandi, et manum impon- endi, et ordinandi possident potestatem. — Aimd Cypricm Ujjist. Ixxv., s. vi., p. 237. It is thus evident that, in the time of Cyprian, the intrinsic right of Presbyters to ordain was un- doubted, although, by custom and ecclesiastical regulation, for the greater honour of aiubitious Bishops, the right was unwarrantably curtailed. We have already stated that one of the first, if not the first assertors of the rights of Bishops, as an order distinct from Presbyters hy divine institution, was Dr Bancroft, in his memorable sermon at Paul's Cross in 1588 ; and one of tlie first, if not the first, " to call in question the validity of the Orders of the Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches, was Laud," in 1604 at Oxford, when taking his degree of B.D. For maintaining, on that occasion, that there could be no true Church without diocesan bishops, he was " openly reprehended" by Dr Holland, Eegius Pro- fessor of Divinity, for a seditious person, who would unchureh the Reformed Protestant Churches heyond seas, and now sow division between us and them who were brethren, hy this Novel Popish Position."* In all the ordinations which have taken place in the * See "Goode's Rule of Faith," and "Heylin's and Prynn's Life of Laud." D 50 ox THE EIGHTS AND STANDING, ETC. Church of England, from the Eeformation down to the present day, Presbyters have taken part concur- rently with Bishops. By the Scotch Episcopal Church, the standing of Presbyters, in the matter of conferring ordination, is entirely taken away, and the validity of ordination by Presbyters denied ; so much so, tliat Bishop Wordsworth, in a pastoral addressed to his clergy, declares that, " to believe that Presbyters* alone are competent to carry on the succession of an apostolical clergy, and to ADMINISTER VALIDLY THE SACKAMENTS OF THE Church," is to hold an article of belief, " than which there can be none more practically mis- chievous, or more justly excommunicable in the case of those who hold it; because there can be none which destroys more direotly the essence of Christian communion." -f- * Presbyters — " So," says the Bishop, " we must be content to call them, though, by so doing, we appear to grant the very matter in dispute." + Pastoral Letter to his Clergy, August 1853. CHAPTER V. IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE BETWEEN THE COMMUNION OFFICE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THAT OF THE SCOTCH EPISCOPAL CHURCH. The Scotch Communion Office — The Invocation Prayer — Bishops Innes, Rattray, Jolly, Torry, Forbes, Skinner, Gleig — Debate in Convocation in 1862 — The Bishops of Oxford, Lincoln, Llandaff. In the preceding chapter we pointed out the differ- ence between tlie views of the Church of EngLand and those of the Scotch Episcopal Church iu regard to the validity of ordination by Presbyters, and the rights and standing of Presbyters in conferring ordination. We shall now bring before our readers the important difference in doctrine between the two Churches in regard to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, as brought out in their communion offices respectively. All familiar with the sacra- mentarian controversy are aware that three widely different views have been, and stiU are, held in regard to the sacraments. 52 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND 1. The view held by Socinians, and unjustly im- puted to Zwingie, viz., that they (the sacraments) are mere "badges of profession," "naked and bare signs," and nothing more. 2. The views held by John Knox, and the Ee- formed Churches generally, that they are not only signs, but also seals, — that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper " seals the benefits of Christ's death unto true believers," — seals not " the truth of their faith, but the right and interest of faith, as the seal affixed to a deed seals the right and interest of the person in the property conveyed by the deed;" or, to make use of the language of the late Principal Cunningham, " as signs they embody, in outward elements, the substance of what is set forth more fully and particularly in the written word, serving the purpose of a seal appended to a signature to a deed, not certainly as if it could very materially affect the result, so long as • we had the deed and the signatures, but stiU operating, according to the weU-known principles of our constitution, in giving some confirmation to our impressions, if not our convictions, of the reality and certainty, or relia- bility of the whole transaction." According to this view, which is the view given in the Westminster Standards, " The Sacraments do not, in the first instance, bestow grace, faith, and penitence, and are not the instruments of producing the beginnings of faith and penitence, but only confirm, increase, and seal them." * It is necessary that faith previously * Vitringa. SCOTCH EPISCOPAL COMMUNION OFFICES. 53 exist in order to the lawful receiving of the Sacra> nient of the Supper, for without it the sacrament cannot be the means of ministering to the recipient's spiritual nourishment and growth in grace. 3. The doctrine held by the Church of Eome, that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is a change in the elements as respects "their sub- stance;" and the doctrine taught by Bishops of the Scotch Episcopal Church, that there is a change in the elements as respects "their qualities;" and that that change takes place, according to the Church of Eome, in virtue of the consecration of them by the Priest repeating the words of institution ; and, according to the Scotch Ejjiscopal Church, in conse- quence of the "Prayer of Invocation" for the Holy Spirit to descend upon thcrn. (See Catecliisms of Bishops Innes and Jolly.) Also that the sacraments contain the grace which they signify, and confer it, by some power or virtue given to them, and operating through them. It may be also proper to state here that those who belong to the second class to which we have referred deny that there is any real presence of the hody of Christ at the table in, with, or under either the elements, or the forms of the elements ; while they firmly believe that Christ is truly present in His own ordinance to faith, and that by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and His gxacious operations on their souls, His people are enabled to realise the presence of their Lord, and to feed upon Him by 54 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND faith, after a spiritual manner, to their growth in grace and advancement in holiness. The part of the Scotch Comm-union Office which has principally been objected to, as containing and setting forth doctrine essentially different from that of the Church of England and of the Eeformed Churches generally, is the Invocation Prcajer, which is as follows : — " We most humbly beseech Thee, O most merciful Father, to hear us, and of Thy almighty goodness vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with Thy Word and Holy Spirit, these Thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may hecome the bodij and Hood of Thy most dearly beloved Son." It was in reference to this prayer of invoca- tion that Lord Mackenzie, in his judgment in the case of the Rev. Sir Wm. Dunbar, Bart., v. Bishop Skinner of Aberdeen, delivered in the Court of Session, March 3d, 1849, said, "I cannot hold that there is no difference between the Scotch and Eng- lish Communion Offices. I cannot overlook the circumstance that a large party of the Episcopal world think that the Communion Service of the Scotch Episcopal Church teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation. IS'ow, as the service of the Church of England, for which Sir W. Dunbar's con- gregation stipulated, excludes that, I cannot therefore hold a matter of that kind to be unimportant." The language of Lord Brougham in the House of Lords is even stronger and more decided. " In the Liturgy," said Lord Brougham, "promulgated by the Canons (of the Scotch Episcopal Church) the SCOTCH EPISCOPAL COMMUNION OFFICES. 55 Communion Office varied most maMrially from that of the Church of England. In the prayer called the Invocation occurred these words : — " Bless and sanctify, with Thy "Word and Holy Spirit, these Thy creatures of bread and wine, that they may become the lody and Mood of Thy most Iclovcd Son." 'Not — His Lordship went on to say, "become to ^is by faith for our sanctification, but that they may be- come — that was absolutely — ' the body and blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son.' If this did not amount to transubstantiation, it was a very near, near approach to it — almost the nearest he (Lord Brougham) had ever seen beyond the Eomish pale." (Hear, hear.) In referring to the directions given in Skinner's Scottish Communion Office Illustrated , in regard to the mode in which the Sacrament of the Supper is generally received in the Scotch Episcopal Church, his Lordship says that what is laid down by Sldnner is " anything rather than Protestantism, and certainly does tend very considerably towards Eomanism." The following is the statement of Sldnner referred to by Lord Brougham: — "The practice (of administering the elements) most gene- rally adopted in the Episcopal Church in Scotland, is that which Cyril directs, in his fifth ' jNIystagogic Catechesis,' viz., that the communicant shall receive the bread in the hollow of his right hand, supported by the left, which others have called receiving the elements in the hands previously disposed in the form of a cross." Cyril's own words are as follows : — " When you 56 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND approach, come not with the palms of your hands open, nor with the fingers separated, but put the left to below the right, as a sort of throne for it while it is to receive the King ; and in the hollow of the hand receive the body of Christ, saying. Amen. Having then carefully hallowed thine eyes by the touch of so holy a body, partake. Beware, however, lest any portion should fall, for whatso- ever you lose, you lose as from a member of your- self. Then, after partaking of the body of Christ, approach to the cup of His blood, not stretching forth thine hands, but looking to the ground after manner of adoration and worship, saying. Amen. Be thou then sanctified with the blood of Christ which thou takest, and while yet the moisture is on thy lips, touch it with thy hands, and hallow thine eyes and forehead and other organs of sense." Our readers, we have no doubt, are now satisfied that, when Lord Brougham denounced the practice of administering the elements referred to with approval by Skinner, as being "anything rather than Protestantism, and certainly tending very considerably towards Eomanism," his language was neither uncalled for nor unwarrantable. We shall now examine the Scotch Communion Office in connection with expositions of the doctrine contained in it, given by Bishops of that Church, for the direction and instruction of those committed to their charge. And first let us hear what Bishop lunes of Brechin says on the subject in his Catechism. In SCOTCH EPISCOPAL COMMUNION OFFICES. 57 answer to the question, " What is the consequence of that privilege ? " (viz., the effect of the Priest repeating our Saviour's words), the answer returned is, " That they (the bread and wine) are in a capacity to he offered iqj to God as the Geeat Christian Sacrifice." Q. " Is this done ? " A. "Yes; the Priest immediately after makes a solemn oblation of them." Q. " How do the bread and cup become capable of conferring all the benefits of our Saviour's death and passion ? " A. " By the Priest praying to God the Father to send His Holy Spirit upon them." Q. " Are they not changed ? " A. "Yes, in their qualities, but not in their substance." * The testimony of the late Bishop Jolly is to the same effect. "Too many," says Bishop Jolly, "denied there was any material sacrifice whatever instituted by Christ, and left to the Church." " For this wondrous supernatural change of the qualities of the elements the Church always prayed, as the con- summating or highest degree of their consecration, the priest solemnly invoking or calling upon God to send down His Holy Spirit upon them" (the elements.) * Bishop Piattray of Dunkeld, the friend and cor- respondent of the Nonjurors in England- — the author * Innes' Cat., 1821, 26, 29, 41. t Jolly's " Chiistian Sacrifice in the Eucharist," 1831. 58 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND of "Instructions concerning the Christian Cove- nant" — one of the most accomplished sclaolars of his time, and extensively conversant Avitli the Ori- ental Liturgies, was one of the principal compilers and arrangers of the Scotch Communion Office. What his views in regard to the Eucharist were may- be judged of by the fact that he held and taught that the same Divine Spirit by which the body of Christ was formed in the womb of the blessed Virgin, " descending on, and being united to, the elements, invigorates them with the virtue, power, and efficacy thereof, and makes them one with it." The views of Bishop Forbes of Brechin on the Sacrament of the Supper may be judged of by the following quotation from Cyril of Jerusalem, when expounding the meaning of the " words of Institu- tion." — •" Since, then, our Lord Jesus Christ himself has declared and said of the Bread, ' This is My Body,' who sliall dare to doubt any longer ? And since He has affirmed and said, ' This is My Blood,' who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood ? He once turned water into wine, in Cana of Galilee, at His own will, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood ? That wonderful work He miraculously wrought, when called to an earthly marriage, and shall He not much rather be acknowledged to have bestowed the fruition of His Body and Blood on the children of the bride-chamber ? " * Holding the views which the Scotch Bishops to * Primary Charge, 1857 (2d EJ., 1858, p. 76.) SCOTCH EriSCOPAL COMMUNION OFFICES. 59 whom we have referred did, it could not be ex- pected that they would consider the English Com- munion Office comparable, in point of excellence, fulness, and perfection, Avith the Scotch. Accord- ingly, we find the late Bishop Torry of Dunkeld, in a Pastoral Letter to the Clergy and Laity of his district in 1846, expressing his regret that the Englisli Communion Office, " as it presently stands, is greatly short of its first perfection," — that it " was shorn of its beams, and maimed, at the instigation of foreigners in the latter end of Edward the Sixth's reign ; " and affirming that the Scotch Communion Office is " of a much higher and more definite character in respect of doctrine, and of much better arrangement in respect of the adjustment of its i3arts." "AVe claim," says Bishop Torry, "for our own national office the unambiguous voice of primitive truth. Bishop Forbes of Brechin, while admitting tliat he uses the English Office constantly himself, and that its consecration is valid, goes on to say — " As it [the English Office] stands at present, I regard it as a sad mutilation of the first office of the Beformers — as an Eucharistic service ' more marred than any ; ' but still, thanks be to God, preserving all the essentials of a true Sacra- ment." * Again, " I believe that the Scottish Office embodies the principle of primitive Christianity; that, coming, as it does, confessedly nearer to the ancient Liturgies, it bears witness not only to the two great * Primary Charge, p. 57. 60 THE CHUKCH OF ENGLAND AND Christian doctrines of the Uucharistic Sacrifice and Real Presence" &c. The importance attached to the Scotch Office by the Scotch Episcopal Church when agreeing to sign the Articles of the Church of England in 1804, at the Con- vocation held at Laurencekirk in October of that year, may be judged of by the fact that, in the address delivered on that occasion to the members of Con- vocation by the late Bishop Jolly, the following statement guarding and qualifying their subscription was made : — " In adopting tire Articles of the Church of England and Ireland as the Articles of our Church, we must be candidly understood as taking them in unison with that book,* and not thinking any expression with regard to the Lord's Supper in the least inimical to our practice at the altar in the use of the Scotch Communion Office." " The Con- cordat between tlie Episcopal Churches of Scot- land and Connecticut, signed by Bishops Kilgour {Primus) Petrie, John Skinner, and Seabury, also demonstrates the great importance attached to the Scotch Office, as superior to the English as it at present stands. And the conference which took place between Bishop Skinner and the Bishops of Boss and Moray previous to the consecration of Mr Torry as Bishop of Dunkeld, bears testimony to the same effect. On that occasion the following declaration was given by Mr Torry to the Bishops * A Layman's Account of his Faith and Practice as a Member of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, published with the approba- tion of the Bishops of that Church. SCOTCH EPISCOPAL COMMUNION OFFICES. 61 in -WTiting : — " I, the undersigned, do hereby volun- tarily and ex animo declare, being now about to be promoted by the mercy of God to a seat in the Episcopal College of the Church of Scotland, that, when promoted to the Episcopate, I will co-operate with my colleagues in supporting a steady adher- ence to the truths and doctrines by which our Church has been so happily distinguished, as laid down in our excellent Communion Office, the use of which I will strenuously recommend by my own practice, and by every other means in my power. In testimony whereof I have signed this declaration at Aberdeen, 12th October, 18U8. Pat. Tokiiy." That declaration he had ever in view; and we find him, in his eighty-third year, making a solemn appeal to his clergy on behalf of that office wliich he loved so well " I tremble," says the aged Bishop, " I tremble for the stability of our humble Zion if ever the day shall arrive when the claims of the Scotch Communion Office to primary authority and general use shall not be manfully upheld. It is painful to think with what indifference those who are loudest in their cry for the exclusive use of the English Office, view the indignity thereby offered to the memory of those distinguished prelates to whose faithful labours this Church owes a debt of grati- tude which it can never adequately repay." A declaration to the same effect was demanded by Bishop Skinner from Dr Gleig of Stirling, as a condition of the consent of the Primus to Dr Gleig's promotion to the Bishopric of Brechin. In answer to Bishop Skinner's letter, Dr Gleig ex- 62 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND pressed his readiness to subscribe and deKver a declaration similar to that which had been given by Bishop Torry, stating, at the same time, that he was much attached to the Scottish Communion Office, and maintaining " its superiority over the English form." While the older Bishops, the fathers of the Scotch Episcopal Church, survived, the Scotch Communion Office maintained the position which it had so long occupied as»of " primary authority ;" but by a canon drawn up, we believe, by Bishop Wordsworth, and passed by a General Synod in 1863, the Scotch Communion Office is no longer of primary authority, although its use is still canoni- cally permitted. The present Bishops of the Scotch Episcopal Church were for the most part, previous to their elevation, clergymen of the Church of England. Their sympathies and predilections were all in favour of the Book of Common Prayer. They were most desirous of being as closely connected with tlie Church of England as possible, and to enjoy the advantages which such a connection would confer; and, finding that the Scotch Com- munion Office was one great barrier in. the way of their being favourably regarded by English clergy- men, they exerted themselves strenuously to alter the canons so that that office, while permitted, would no longer be of primary authority. That it was a great hindrance is unquestionable; for not only did the Bishop of Cashel, in his letters to Bishop Low in 1845, maintain that the Scotch SCOTCH EPISCOPAL COMMUNION OFFICES. 63 Episcopal Church held doctrine, in her Communion Office, which differed little, if at all, from the tran- substantiation of the Church of Rome, — that her " Prayer-Book goes back towards Popery in a degree for which she has no 'precedent in the formularies of any Pieformed Church ;" but further, that if his opinion were asked by ministers who had received their orders from the English Church, but who were ministering to congregations of the Scotch Episcopal Church, he would feel constrained to say, " Come out from her and be separate." Of the existence of this deep-rooted feeling of aversion on the part of the Bishops of the Church of England to the Scotch Commimion Office, un- mistakeable evidence was afforded so late as 1862, in a discussion which took place in the Upper House of Convocation on the Scotch Episcopal Church, in the course of which the Bishops of Oxford, Lincoln, and Llandaff objected to the office in the strongest terms, affirming that the existence of that office M^as one of the greatest barriers to a recognition of the Scotch Episcopal Church by the Church of England. So important does the Bishop of Oxford believe the points of difference between the English and Scotch Offices to be, that he felt unable, when in Scotland a few years ago, to take part in the Communion Service on one occasion when the Scotch Office was to be used, and rose and left the church before that part of the service commenced. In the debate in Convocation in 1862, the Bishop 64 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND of Lincoln spoke as follows : — " The present Scotcli service is neither that of Edward VI. nor that which was drawn up for them by Laud, but an entirely different one, altered in many important points, and drawn up by some who dissented from our Church — being Nonjurors — in that precise form and manner, because they wished to embody therein their opinion as to the defects — or, as they term them, the errors — of the English Communion Ser- vice ; it has therefore been regarded as a standing protest against the Communion Service of the Church of England. Looking at it in that light, it can be no great matter of surprise that there is an unwillingness on the part of many members of the Church of England to receive at once into equal communion those who not merely entertain a differ- ent opinion with reference to the most solemn ser- vice of the Church, but are also bound to hold it of primary authority by a canon passed as recently as 1838. There it stands upon tlie statute-book, a solemn ordinance of the Church of Scotland, al- though an office which history teaches us was drawn up as a protest against our own, which is thought to contain passages altered most injuriously for doctrinal purposes, and in order to make a dis- tinct difference between the two services." On the same occasion the Bishop of Llandaff made the following statement : — " Whether the idea is correct or incorrect, I do not now undertake to say; but, as the Bishop of Oxford has candidly admitted, the fact is that there is a deeply-rooted SCOTCH EPISCOPAL COMMUNION OFFICES. 65 feeling in the minds of a large portion of the English Church that there are differences that are essential, both in the way of omission and in tlie way of particular expressions, between the two ser- vices." Our readers will now have no difficulty in per- ceiving why Bishop Wordsworth, and his brother Bishops, many of whom, like himself, received their orders from the English Church, were so desirous of altering the Canon " of Holy Communion," in order to be allowed to bask in the sunshine of the favour of the Church of England. Notwithstanding, however, the alteration made by the Canon of 1863, the Scotch Episcopal Church is still responsible for the doctrine contained in, and taught by, the Scotch Communion Office ; for, in the amended Canon, that office is said to have " been long adopted and extensively used, under the guidance of divers learned and orthodox Bisiiops ;" and, by the same Canon, " it is hereby enacted, that the adoption of the Book of Common Prayer as the Service Book of this Church shall not affect the practice of the congregations of this Church which now use the said Scotch Communion Office." In addition to the doctrine of Bishop Eattray, already referred to, in regard to the descent of the Divine Spirit on the elements, and the effect of that descent, he also held that the oblation of the Sacra- ment of the Supper is to be offered up, not only on behalf of the living, but also of the dead. " Then the priest," says Bishop Eattray, " maketh interces- E 66 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND sion, in virtue of this sacrifice thus offered up, in com- memoration of our union with the one great personal sacrifice of Christ, for the whole Catholic Church, and pleadeth the merits of this one sacrifice in be- half of all estates and conditions of men in it, offer- ing the memorial thereof not for the living ouli/, hut for the dead also, in commemoration of the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, and of all the saints who have pleased God, in their several generations, from the beginning of the world ; and for rest, light, and peace, and a blessed resurrection, and a merciful trial, in the day of the Lord, to all tltc faitliftd de- parted. Bishop liattray's views may also be learned from "The Aurieiit Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem," prepared by him in Greek and English, " with addi- tions from the Scottisli Ohico of 1637, and rubrics suited to modern times and uses." Said Liturgy was published after his death in 1744. In the Oblation and In^'ocation Prayers we have the fol- lowing : — "^\'(' siniii rs offer to Thee, O Lord, this tremendous and uiililnddy sacrifice, beseeching Thee that Thou wouldest not deal with us after our sins, nor reward us after our inicpiities," &c., &c. Again, after the prayer, " (Jrant that ^\•c may all find mercy and favour witli all Tliy saints, ^\ lio from the begin- ning of the world have pleased Thee in their several generations, [particularly N, whom we tliis day coni- niemorate,"] it is said, '•' Here tlie iwiest slicdl pause a while, he and the people secretly recommending those departed whom each thinhs proper. SCOTCH EPISCOPAL COMMUNION OFFICES. 67 " And then the priest shall go on as follows : — " Eemember, 0 Lord, the God of spirits and of all flesh, those whom we have remembered, and those also whom we have not remembered, from righteous Abel even unto this day : Do Thou give them rest in the region of the living, in the bosoms of our holy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whence sorrow, grief, and lamentation are banished away, where the light of Thy countenance visits and shines continually ; and vouchsafe to bring them to Thy heavenly kingdom." Bishop W. Abernethy Drummond, of Edinburgh, in writing to the Bishop of Dunkeld, says : — " I pray you to beg the clergy to give me the benefit of their prayers, and bid them also put me in their distich when I am gone (I trust) to a better world and the Eev. J. Skirnier, in his Scotch Communion Office Illustrated, states that the Eucharist Oblation is particularly adapted as an intercession on behalf of the departed faithful. Bishop Jolly's testimony is to the same effect :— "Need we," asks Bishop Jolly, "apply to the saints in paradise for their prayers ? " A. No ; they know our dangerous condition here, and their charity wants not to be desired to recommend us to God. " Q. Why do we pray for them ? " A. Because their present condition is imperfect, and therefore capable of improvement, and because they are to be judged at the last day, and will then stand in need of mercy." — Jolly's Catechism, 1829. 68 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAXD AND The same doctrine was also taught by Bishop John Skinner, who, for a long period, was Primus of the Scotch Episcopal Church. In answer to the question, " How is this Com- munion," viz., the Communion between " the Church on earth and the saints in paradise," " maintained or kept up ?" we have the following reply: — "As far as we know, by mutual prayer and thanksgiving ; tlieij, no doubt, praying for our salvation, vx blessing God for their good example, wishing the increase of their happiness, and praying for the hastening of His kingdom, that we, with all those that are de- parted in the true faith of His holy name, may have our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul, in God's everlasting glory." — SJcinner's Catechism, 1799-1837. In harmony with the above* are the views of the learned author of "The Christian Sacrifice in the Eucharist," the Eev. George Hay Eorbes of Burnt- island. They are embodied in the following propo- sitions : — I. " That the Eucharist is a material sacrifice. II. " That the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, through the operation of the Holy Ghost. III. "That the Eucharist is a sin-offering, as well as a thank-offering, and that the benefits thereof are applied, not to the living only, but also to the faithful departed." * Accordingly, to bring their Communion Office * Christian Sacrifice in the Eucharist, Part I., p. 22. SCOTCH EPISCOPAL COMMUNION OFFICES. 69 into more perfect harmony with their doctrine in regard to prayers for the dead, they altered the Office of 1636-7, (Laud's Service Book.) In that Office, as in the Churcli of England, the following words occur : — " Let us pray for the whole state of Christ's Church militant here on earth." These important words of limitation, "militant here on earth" they have erased, in order to embrace in their prayers the dead as well as the living, and have also transposed the prayer which originally was offered before the oblation, the words of institution, and the consecration prayer, and have placed it after the oblation and consecration prayer. This is considered to be the most perfect " arrangement of the parts " of the Communion Office ; because, after the " tre- mendous and unbloody sacrifice " has been offered up to God, and He has thereby been propitiated, then is the proper time to present, in connection with it, our supplications before Him on be- half both of the living and of the dead ; or, as tlie author of the Christian Sacrifice in the Eucharist expresses it, " the propitiations for the Church mili- tant on earth, and requiescent in Hades."* * Christian Sacrifice in the Eucharist, Part I., p. 21. 70 SOUKCES FROM WHICH THE SCOTCH CHAPTER VI. SOURCES FROM WHICH THE SCOTCH COMMUNION OFFICE HAS BEEN DERUUD. The Missal — Fragmenta Liturgica — Principal Baillie — Hallam — The Oriental Liturgies— The Greek Church. We come now to examine the Scotch Commxinion Office, in connection with the sources from which it has been derived, viz., the Roman Missal, on the one hand, and the Oriental Liturgies on the other. In tlie preface to his Fwrpncnta Liturgica, vol. i., the Rev. T. Hall affirms that " the Scottish Office is the Romish Missal, just as is the English Office, — that is, the Missal reformed and restored to the condition most consonant, in the judgment of either Church (for here the Churches differ) with the for- mularies of primitive antiquity. The English Office (as it now stands) was arranged from the earlier Offices of Edward, Elizabeth, and James ; as these had been arranged before by a comparison of the Missal with the Primitive Liturgies, and a subjec- tion of both to the testimony of the Word of God. COMMUNION OFFICE HAS BEEN DERm;D. 71 .... The reason for the variations that appear in the result is probably this, that Scripture has pre- vailed more over tradition in the southern (the English) Office, and tradition more over Scripture in the northern," (the Scottish.) Mr Hall's state- ment can only be taken with important qualifica- tions. It is no doubt true that the English Office was arranged from the earlier Offices of Edward, Elizabeth, and James ; but j\Ir Hall omits to state that the English Keformers, fearing lest an impro- per use might be made of certain expressions in the first Commrmion Office of Edward VI., carefully revised it ; removing everything which had a Popish tendency, or that countenanced the opinions that in the Sacrament of the Supper there was either a true propitiatory sacrifice, or intercession for the faithful departed ; while the Scotch Episcopal Church, in- stead of being satisfied with Laud's Service Book, which, in point of doctrine, A\-as substantially the same as the first Office of Edward VI., substituted for it an Office of a still more objectionable nature. The points of resemblance between Laud's Service Book and the Eoman Missal have been graphically brought out by Baillie, Principal of the Glasgow University, IQII, in his " Parallel or brief compari- son of the Scottish Lituryy with the Mass Book, the Breviary, the Ceremonial, and other Romish rituals, v)herein is clearly and shortly demonstrated that the (Scottish) Zifi'i-i/)/ is tnl.ni fnr fhr inod fart, word hy v:ord, out of lli"-r Aiit irli ri>^tiii II vrits" &c. In his preface. Principal Baillie says, — " With the Liturgy 72 SOURCES FROM WHICH THE SCOTCH of the Church of England I will not meddle. It is my only intention to consider tlie Scottish Liturgy, which the Scottish Bishops persuade the king (Charles the First) to be all one with the English. I will show that this our Service Book is taken, well near word for word, out of the sinks of Eome." Again, " The main portion of the Offertory' is the placing of the bread and wine upon the altar, and the offering of them up to God, even before the consecration, with certain prayers to be a peace- offering, that so they may be fitted for the matter of the propitiatory sacrifice following." The Church of England, detesting this abuse, plucked it up by the root, and put it far away from their Book, (Liturgy ;) but our men (the Scottish Bishops) have put it in on us in express terms," p. 32. " As for the offering of these oblations and prayers for the benefit not only of the quick, but of the dead, we see that after they have commended their oljh^tions to be mercifully received of God, and put to their back prayers for the good of the living in all de- grees and callings, they immediately subjoin 'not only their thanksgivings, but their prayers and supplications for the dead, even for the salvation of their soul.' As the Eoman mass referred to the oblation of bread and wine, and the offertory prayers upon it, to the honour of saints in heaven, to the benefit of the living, and good of the faithful who are dead, in whatever place they be, whether in heaven or elsewhere, so does our (the Scottish Ser- vice) Book. But no ways the English. They speak COMMUNION OFFICE HAS BEEN DEEIVED. 73 not of the benefit of the dead ; and the blessings they crave to the living have no reference at all to the oblation ofhrcad and ivinc : for they have plucked up by the root that pestiferous weed which yet our men have planted again in the old place, and put to the back of it our offertory prayer, after the man- ner of the Pioman mass," p. 36. " Among the omis- sions in the Scottish Liturgy none are more com- plained of than the deleting of these words of the English Liturgy in the delivery of the bread at the sacramental table, — ' and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on Him in thine heart by faith, with thanksgiving,' — a passage de- structive to transubstantiation, as diverting com- municants from carnal manducation, and directing their souls to a spiritual repast on their Saviour ; all wliich, in the Scottish Liturgy, is cut off." — Fullers Church History of Britain, 1655, pp. 161, 162. Hallam, and Malcolm Laing, testify to the same effect as Principal Baillie. " The English model," says Hallam, " was not closely followed ; the varia- tions having all a tendency towards the Eomish worship." * " Unfortunately," says Laing, " in re- ceding from the English service, these minute altera- tions approached proportionably to the Eomish :Missal."t But while there exist numerous resemblances in form and in doctrine between the Eoman Missal and the Scotch Commimion Office, there can be no doubt that one of the distinctive objectionable * Hallam, Const. Hist., iii., 427. t Laing, i., 115. 74 SOURCES FROM WHICH THE SCOTCH features of that Office, as it now stands, viz., the " Invocation Prayer," has been derived from the Liturgies of the Eastern, not of the Western Church. Accordingly, we find that Bishop Torry, in his Pas- toral Letter, published in 1846, refers the clergy and laity in his district to the Primitive Oriental Eucharistic Offices as the sources from which said Invocation Prayer and Offices have been derived. In regard to the Invocation Prayer, it is of im- portance, at the outset, to have the true state of the question set forth, — to have clear and distinct views as to the precise point at issue between the de- fenders of the Scotch Communion Office, and those who take exception to the part of it now under consideration. It is not a Prayer of Invocation for the descent of the Holy Spirit to which exception is taken, but to the special form of it contained in the Scotch Office, viz., a Prayer of Invocation of the Holy Spirit, not that the faith of the com- municant may be increased, and that all his graces may be in lively exercise ; but a prayer for the descent of the Hnly Gliost vpon tin- rlnncnff; of bread and Vjinc, " i? in the other. When we come down to the later Liturgies of St Clirysostom and St Basil, we find greater differences 76 SOURCES FROM WHICH THE SCOTCH still, forms of expression which seem to teacli and set forth a change of the elements by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them. The invocation in the Liturgy of St Chrysostom is as follows : — " More- over we offer to thee this reasonable and unbloody service, and Ave entreat, and beseech, and supplicate thee, send down the Holy Spirit on us, and on these gifts lying before us, and make (■Trolmov) this bread the precious body of thy Christ, and that which is in this cup the precious blood of thy Christ, having changed them (/^irxiietT^av) by thy Holy Spirit." The invocation in the Liturgy of St Basil is substantially the same as in that of St Chrysostom. The words liaving changed them (that is, the elements) also occur, the only difference being, tliat instead of " make this bread the precious body of thy Christ," we have " constitute (di/ahiicti) this bread the very precious body of our Lord and God and Saviour, Jesus Christ." Of the Jacobite or Syrian Cliurch, and the Armenian Church, suffice to say, that they both reject the doctrine of the Orthodox Churches regarding the union of two distinct natures in the jierson of Christ, recognising only the decrees of the lirst three general councils. They deny the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. They maintain the doctrine of the transmutation of the elements, in virtue of consecration, into the Body and Blood of Christ, the inv/bcation of the Virgin Mary, and of saints and angels, the worship of the cross and pictures, the offering of a propitiatory sacrifice in the Eucharist, and prayers for the dead. COMMUNION OFFICE HAS BEEN DERIVED. 77 The same also may be affirmed substantially of tlie Coptic and Abyssinian Churches. Whether the language of the three earliest Liturgies teaches and sets forth the doctrine of the " Eeal Objective Pre- sence," in virtue of the Invocation Prayer, or merely a relative change in the elements — a change in use and purpose — the strength of the language employed being accounted for by the fact that the fathers were in the habit of calling the signs by the names of the things signified by them — a habit justified by scriptural precedents, as, "That rock was Christ," " I am the vine," " The seven kine are seven years," " This is my body," &c., &c., may be matter of uncertainty ; but of this tliere can be no doubt, that in the Greek Church now the language is not em- ployed to denote a relative change, but a change amounting to a transubstantiation of the elements. The Oriental Church to which, from the time of tlie Non-jurors' correspondence with it to the present day, the Scotch Episcopal Church, as well as the Puseyite party in the Church of England, look with reverence, and with which they earnestly desire to be united is, as we stated in a former chapter, that which arrogates to itself the lofty appellation of tlie " One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Orthodox," or the Orthodox Eastern Church, best known by the name of " The Greek Church." If the Scotch Communion Office, then, is derived from the Oriental Churches, it will be of importance to ascertain what are the doctrines held and taught by the principal Oriental Church — the Orthodox Eastern 78 SOURCES FROM WHICH THE SCOTCH Church, the chief bishop of which is the Patriarch of Constantinople, and of wliich the Eussian Church forms part. With a view to this, I shall refer more particularly to two Confessions of Faith : — 1st, That approved by the Synod of Jassy in 1643, and attested by the four patriarchs, and called the Orthodox Confession of Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church, which Confession every pious and Orthodox Christian, who is a member of the Eastern and Apostolical Church, is, by " unani- mous and synodical sentence, ordained to read and to receive." The second Confession was put forth by the Jerusalem Synod held at Bethlehem in 1672 by Dositheus the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and hence called the " Confession of Dositheus," and was after- Avards approved by the four patriarchs and their clergy. In regard to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the Confessions above referred to teach, firstly, the doctrine of a transmutation of the elements into the true body and blood of Christ ; and, secondly, that in the Eucharist there is a propitiatory sacrifice offered for the quick and the dead. " The substance of the bread is changed into the substance of the holy body of Christ, {y.nct^ciKKiTa.i si; rriv ovai'ctu), and the substance of the wine into the substance of His precious blood." " On which account we ought to honour and worship, with the worship of Latvia, the holy Eucharist, in the same way as {ofiolui Kuduc) our Saviour Jesus himself." " After these words " (the Invocation Prayer for the descent of the Spirit COMMUNION OFFICE HAS BEEN DERIVED. 79 upon the elements) " the transubstantiation (ijfii-ov- niuai;) immediately takes place, and the bread is changed into the true body of Christ, and the wine into His true blood. The forms only by which they are visible to the sight remain, and that by divine appointment," (Orthodox Confess., Pt. I. ; Eesp. 107, pp. 180, 181.) " In the celebration of this Sacrament," says the Confession of Dositheus, (Deer. 17, pp. 457, 456, 463), "we believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is present, not figuratively, nor by a representation, nor by superabounding grace, but truly and actually^ so that after the consecration of the bread and wine the bread is changed, transubstantiated, converted, transformed into tlie true body of our Lord, which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-virgin, was baptized in Joixlan, suffered, was buried, rose again, ascended, sits at the right hand of God the Lather, and will come at a future time in the clouds of heaven ; and the wine is converted and transub- stantiated into tlie very true blood of our Lord, which, when He hung upon the cross, was poured out for the life of the world. IMoreover, we believe that the very body and blood of the Lord, which are in the sacrament of the Eucharist, ought to be honoured with supreme honour, and worshipped with the worship of Latria, (the highest degree of worship.) Those who violate this doctrine, the Catholic Church of Christ rejects and anathema- tises," (Confess. Deer. 17, pp. 457, 463.) That a propitiatory sacrifice is ofiered in the 80 SOURCES FROM WHICH THE SCOTCH Sacrament of the Lord's Supper for the living and the dead is plainly taught and set forth in the two Confessions already referred to. " This Sacrament," says the Orthodox Confession, " is a propitiation and means of reconciliation witli God for our sins, both of tlie living and the dead. It is certain that many sinners are freed from the chains of Hades, not by their own repentance or confession, as Scripture says, (Ps. vi. 5), ' For in Hades who shall confess to thee ?' but by the good works of the living, and the prayers of the Church for them, and chiefly by the unbloody sacrifice, v^^hicli the Church daily offers for all the living and the dead in common," (Confess., Eesp. 107, pp. 183, 184; also, Pt. i., Eesp. 64, pp. 132, 133.) "We believe," says the Confession of Dositheus, " that the Eucharist is a true and pro- pitiatory sacrifice offered up for all the pious, both living and dead, and for the benefit of all," (Confess., Deer. 17, p. 461.) In addition to the views above referred to regard- ing the Eucharist, the two Confessions also set forth the following doctrines : — 1. That the rule of faith is composed of tradition as well as of Scrip- ture, and not of Scripture alone. 2. That the books of Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, Eel and the Dragon, &c., are canonical books of Scripture. 3. The sep- tenary number of the sacraments. 4. Prayers for the dead. 5. The hyperdulic worship of the Virgin ■Mary. 6. The dulic worship of angels and saints. 7. The adoration of the Cross. 8. The denial of the Scriptures to the people. COMMUNION OFFICE HAS BEEN DERIVED. 81 1. In regard to the Paile of Faith — All Protestant and Evangelical Churches maintain that the Word of God, as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only infallible and authoritative rule in matters of Faith; but the Greek Church not less than the Church of Eome, holds that the Rule of Faith is composed of Tradi- tion conjointly with Scripture. On this point, the Orthodox Confession, the Confession of Dositheus, and the Synodical Letter of the Synod of Jerusalem, are full and explicit. Eeferring to 2 Thess. ii. 15, the Orthodox Confession says, " It is manifest that the Articles of the Faith have their authority and proof partly from the Holy Scripture, partly from the Tradition of the Church, and from the teaching of Synods and Holy Fathers." And again : " Some (doctrines) are delivered by the Scripture, which are contained in the divine books of the Holy Scriptures ; and there are other doctrines which were delivered orally by the Apostles, and these were declared by the Synods and Holy Fathers. And our faith is FOUNDED UPON THESE TAVO," — e'S ra. Ivo retlra. k ■jrlari; sTveti rihf^i-xiufihn. (Confess., Pt. I., Resp. 4, pp. 59, 60.) "We believe," says the Confession of Dosi- theus, "that the witness of the Catholic Church possesses no less authority than the Divine Scrip- ture ; for one and the same Holy Spirit being the author of both, it is altogether equivalent to be taught by the Scripture, and by the Catholic Church. (Confess., Deer. 2, p. 427.) I may also add that the F 82 SOUKCES FEOM WHICH THE SCOTCH Apocryplial books are held as forming part of tlie Canonical books of divine revelation. 2. The Greek Church, not less than the Church of Eonae, prohibits the general use of the Scriptures by the people. " Scripture," says the Confession of Dositheus, " is not to be read by all, but only by those who dive into the depths of the Spirit with suitable earnestness of investigation, and who know in what ways the divine Scripture is to be searched, and taught, and read. But to those who are inex- perienced, and interpret the Scriptures Avithout dis- crimination, or only according to the letters, or in any other way foreign from piety, the Catholic Church, knowing by experience the bad effects, pro- hibits the reading. So that it is permitted to every pious person to hear the Scriptures ; but to read some parts of the Scripture, and particularly of the Old Testament, is forbidden for the aforesaid and other similar reasons." (Confess., Q., et., E. 1, pp. 465, 466.) 3. In regard to the number of the Sacraments, the Orthodox Confession contains the following state- ment : " The seven Sacraments of the Church are these. Baptism, the Unguent of Chrism, the Eucha- rist, Penance, Priesthood, honourable Marriage, and anointing with oil with prayer." Again, from the same Confession, a Sacrament is " a ceremony which, under a certain visible form, acts as a cause, and brings into the soul of the faithful the invisible grace of God, instituted by our Lord, by which each of the faithful receives the divine grace." (Confess., COMMUNION OFFICE HAS BEEN DERIVED. 83 Pfc. 1, Eesp. 98, 99.) " When the priest anoints the baptized person with the holy ointment, the gifts of the Holy Spirit are poured out upon him." (Confess., Kesp. 104, p. 176.) 4. In regard to the worship of the Virgin ]\Iary, the Orthodox Confession says, "Every orthodox Christian ought to seek the intercession of the Virgin, for the intercession of tlie IMother is of much avail to obtain the good will of the Son ; and every one who desires to pay proper respect to her will recite the invocations and hymns of the Church, composed in her praise." (Confess., Pt. 1, Eesp, 42, pp. 1 1 0, 1 1 1 .) •' We believe," says the Confession of Dositheus, "that Jesus Christ our Lord is the only Mediator, but we say that in our prayers and petitions to Him the saints are our intercessors, and before all the Immaculate Mother of that very God, the Word, and the holy angels, to whose guardian- ship also we know that we are committed." (Con- fess., Deer. 8, p. 234.) " We honour the saints with two different kinds of honour : the Mother of God, the Word, with one kind, which we call hypcrclidic. For inasmuch as she is truly the servant of the one God, nay, even Mother, as having brought forth in the flesh one of the Persons of the Trinity, therefore she is extolled as beyond all comparison, excelling all the angels and saints, whence also we assign to her hyperdulic worship." (v'Trt^ov'hiK'/tv my ■xiioa- Kii^naiv,) (Confess., Quaest. 4, pp. 468, 469.) " To the Mother of God let us poor sinners earnestly run and fall down before her, crying repentantly from 84 SOURCES FROM WHICH THE SCOTCH the depth of our soul, 0 Lady, help, having compassion upon us ; hasten, we perish under a multitude of sins ; turn not thy servants away empty ; for thou art the alone hope (fiovnu e?i7r/B«) we possess." The last extract is taken from the " Service of the Para- cletical Canon to the most holy Mother of God," p. 576, as inserted in the Euchologium. 5. In regard to the mediation and worship of saints. "We maintain," says the Confession of Dositheus, " that the saints are our intercessors and mediators with God, not only when upon earth, but more especially after death, when their eyes being opened and they clearly behold the Holy Trinity, its infinite light impresses upon their minds the things which concern us." (Confess., Deer. 8, p. 435.) "With the second kind of worship, which we call dulic, we worship — that is, we honour — the holy angels, apostles, prophets, martyrs, and, in a word, all the saints." The following from page 90 of the Paracletical Service book, is one out of many prayers to the saints : " 0 father Nicholas, give me liberation from all my ills by thy intercessions; 0 blessed, by thy supplications to thy Master, save me, 0 blessed of God, for I call thee my patron ; and send down Thy aid, 0 Father, to me who call upon Thee." 6. In regard to the worship of pictures, images, and the cross, the Greek Church does not permit the worship of graven images or idols ; but she does permit and enjoin the adoration of " icons " — that is, of pictures or representations of things which COMMUNION OFFICE HAS BEEN DERIVED. 85 really exist. " An icon," says the Ortlioclox Confes- sion, is " a representation wliicli represents a true thing, which has an existence in the world ; as the icon of our Saviour Christ, and of the Virgin ]\Iary, and of all the saints." AVhat, then, is the doctrine of the Greek Church in regard to the adoration of icons and of the cross ? "Moreover," says the Confession of Dositheiis, " we worship and honour the wood of the precious life-giving cross upon which our Saviour wrought His world-redeeming passion, as also the figure of the life-giving cross, the manger at Bethlehem, the place of Calvary, the life-bearing sepulchre, and the other holy objects of worship ; moreover, the sacred Gospels, and the sacred vessels by which the un- bloody sacrifice is performed. We also worship, and honour, and kiss the icon of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the most holy Mother of God, and all the saints ; as also of the holy angels, as they were seen by some of our forefathers and prophets. And we represent the most Holy Spirit as He Avas seen in the form of a dove." (With the seventh holy Ecumenical Synod), " we anathematize those that worship either a saint, or angel, or icon, with the worship of latria, and we give the worship of latria to the Triune God alone. And we also anathematize those that say that the worship of icons is idolatry, or that do not worship them, and that do not honour the Cross and the Saints, according to the tradition of the Church." (Confess, Eesp. 4, pp. 468-474) The following in- vocations are taken from the Horologium, pp. 519- 86 SCOTCH COMMUNION OFFICE, ETC. 524 : " 0 thrice-blessed and most reverend Cross ! we, the faithful, worship and magnify thee, rejoicing in thy divine exaltation : hail, blessed wood." " 0 Cross ! the beginning of salvation ; 0 Cross ! the joy of martyrs, protect, shield, and guard those that boast in thy strength." Many more extracts might easily be given. I shall, however, only add, in re- gard to the doctrines held by the Greek Church, that the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son is denounced as heresy. We are aware that the Eussian Church has as- sumed a degree of independence, in various ways, which her priests and her members would find it difficult to reconcile with her position as an integral portion of tlie " one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Orthodox." In her chief Bishop, the late lamented Philaret, Patriarch of Moscow, she had a man of amiable dis- position, of fervent piety, and to some extent of en- lightened views ; just as, from time to time, we have had, in the Church of Eome, men like Fenelon, and Pascal, and Martin Boos, who have risen greatly above the doctrines taught by their Church ; but still it is not to the opinions of individual men, how- ever eminent, tliat we are to look in endeavouring to ascertain the real doctrines of a Cliurch, but to her own authoritative formularies and standards, the only reliable sources of information upon the subject. * * Appendix Note. CHAPTEE VII. THE REFORMED CHURCHES AND THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. Scotch Confession of 1560— Craig's Catechism, 1592— Synod of London, 1552 — Articles of the Church of England — The Con- tinental Reformed Churches— Zwingle — The Zurich Confes- sion — Consensus Tigurinus — The Belgic and Gallican Confes- sions — Cranmer — Ridley — Athanasius — Augustine — Com- munion Service of the Church of England for the Sick. The doctrine of the Eeformed Churches, in regard to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, while differ- ing widely from that taught by the Church of Eome, the Greek Church, and the Scotch Episcopal Bishops, to whom reference has been made, also differed widely from the low views entertained of that ordi- nance by the Socinians or Eemonstrants, who taught that the sacraments are mere badges of profession, and nothing more. In opposition to these views, we have the following explicit statement in the Scottish Confession of 1560, commonly called John Knox's Confession : — " We utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm sacraments to be nothing 8S THE REFORMED CHURCHES AXD else but naked and bare signs." And the West- minster Confession, wliile stating that one object of a sacrament is " to put a ^dsible difference between those that belong imto the' Church and the rest of the -world, and solemnly to engage them to the ser- vice of God in Christ," and is thus a badge of pro- fession, declares, at the same time, that " sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace immediately instituted by God to represent Christ and His benefits, and to confirm our interest in Him." In the catechism prepared by John Craig, the friend and colleague of Ivnox, which catechism was drawn up by order of the General Assembly, and sanctioned by that venerable body in 1592, we have the following : — " Ques. 71. IMw.t significth the action of the Supper ? Ans. That our sords are fed spiritually by the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Ques. 72. lllien is this done ? Ans. When we feel the efficacy of His death in our conscience by the Spirit of faith." And in opposition to the views of the " real objective presence," we have " Ques. 75. Is Chi-isfs body in the elements? Ans. Xo, but it is in heaven. (Acts i. 11.) Ques. 76. IVhi/, then, is iJie clement called Mis body ? Ans. Because it is a sure seal of His body given to our souls." The Synod of London, held in 1552, in their articles which received the sanction of Edward YI., condemned alike the Eomish doctrine of transub- stantiation and the Lutheran doctrine of consub- stantiation, and taught that none of the faithful " slioidd believe or profess a real and corporeal pre- THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACEAMENTS. 89 sence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist." In opposition to the Eomish doctrine, " that the sacraments contain the grace which they signify," and confer it " ex opere operato, or by some sort of physical or intrinsic power bestowed upon them, apart from the state of mind of the recipient, and that the Lord's Supper invariably conveys spiritual nourishment," the Synod of London de- clares, " To those who receive it worthily and with faith, the bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ." The language of Articles XXV. and xxviii. of the Church of England is equally explicit. " In such only," says Article xxv., " as Avorthily receive the sacraments, they have a whole- some effect or operation ; but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as St Paul saith." And again. Article xxviii, " The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith." The doctrine taught by the Continental Eeformed Churches on the nature and design of the sacraments is substantially the same as that which was held and taught by the Scottish Eeformers. In Article xvii. of his Sixty-seven Articles, of date 1 523, Zwingle says, " Christ who offered Himself once upon the cross is the eternally sufficient offering and sacrifice for the sins of aU believers. Whence it follows that the mass is not a sacrifice, but the commemoration of the sacrifice made upon the cross, 90 THE REFORMED CHURCHES AND and, as it were, a seal of the redemption effected by Christ." Again, in the "Expositio Chr. Fidei," he says, " The natural substantial body of Christ, in which He suffered, and in which He is now seated in heaven, at the right hand of God, is not in the Lord's Supper eaten corporeally, or as to its essence, but spiritually only." And again, " We assert, therefore, that the body of Christ is not eaten in the Supper in a gross carnal manner as the Papists pre- tend, but spiritually and sacramentally, with a de- vout, believing, and holy mind, as St Chrysostom says." The ministers of the Church of Zurich, in their "Sincere Confession," of date 1545, declare that, to believe on Christ, very God and very man crucified for us, is truly to eat the bread of Christ ; that " to believe is to eat, and to eat is to believe;" being precisely the same doctrine which was taught by Augustine centuries before. In 1549, Calvin, repre- senting the Genevan Church, proceeded to Zurich to confer with BuUinger, the successor of Zw ingle. A common understanding was come to, by which the views of the Genevan and Swiss Churches, on the subject of the sacraments, were brought into a state of perfect agreement, and the result was the publication of the Consensus Tigurinus, consisting of twenty-six articles. The views set forth in these articles are substantially the same as those taught in the Westminster Standards, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and are in direct opposition to transubstantiation, the adoration of the host, and THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 91 the local presence of the body of Christ in the Supper. The same may be said of the Heidelberg Catechism, sanctioned in 1563, and the second Hel- vetic Confession. The language of the Belgic Con- fession, of date 1563, is not so guarded as that of those to which we have referred ; but while it speaks of the natural body of Christ being eaten, it at the same time carefully excludes everything that would favour the theory of oral manducation, and expressly states that the manner of eating is not by the mouth of tlie body, but by the Spirit through faith. It has been alleged by some that the doctrine taught in the Gallican Confession, in regard to the Sacrament of the Supper, does not harmonise with that laid down in the Confessions of the other Ee- formed Churches, inasmuch as the 36th article of said Confession favours the doctrine of the local j^re- sence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper, and declares that we are nourished with the sulstancc of Christ's body and blood. ISTo doubt there is some ground for the allegation to which we have referred ; but, when taken in connection with the explanation given of the article by the Synod of France to the Swiss Churches thirteen years after, it is clear that no such doctrine was held, or intended to be taught by them. It may therefore truly be affirmed tliat the doctrine taught by the Eeformed Churches of England, Scotland, and the Continent, in regard to the sacraments, differs essentially from that of the Church of Eome, the Greek Church, the Lutheran 92 THE REFORMED CHURCHES AXD Cliurch, the Scottisli Communion Office, and the English Tractariaus. We come now to refer to the steps taken in the reign of Edward VI by the King and CouncU, to take down any altars still remaining in any of the churclies of the realm, and to "place communion tahlcs in their stead," with the reasons assigned for so doing. The following is the letter of the Council "to Bisho}) Ridley to taJcedoivn altars, and x>lace com- munion tahlcs in their stead." "Eight reverend father in God, right trusty and "well-beloved, we greet you weU. And where it is come to our knowledge that, being the altars witliin the more part of the churches of this realm already upon good and godly considerations taken down, there doth yet remain altars standing in divers others churches, by occasion whereof much variance and contention ariseth among sundry of our subjects, which, if good foresight were not had, might perchance engender great hurt and inconvenience ; we let you wit, that minding to have all occasion of contention taken away, which many times groweth by those and such like diversities, and considering that, amongst other things belonging to our royal office and cure, we do account the greatest to be, to maintain the common quiet of our realm ; we have thought good by the advice of our council to require you, and neverthe- less specially to charge and commend you, for the avoiding of all matters of further contention and strife about the standing or taking away of the said altars, to give substantial order throughout aU your THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 93 diocese, that with all diligence all the altars in every church or chapel, as well in places exempted, as not exempted, within your said diocese, be taken down, and in the stead of them a table to be set up in some convenient part of the chancel, within every such church or chapel, to serve for the ministration of the blessed communion. And to the intent the same may be done without the offence of such our loving subjects as be not yet so well persuaded in that behalf as we would wish, we send unto you herewith certain considerations gathered and col- lected, that make for the purpose ; the which, and such other as you shall think meet to be set forth to persuade the weak to embrace our proceedings on this part, we pray you cause to be declared to the people by some discreet preachers, in such places as you shaU think meet, before the taking down of the said altars ; so as both the weak consciences of others may be instructed and satisfied as much as may be, and this our pleasure the more quietly executed. For the better doing whereof, we require you to open the foresaid considerations in that our cathedral church in your own person, if you con- veniently may, or otherwise by your chancellor, or some other grave preacher, both there and in such other market towns and most notable places of your diocese, as you may judge most requisite. " Given under our signet, at our palace of West- minster, the 24:th day of Novemher, the fourth year of our reign." The following are " the considerations " referred 94 THE REFORMED CHURCHES AND to by the Council in their letter to Bishop Pddley :— " Reasons why the Lord's Board should rather he after the form of a Table than of an Altar. THE FIRST REASON. " First, The form, of a table shall more move the simple from the superstitious opinions of the Popish mass unto the right use of the Lord's Supper. For the use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon it ; the use of a table is to serve for men to eat i;pon. Now, when we come unto the Lord's board, what do we come for ? To sacrifice Christ again, and to crucify Him again ; or to feed upon Him who was once only crucified and offered up for us ? If we come to feed upon Him, spiritually to eat His body, and spiritually to drink His blood, which is the true use of the Lord's Supper, then no man can deny but the form of a table is more meet for the Lord's board than the form of an altar. THE SECOND REASON. " Item, Whereas it is said the Book of Common Prayer maketh mention of an altar, wherefore it is not lawful to abolish that which that book alloweth ; to this it is thus answered : The Book of Common Prayer calleth the thing whereupon the Lord's Supper is ministered, indifferently a table, an altar, or the Lord's board, without prescription of any form thereof, either of a table or of an altar, so that Avhether the Lord's board have the form of an altar. THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 9-5 or of a table, the Book of Common Prayer calleth it both an altar and a table. For, as it calleth it an altar, whereupon the Lord's Supi^er is ministered, a table, and the Lord's board ; so it calleth the table where the Holy Communion is distributed, with lauds and thanksgiving unto the Lord, an altar ; for that there is offered the same sacrifice of praise and tlianksgiving. And thus it appeareth that here is nothing either said or meant contrary to the Book of Common Prayer. THE THIRD REASON. " Thirdly, The Popish opinion of mass was, that it might not be celebrated but upon an altar, or at the least upon a super-altar, to supply the fault of the altar, which must have had his prints and characters ; or else it was thought that the thing was not lawfully done. But this superstitious opinion is more holden in the minds of the simple and ignorant by the form of an altar than of a table ; wherefore it is more meet, for the abolishment of this super- stitious opinion, to have the Lord's board after the form of a table than of an altar. THE FOURTH REASON. " Fourthly, The form of an altar was ordained for the sacrifices of the law, and therefore the altar in Greek is called evaiuatwim, quasi sacrificii locus. But now both the law and the sacrifices thereof do cease : wherefore the form of the altar used in the law ought to cease withal. 96 THE REFORMED. CHURCHES AND THE FIFTH REASON. " Fifthly, Christ did institute the sacrament of His body and blood at His last supper at a table, and not at an altar, as it appeareth manifestly by the three Evangelists. And Saint Paul calleth the coming to the Holy Communion, the coming unto the Lord's Supper. And also it is not read that any of the Apostles, or the Primitive Church, did ever use any altar in ministration of the Holy Com- munion. " Wherefore, seeing the form of a table is more agreeable with Christ's institution, and with the usage of the Apostles and of the Primitive Church, tlian the form of an altar, therefore the form of a table is rather to be used than the form of an altar in the administration of the Holy Communion. THE SIXTH REASON. " Finally, It is said, in the preface of the Book of Common Prayer, that if any doubt do arise in the use and practising of the same book ; to appease all such diversity, the matter shall be referred unto the Bishop of the diocese, who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same, so that the same order be not contrary unto anything contained in that book." Would that some one were to arise now in the Church of England, animated by the spirit of her early Eeformers, to sweep away the mass of ritualistic rubbish which has been accumulating during the last quarter of a century ! THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 97 The doctrines which Cranmer, Eidley, and Latimer taught from the pulpit, and through the press, they afterwards sealed with their blood. " As concern- ing the sacrament," said Cranmer, when on his trial with a view to his condemnation, " I have taught no false doctrine respecting the sacrament of the altar ; for if it can be proved by any doctor within a thou- sand years after Christ, that Christ's body is there really present, I will give over. My book was written seven years ago, and no man hath brought any authors against it." Eidley and Latimer were both charged, in the articles of impeachment drawn up against them, with affirming, and openly main- taining " that the true and natural body of Christ, after the consecration of the Priest, is not really present in the sacrament of the altar," and " that in the mass is no propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead." And for maintaining these doctrines they were condemned as heretics, adjudged to be degraded from all ecclesiastical orders, declared to be no members of the Church, and " committed to the secular power to receive due punishment according to the temporal laws." They were both condemned to be burned, and when the fire was kindled, Latimer addressed these memorable words to his brother-martyr, " Be of good comfort, brother Eidley, and play the man ; we shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out." Not a few in the Church of England are now exerting themselves to the utmost of their power, G 98 THE EEFOEMED CHURCHES AND to put out, if possible, tlie candle lighted by these illustrious martyrs. The doctrines proclaimed by Latimer and Eidley are iiTeconcilably opposed to those taught by Dr Pusey, Archdeacon Denison, and the ritualistic party. Notwithstanding of slight differences among themselves, in the way of defining the " real presence " for which they con- tend, they all agree in viewing it as an objective presence, as something united to, or in, with, or under, or conveyed by the consecrated elements. Nor does it mend the matter to call it " a spiritual presence on the contrary, it only tends to mystify and mislead, inasmuch as, by spiritual presence, they still mean an objective presence — viz., the tody of Christ present after the manner of a Spirit, which is a contradiction in terms, and differs in no material respect from the doctrine of the Church of Kome as expounded and defended by Cardinal Bellarmine. In His discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum — although not delivered in connection with the Sacrament of the Supper which had not then been instituted — our Lord proclaimed truths which are well fitted to guard us against gross or carnal vie^^'s regarding that ordinance ; for, w^hile insisting on the necessity of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He explains what is meant by so doing when He says, " He that believeth in me shall never thirst." And, again, in the 62d verse, " Doth this offend you ? What, and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend where he was before ?" As if He had THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 99 said, Do not imagine that it is a carnal eating and drinking to which I am referring, that my flesh must be locally present, that it may be orally par- taken of. No. The Son of man must soon ascend up where He was before. It is not His hodily, but His spiritual presence of Avhich I am speaking. It is the Spirit that quiclcenctli, the flesh profiteth nothing. The loords that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Here our Lord distinctly affirms, and clearly teaches, if they had but spiritual apprehension to understand Him, that it was not by local presence, or carnal contact, but by His doctrine — His Word — carried home to their hearts and consciences, with quickening power, by the Spirit, that they were to feed upon Him — the bread of life, so as that they should never perish. When our Lord says, He that lelieveth in me shall never thirst, He plainly teaches that the eating and drinking of which He was speaking, were just figurative expressions for faith. And this is the doctrine which has been taught by the Church of Christ from the earliest ages. Hence says Athan- asius, one of the greatest defenders of the Church, in primitive times, in bis commentary upon this chapter : " To how many men would His body be sufficient for meat, that this should be the food of the whole world ? Therefore He made mention of the ■ ascension of the Son of man into heaven, that He might withdraw them from the contempla- tion of the body, and that they might learn that the flesh of which He spoke was heavenly food from 100 THE REFORMED CHURCHES AND above, and spiritual nourisliment given by Him." And the greatest fatlier of the early Church — Augustine — thus speaks, " Therefore the Lord being about to give the Holy Spirit called Himself the bread which came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him, this is to eat the living bread. He ivlio helieves, cats it. AVhat is bread from the kingdom of God, but He who says, ' I am the living bread which came down from heaven :' Prepare not your mouth, hut your heart; believe, and thou hast eaten." And to show the more clearly and conclusively that this eating is an act of the soul, not of the mouth — that it is nothing more nor less than faith in Christ, drawing spiritual nourishment from the living Saviour, and the truths which He taught — Augus- tine refers to the fact that the Old Testament saints thus fed upon Christ before His appearance in the flesh, " For they did all eat the same spiritual meat, and they did all drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank of that spiritual Eock that followed them, and that Eock Avas Christ." It is of import- ance to remember that eating and drinking are just significant figuratiA^e expressions for faith, — for the act of faith by wdiich the soul feeds on a spiritually present, though bodily absent Saviour. This is all the more necessary as a spirit of sacerdotalism, or priestly carnalism, is extensively prevalent, which would transform the Lord's Table into an Altar, His ministering servants into sacrificing Priests, through whose acts the Body of Christ becomes in THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 101 some mysterious manner objectively present in, with, or under the forms of bread and wine, being "localised in the consecrated elements," in some miraculous way transcending our comprehension, and is, therefore, literally partaken of, thus limit- ing the eating of the flesh of Christ, and the drink- ing of His blood, to a participation of them actually present in the ordinance of the Supper. And it is a remarkable circumstance that these views should now prevail, to a large extent, in that Church whose communion service is about the simplest of all the Churches of the Reformation; and Avhich, as if anticipating the false doctrine above referred to, expressly guards her members against the carnal views embodied in it. In the communion service of the Church of Eng- land for the sick, we have the following injunction and instruction to the minister, " But if a man, either by reason of extremity of sickness, or by any other just impediment, do not receive the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, the curate shall instruct him, that, if he do truly repent him of his sins, and steadfastly believe that Jesus Christ suffered upon the cross for him, and shed His blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving Him hearty thanks there- for, he doth eat and drinlc the tody and hlood of our Saviour Christ, profitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouth." Thus the Church of England expressly declares that to believe in Christ, is to feed upon Him, — is 102 THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS. to eat His flesh, and to drink His blood; thus clearly teaching that it is a spiritual act — an act of the soul — an act of faith, not of sense. Thus, whether Christ is fed upon, in the ordi- nance of the Supper, or, apart from that ordinance, by the reading or preaching of the Word, Faith is the instrument by which, in either case, spiritual nourishment is drawn from Him. Hence the ex- hortation of Augustine already quoted, "Prepare not your mouth, hut your heart; believe and thou HAST EATEN," — an exhortation altogether irreconcil- able with the theory of an objective presence in the Supper — a presence "localised in the consecrated elements," altogether irrespective and independent of the state of mind of the recipient. CHAPTER VIII. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION No evidence in support of it from the Scriptures — Condemned by the most eminent of the early Fathers, and the most learned Divines of the Church of England, — 1. Irenaeus, TertuUian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Augut^tine, Jerome. 2. Bradford, Jewel, Hoadly, Whitaker, Field, Stillingfleet, Whately, Goode. Ix tlie " introduction " to the Code of Canons of the Scotch Episcopal Church, the members of the General Synod, of date 1863, make the following statement : — " The preservation of the Church's spiritual powers in the way of episcopal succession has ever marked the 'continuance' of Christians after the example of the early converts ' in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship ;' and from the constant attention shown to this ecclesiastical ar- rangement in the apostolic age, we may justly infer that it was then considered as one of those things which our Lord's Apostles were commanded to teach the nations to ' observe,' to watch over, and pre- 104 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. serve in its pure and original form. Such is the form in which has been regularly handed down the ecclesiastical authority of the Episcopal Church in Scotland." (Introduction, p. v.) The doctrine of apostolical succession is thus stated by Dr Hook in his Ttoo Sermons on the Church and the Establishment : " The prelates who, at this present time, rule the churches of these realms, were validly ordained by others, who by means of an unbroken spiritual descent of ordina- .tion derived their mission from the Apostles, and from our Lord. This continual descent is evident to every one who chooses to investigate it There is not a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon among us who cannot, if he please, trace his ovm spiritual descent from St Peter or St Paul." What this tlieory, then, asserts is, " that there has been a lineal, personal succession of validly conse- crated prelates, without which there can be now no valid or proper ministerial succession at all ;"* and, consequently, no valid dispensation of ordinances or sacraments. It has been shown, in previous chapters, that there is no evidence from the Scriptures, from the early Fathers, or the English Eefonners, in support of the allegation that diocesan Bishops are an order superior to Presbyters, de jure divino. We now affirm that there is no reliable evidence from any of these sources in support of the theory of apostolic succession. * Smyth, p. 28. ox APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 105 The apostleship was an extraordinary office suited to the exigencies of an extraordinary time. The Apostles had peculiar and formidable difficulties to contend with. The old dispensation was passing away, but the Jews were nevertheless firmly wedded to it, were determined to hold by it, and so far from being favourably disposed to the gospel dispensa- tion, which was to supersede it, scouted its claims ; and crucified the INIessiah, its Author and Founder, as a malefactor and deceiver ; so that, in proclaim- ing the gospel among the Jews, the Apostles had to contend with peculiar, and, humanly speaking, in- superable difficulties. And if difficulties existed as respects the Jews, they also existed as respects the Gentiles. They were in spiritual darkness, and preferred the speculations of their own philosophers, and the reveries of science, falsely so called, to the sublime revelations of the Godhead. The jxiculiar doctrines of Christianity were most distasteful to them. Salvation through a crucified Eedeemer was an offence to them, while the resurrection of the body appeared to them to be absiird and impossible. Now, in these circumstances, surrounded by pecu- liar difficulties, both as respects Jews and Gentiles^ it is obvious that powers of no ordinary nature be- hoved to be conferred upon those sent forth to esta- blish the new dispensation, — powers which would enable them to triumph over these apparently in- surmountable obstacles, powers necessaiy to the founding and setting up of the New Testament Church in the critical and peculiar circumstances of 106 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. the Churcli and of the world at the time; but powers which would be no longer necessary, in the case of ordinary ministers, when once the Church was established, and extended, settled, and put in order. And hence we find, in reading tlie inspired narrative, which gives an account of the founding and setting up of the New Testament Church, that extraordinary powers were conferred, that special and peculiar gifts were bestowed, and a class of extraordinary officers commissioned, and sent forth, — men who had the power of discerning spu-its, who had the gift of prophecy, and could foretell future events, who had the power of working miracles, the gift of healing, and the gift of tongues ; who were enabled to speak in languages which they had never learned, and thus go forth at once to preach the gospel to men of all kindreds, and tribes, and tongues. It was necessary that those invested with the apostleship should have seen the Lord, in order that thus they might be witnesses to the fact of His resurrection. And hence, in the election of a suc- cessor to Judas, the Church was restricted within the following limits, viz., they were to make choice of one who had companied with the Apostles all the time that the Lord went in and out among them, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that the Lord was taken up from them, that thus he might be a witness with them of His resur- rection.* The Apostles had seen the Lord, and had received * Acts i. 21, 22. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 107 tlieir commission directly and personally at His hands. This qualification appears to have been absolutely necessary, and hence, when a doubt was raised as to the validity of the Apostle Paul's com- mission as an Apostle,* he sets himself to prove that he possessed aU the necessary qualifications ; that lie had seen the Lord Jesus, for He had appeared to him, and gave him his commission ; and he appeals to the Corinthians that he had also wrought among them the signs of an Apostle. The Apostleship, then, in its leading, distinguishing features, was an extraordinary office suited to the exigencies of an extraordinary time ; and just as the office of Pro- phet, as far as the receiving of revelations of things future is concerned, ceased when John received the last message in Patmos, so the office of Apostle, in the distinctive sense of the term, ceased when the New Testament dispensation was established. And hence we find no men now who possess either the qualifications or the powers of Apostles, strictly so called — no men who have seen the Lord, and re- ceived their commission, not mediately through the hands of men, but directly from the Great Head of the Church Himself — no men who possess the gift of tongues, and the power of working miracles. In all these peculiarities of the Apostleship, the Apostles have no successors. The only part of their office in which they have successors is in the Presbyterate, or Eldership, — in other words, in preaching the gospel, and administering ordinances. * 1 Cor. ix. 1 ; XV. 7, 8, 9 ; 2 Cor. xi. 5 ; xii. 12. 108 ox APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. And they only are the successors of the Apostles, in that part of their office which remains, who preach that doctrine which they preached, iinmuti- lated and unaltered ; who proclaim that gospel which they proclaimed, and point to that Saviour to whom they pointed. The only succession worth the having is not through Popes and Prelates, — not through a mass of spurious parchments, and moral corruption, but a succession of apostolic spirit, of apostolic doctrine, and apostolic practice. " Successors," says Archbishop Whately, in his " Kingxiom of Christ," " in the apostolic office, the Apostles have none. As loiincsscs of the resurrec- tion, as clisjmvsers of viirciculous gifts, as inspired oracles of divine revelation, they have no successors. But as members, as ministers, as governors of Chris- tian communities, their successors are the regularly admitted members, the lawfully ordained ministers, the regular and recognised governors of a regularly subsisting Christian Church." In short, in the words of Dodwell, one of the most learned defenders of Episcopacy which the Church of England has e^•c■r possessed,—" The office of the Apostles jj{:r/.s7;/Y/ iritli tlie Apostles, in which office there never was any succession to any of them, except to Judas the traitor." Dodwell might safely have added that a long and infamous catalogue of Popes and Prelates, exemplifying the latter line of succession, could easily be furnished. Let us now inquire whether this doctrine of the necessity of an unbroken line of office-bearers, by ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 109 episcopal prelatic descent from the Apostles, in order to the valid dispensation of Word and Sacra- ments, was held by the early Fathers. It has been conclusively demonstrated not only by Presbyterians, but also by able and learned Episcopal divines, such as Stilliugfleet, and the late Dean of Pdpon, Dr Goode, by evidence which never has been, and never can be met, that, so far from holding or countenancing the doctrine in question, the early Fathers put upon it the stamp of their reprobation, and teach that the true test by which to try, and the true method by which to establish a claim to descent from the Apostles, is not by a mere succession of persons, but a succession and exhibition of apostolic doctrine. The following are the testimonies on this point of Irenteus, Tertullian, Gregory of Nazianzen, Ambrose, Cyprian, and Augustine. 1 . IrenjBus : — In warning those to whom he wrote against heretics, Irenajus refers to two diffei'ent kinds of succession, — a succession represented by those who had received " the sure gift of truth," and another represented by those " who are looked upon by many as Presbyters, but serve their own pleasures, and do not in their hearts make the fear of God their rule, but persecute others with reproaches, and are elated with pride at their exaltation to the CHIEF seat, and secretly do evil and say, ' Xo one seeth us.' They shall be reproved by the Word, who does not judge after outward ajapearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart. 110 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. From all such persons it behoves us to stand aloof, but to adhere to those who, as I have already observed, do hold the doctrine of the Apostles, and who, together with the order of the Presbytership {Presbyterii ordine), display sound speech, and a blameless conversation, for the edifi- cation and correction of the rest." * The succession of which Irenaeus speaks is a suc- cession of Presbyters, (of parochial Bishops, not of Prelates) ; of Presbyters who, along with the suc- cession of the Episcopate, have received, according to the good pleasure of the Father, the sure gift of truth — qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Patris ac- ceperunt. Now, it is one thing to speak of a succession of Presbyters, or Congregational Bishops, and another to admit a succession of Prelates. To admit the former is only saying in other words that God has never been mthout His witnesses ; that in every age of the Church he has had His faithful ministers. But while that is unquestionably true, it is equally true that the real and only test by which to try the spirits whether they be of God is not an unbroken chain either of Presbyters or of Prelates, every link in which must, without fail, be visibly traced up to the -Apostles, or any other conceivable succession of persons but that which is referred to by Irenaeus, viz., a succession of apostolic doctrine, of the sure gift of triUh received from the Father. * Iren. Adv. hcer. lib. iv. c. 26. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. Ill 2. TertuUian : — " Nay, even if they should do so, they will have done nothing. For their doctrine, when compared with the apostolical, will show, from its difference and contrariety, that it has neither an Apostle nor a disciple of the Apostles for its author ; for, as tlie Apostles would not have differed from one another in their teaching, so neither would the disciples of the Apostles have preached a different doctrine from that of the Apostles, unless those who were taught by the Apostles preached otherwise than they were taught. By this test, therefore, they shall be tried by those churches which, although they can produce no Apostle or disciple of the Apostles as their author, as being of much later origin, and such indeed are daily formed, yet, agree- ing in the same faith, are considered as not less apostolical on account of the consanguinity of their doctrine."* 3. Ambrose : — " if there is any Church," says Ambrose, " which rejects the faith, and does not possess the fundamentals of the doctrine of the Apostles, it is to be deserted." f And elsewhere, " They have not the inheritance, are not the suc- cessors of Peter, who have not Peter's faith." 4. Gregory of Nazianzen : — " If you consider Athanasius only as one of the number of Bishops of Alexandria, he was the most remote from St ]\Iark ; but if you regard his piety, you find him * De Praescript, c. 32. t Ambros. in Luc. lib. vi., s. 68, (quoted iu Goode's Rule of Faith, vol. ii., p. 341.) 112 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. tlie very next to him. This succession of piety- ought to he esteemed the true succession. For he who maintains the same doctrine of faith, is partner in the same chair ; hut he who defends a contrary doctrine ought, though in the chair of St ]\Iark, to he esteemed an adversary to it. This man, indeed, may have a noniinal succession, but the other has the very thing itself, the succession in deed and in truth. Or more concisely, and literally, " For to hold the same doctrine, is to be of the same throne ; but to hold an ojoj^osite doctrine, is to be of an op.- posite throne." (To fiiu yag cfioyuuf^ov Kcii oiAoS^ovosi' to iS^oyou.) " Neither," he continues, " is he who usurps the chair by violent means to be esteemed in the succession, but he who is pressed into the office ; not he who violates all law in his election, but he who is elected in a man- ner consistent with the laws of the case ; not he who holds doctrines opposed to what St Mark taught, but he who is endued with the same faith as St Mark. Except, indeed, you intend to main- tain such a succession as that of sickness succeeding to health, light succeeding to darkness, a storm to a calm, and madness succeeding to soundness of mind ! It was not with Athanasius as it is some- times with tyrants, who, being suddenly raised to the throne, break out into acts of violence and excess. Such conduct as this is the mark of adulterate and spurious Bisliops, and who are un- worthy of the dignity to which they are raised. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 113 These having no previous qualifications for their office, never having borne the trials of virtue, com- mence disciples and masters at the same time, and attempt to consecrate others whilst unholy them- selves. Yesterday they were guilty of sacrilege, to-day they are made ministers of tlie sanctuary ; yesterday they were ungodly, to-day they are made reverend fathers in God ; old in sin, ignorant of piety, and having proceeded in violence in all tlie rest, (as not being influenced by divine but human motives,) they crown the whole by exercising their tyranny upon piety itself* 5. Cyprian : — " What," asks Cyprian, wlien op- posing Stephen, Bishop of Eome, " does he mean by tradition ? Does he mean the authority of Christ in the gospels, and of the Apostles in tlieir epistles ? Let this tradition be sacred ; for if we return to this head and original of divine tradition, human error will cease. If the channel of the water of life, at first coming down in large and copious flow, should suddenly fail, should we not return to the fountain. Tliis ought the ministers of God now to do, observing, as iheir rule, the divine precepts, that if anything has tottered and shaken from the truth, it should be restored to the authority of Christ, the Evangelists, and the Apostles, and all our pro- ceedings are to take their rise there, whence all order and divine authority rise, for custom without truth is only antiquated error. Therefore, forsaking * Athanasii 0pp., vol. ii. , Appendix, Edit. Paris, 1627. Orat. in Athanas., vol. i., p. xciii., E. Benedictine Edition. H 114 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. error, let us follow the truth. Truth lives and reigns through endless ages. Neither is there with truth any distinction or respect of persons, but only that which is just it ratifies ; neither is there in the jurisdiction of truth any iniquity, but the strength and dominion, and the majesty and power of all generations. Blessed be the God of truth ! This truth Christ shows in the gospel, saying, ' I am the truth.' Therefore, if we be in Christ, and Christ in us ; if we remain in the truth, and the truth abide in us, let us hold those things which are of the truth."* 6. Augustine : — " We ought to find the Church, as the Head of the Church, in the Holy Canonical Scriptures, not to inquire for it in the varioiis reports, and opinions, and deeds, and visions of men." Again, "Whether they (ic, the Douatists), hold the Cliurch, they must show by tlie Canonical books of the Divine Scriptures alone ; for we do not say, that we must be believed because we are in the Church of Christ, because Optatus of IMilevi, or Ambrose of IMilan, or innumerable other Bishops of our communion, commended that Church to which we belong, or because it is extolled by the Councils of our colleagues, or because through the whole world, in the holy places which those of our communion freqixent, such wonderful answers to prayer, or cures happen. . . . AVherever things of this kind take place in the Catholic Cliurch, are therefore to be approved of because they take place * Epist. 74, edit. Parnel, 1589. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 115 in the Catholic Church ; but it is not proved to be tlie Catholic Church, because these things happen in it. The Lord Jesus Himself, when He had risen from the dead, . . . judged that His disciples were to be convinced by the testimonies of the Law and tlie Froiilids and the Psalms. . . . These are the proofs, these the foundations, these the supports of our cause. We read in the Acts of the Apostles of some who believed, that they searched the Scrij)- tures daily, whether those things were so. What Scriptures but the Canonical Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets ? To these have been added the Gospels, the Apostolical Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John."* Having thus seen that the doctrine in question, as held by modern High Churchmen, received no countenance from the fathers of the early Church ; let us now inquire what were the views entertained on the subject by the early fathers of the Church of England. A long list of testimonies by learned and distinguished men might easily be produced, — as Bradford, Jewell, HaU, Whitaker, Hoadly, Eiuia, .Stilliiigiieet, &-c, &c. Eirst, we shall give the judgment of John Brad- ford, who was burned at Smithfield, in the reign of Mary. In his examination before Bishops Gardinei', and Bonner, Archdeacon Harpsfield having brought forward the doctrine of the succession of Bishops, as an essential and testing point, Bradford rej)lied, * August. Contr. Donat. Ep. (vulg. De uuitate eccles.) c. 19. Op. torn. ix. col. 372, 73. 116 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. " You say as you would have it ; for if this point fail you, all the Church that you go about to set up will fall down. You will not find in all the Scrip- ture this your essential point of the succession of Bisliops. In Christ's Church Antichrist will sit : — The ministry of God's "Word and ministers be an essential point. But to translate this to the Bishops and their succession, is a plain subtilty. And therefore that it may be plain, I will ask you a question, — Tell me, whether that the Scripture knew any difference between Bishops and ministers, which ye call priests, (Presbyters) ? Harpsfield : No. Bradford : Well, then, go on forward and let us see what ye will get now by the succession of Bishops ; that is, of ministers, which can be under- stood of such Bishops as minister not, but lord it. Harpsfield : I perceive that ye are far out of the way. Bradford : If Christ or His Apostles being here on earth had been required by the Prelates of the Church then, to have made a demonstration of that Church by succession of such High Priests as had approved the doctrines which He taught, I think Christ would have done as I do, that is, (He would) have alleged that which upholdeth the Church, even the verity, the Word of God taught and believed, not by the High Priests which of long time had persecuted it, but by the Prophets and other good simple men, which perchance vvere counted for heretics of the Church, which Church was not tied to succession, but to the Word of God."* * Fox's Acts, &c., vol. iii., p. 293, &c. Ed. 1641. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 117 "The true visible Cliurcli," says WhitC; Bishop of Ely, " is named Apostolical, not because of local and personal succession of Bishops, (only or princi- pally), but because it retaineth the Faith and Doctrine of the Apostles. Personal, or local suc- cession only, and in itself, maketh not the Church Apostolical, because hirelings and wolves may lineally succeed lawful and orthodox pastors, (Acts XX. 29, 30,) even as sickness suceecdeth health, and darkness light, and a tempest fair loeather, as Gregory Nazianzen af&rmeth.* " For that ye teU so many fair tales about Peter's succession, we demand of you, (says Bishop Jewel), wherein the Pope succedeth Peter ? You answer, he succeeded him in his chair; as if Peter had been some time installed in Eome, and had solemnly sat all day with his triple crown, in his Pontificali- hus, and in a chair of gold. And thus, having lost both Eeligion and Doctrine, you think it suffi- cient, at last, to hold by the chair, as if a soldier that had lost his sword, M'ould play the man with his scabbard. But so Caiaphas succeeded Aaron; so wicked Manasses succeeded David; so may Antichrist easily sit in Peter's Chair." f " Truth of Doctrine," says Field, " is a necessary note whereby the Church must be known and discerned, and not ministry or succession, or anything else, without it." | * Bishop White's Works, p. 64. Ed. 1624. t Defence of Apol. Ed. 1609, p. 634. X Field on the Church. Book ii. c. 6. 118 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION". In demonstrating the irrelevancy of Bellarmine's argument, founded upon the testimonies of the early Fathers, Whitaker says, "This argument proves not that the succession of persons alone is conclusive, or sufficient of itself; but only that it avails when they had first proved {from the Scrip- tures) that the faith they preached was the same faith which the Apostles had preached before them. Faith, therefore, is as it were the so^d of the succes- sion ; which faith being wanting, the naked succes- sion of persons is like a dead carcase without the SOUL." * " I am fully satisfied," says Bishop Hoadly, " that till a consummate stupidity can be happily estab- lished, and universally spread over the land, there is nothing that tends so much to destroy all due respect to the clergy, as the demand of more than can be due to them ; and nothing has so effectually thrown contempt upon a regular succession of tlie ministry, as the calling no succession regular, but ivhat was uninterrtq^ted ; and the making the eternal salvation of Christians to depend upon that uninterrupted succession, of which the most learned must have the least assurance, and the unlearned can have no notice, but through ignorance and credulity." -f " If they preach Christ" says Bishop Hall, " they are Pastors and Doctors allowed by Christ. We stand not upon circumstances and appendances of * Whitaker's Works, vol. i., p. 506. Ed. Genev. 1610. f Buck's Theol. Diet., Art. Succession. ON ArOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 119 the fashions of ordination, manner of choice, attire, Titles, maintenance; but, if for substance these, (viz., they ivho preach Christ) be not true Pastors and Doctors, Christ had never any in His Church since the Apostles left the earth." * The last testimony which I shall cite from Church of England Divines is that of Stillingfleet. " AVhat becomes, then," he asks, " of our unquestion- able line of succession of the Bishops of several Churches, and the large diagrams made of the Apostolical Churches with every one's name set down in his order, as if the writer had been Clarenccaulx to the Apostles themselves ? Is it come to this at last that we have nothing certain but what we have in the Scriptures ? and must then the tradition of the Church be our rule to interpret Scripture by ? An excellent way to find out the truth, doubtless, to bend the rule to the crooked stick, to make the judge stand to the opinion of his lacquey, wliat sentence we shall pass upon the cause in question ; to make Scripture stand cap in hand to tradition to know whether it may have leave to speak or no. Are all the great outcries of Apostolical tradition, of personal succes- sion, of unquestionable records, resolved at last into the Scripture itself by him (Eusebius) from whom aU these wrong pedigrees are fetched." The probability against such a pedigree being established is well-nigh infinite. The very first link in the chain is doubtful. There is no reKable evi- * Hall's Apol. against Browaists, p. 31. 120 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. dence to show that Peter ever was at Eome ; or, granting that he had been at Rome, and had a suc- cessor, no evidence to show who that successor was. In regard to this latter point, the early Fathers and divines of the Church of England are hopelessly divided among tliemselves. The chain is purely an inductive one, and there- fore one flaw would prove fatal to the validity of the whole. It is a chain from which " Whichever link you strike Tenth or ten-thousandth breaks the chain alike." Stillingfleet shows that the boasted line of suc- cession is defective, ambiguous, partial, and con- fused ; that as respects Jerusalem and Antioch, it is far from clear ; as regards Eome, that it is muddy as the Tiber ; and that, as regards Alexandria, where it is clearest, and seems most free from doubt, the succession is Presbyterial. Eusebius, who attempted, at an early period, to trace the line of succession, and who is a great authority with High Churchmen, tells us that, in doiug so, he had " to tread a solitary and untrodden way, and could nowhere find footsteps of any who had passed before ;" and speaking of Paul and Peter, and the Churches planted by them, he confesses that, as to their successors, it is hard to find out who they were, unless those mentioned by Paul himself in his epistles, thus bringing us back to the Scrip- tures as the only reliable source of information on the subject.* * Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., lib. iii., c. 4. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 121 To attempt to trace the line of succession " is to follow the scent of the game into the wood of anti- quity, where it is easier to lose one's-self than to find that of which we are in pursuit." What Stillingfleet says in regard to the want of reliable information as to many of the places in which the Apostles are said to have laboured, may also justly be said in reference to their successors, — ■ instead of undoubted lists, " we have nothing but the forgeries of later ages to supply vacuity," fur- nished by " historical tinkers who think to mend a hole where they find it, and make three instead of it." * As we come down the stream, the succession be- comes muddy indeed. Common decency prevents us from describing such links in the chain as J ohn X. ; John XI. ; Alexander VI., &c. A darker portrait of many of those through whom the mysterioiis spiritual virtue is said to have de- scended cannot be drawn than that presented by Cardinal Barouius, the celebrated Eoman Catholic historian, the Confessor of Clement VIII., tlie Curator of the Vatican Library, and the author of the " Annales Ecclesiastici," in twelve folio volumes. He tells us that Bishops were frequently elected by the infiuence of the most abandoned women of Eome ; and that false Popes, their paramours, were thrust into the chair of Peter ; and that these false Popes have a place in the Catalogues of the Popes of Rome. The description, however, can be * Irenicum, p. 296. 122 ox APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. given with greater propriety under the veil of a dead language. It is thus given by Baronius himself : — " Quae tunc fades sandae Ucclesiae Romanae ! quam faedissima ciim Bomae dominarentur potentissimae aeque et sordidissimae mcretrices ! quarum arbitrio mutarentur sedes, darentur Episcopi, et quod auditu Jwrrenditm et infandum est, intruderentur in sedem Petri earum amassii Pseudo-Pontifices, que non sint nisi ad consicjnanda tantum tempora in catalogo Romanorum, Pontificum Scripti. Quis enim d scortis Imjusmodi intnisos sine lege Icgitimos dicere posset Bomanos fuisse Pontifices ? As regards the Church of England, not a few of the links are of very doubtful canonical value, Plegmund, Archbishop of Canterbury, was ordained by Pope Formosus, all of whose ordinations were declared null and void by his successor Stephen VI., and also by Sergius III. Chicliley, also Archbishop of Canterbury, was ordained by Gregory XII. Now, Gregory was one of three claimants of the Popedom, and was after- Avards deposed by tlie Council of Constance, and declared to be no Pope at all, but a mere pretender. The ordinations of Bishops, by these two Arch- bishops, extend over half a century, certainly quite enough to vitiate the boasted line of succession, and to render it canonically worthless. Even granting the validity and integrity of the chain of succession, it no more follows that prelatic Bishops are successors of the Apostles, as such, or strictly so called, than that the Marquis of Bute, in ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 123 virtue of undoubted lineal descent from his ancestor, wlio was Premier in the reign of George III., is either, dejure or de facto, Prime Minister of Great Britain. The chain, however, is so far from being either vahd or whole, that the late Archbishop Whately was not speaking without warrant when he affirmed " that there is not a minister in all Christendom who is able to trace up, with any ap- proach to certainty, his own spiritual pedigree." Parochial Bishops — that is. Presbyters — have ex- isted in the Church of Christ in all ages ; but, of prelatic or diocesan Bishops, the apostolic age, and that following, knew nothing. For the faithful and zealous evangelical ministers of the Church of England we entertain great respect. We bid them God-speed in their labours. Would they were multiplied tenfold ; but as respects the diocesan Bishops of that Church, however eminent many of them may be for piety, however earnest in worlv, and distinguished for learning, if their claim to rank as ministers of Christ, is made to deiocnd ri.pon the figment of a pretentious lineal prelatic descent from the Apostles, we have no hesitation in saying that, as far as any such claim is concerned, it must be said of them, as was said of the children of the priests, the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai, " These sought their KEGISTER AMONG THOSE THAT WERE RECKONED BY GENEALOGY, BUT THEY WERE NOT FOUND : therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood." (Ezra ii. 62.) CHAPTER IX. CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT. Difference of Opinion among Episcopal Authors — Council of Trent — Provincial Assembly of London in 1653 — Joannes INIaj or — Fordon — Forbes — Bellarmine — Leighton's Zion's Plea against Prelacy. The ablest divines of tlie Cliurcli of England who have written on the subject of Church government, are far from being agreed among themselves. Some of them hold that the order of Bishop is superior to that of Freshyter, jure apostolico, but not juris divini; some, that it is superior cle jure posiiivo, and others that it is superior, by a prudent arrangement of the magistrate for the sake of convenience and good order; while in the Council of Trent, where the subject was keenly debated, great diversity of opinion prevailed, — the Spaniards insisting that Bishops were superior to Presbyters dejure divino, and the Eomish party holding, with Lanetius, General of the Jesuits, Prelates, jure canonico, to be merely from the Pope's authority. CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT. 125 The following conclusions, gathered from an examination of the ancient Romish, Greek, and African Churches, have been thus expressed by "The Provincial Assembly of London," in 1653 : — " 1. That there was a time wlien Presbyters did govern by common council, and did ordain without Bishops. So saith Panormitan, Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam, et Ordinabant Sacredotes. " 2. That whole nations have been converted to the faith, and governed for hundreds of years witli- out Bishops. This conclusion is abundantly proved by D. Blondel, sect. 3, de Ordinationibus, where he tells us that Joannes Major, de gestis Scotorum, lib. ii., cap. 2, saith, Per Sacerdotes, et Monachos sine Episcopis Scoti in fide eruditi : That Joannes Fordonius saith. Ante Palladii adventum, habebant Scoti fidei Doctores, ac Sacramentorum Ministra- tores Presbyteros solummodo vel Monachos, ritum sequentes Ecclesire Primitiva. The Scots were Christians two hundred and twenty years and more without Episcopal government. Tlie like he proves of the Goths and French. For brevity sake, we refer the reader to the author himself " 3. That in Egypt, when the Bishop was absent, Presbyters did consecrate. " 4. That in Alexandria, for about two hundred years, the Presbyters constituted and ordained their Bishop. "5. That, though by the Canons of the Church the power of Presbyters in ordaining was restrained, yet 126 CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT. it was the judgment of antiquity, that every Pres- byter hath actum privmrn, and an inward power to ordain, and that, though his power was impedited by the Canons, yet it was not utterly extinguished. " 6. That when a Presbyter is made a P)ishop, he hath no new power conferred upon him, but only his former restraints and impediments ai'e removed, as saith Aureolus. " 7. That the Chorepiscopi for a certain space did ordain of their own authority, without receiving authority from the Bishop. Afterwards (though tliey were mere Presbyters), yet notwithstanding, by the leave of Councils, had liberty, with the Bishop's licence, to ordain. " 8. That to this day it is the opinion of Schoolmen and Canonists, that the Pope may give liberty to a Presbyter to ordain. From whence, saith Dr Forbes, it evidently foUoweth, Ordinationem (ju;p per solos Presbyteros peragitur non esse de Juil' \ iiio in- validam neque Ordinationem esse de jure Divino ita propriam Fpiscoporum, ut non possit valide peragi per solos Presbyteros : That is, That ordination which is by Presbyters alone is not by divine riglit invalid, neither is ordination so proper by divine right to a Bishop, that it may not be done (even in the opinion of l*a})ists themselves) by Presbyters alone. For otherwise the Pope could not commit ordination unto Presbyters. For Bellarmine saith expressly, In jure divino non potest Papa dispensare : The Pope cannot dispense in things that are by divine riglit. And Aureolus saith, Ea qnoi sunt ordinum CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT. 127 omnes recipiunt immediate h Christo, ita quod in potestate nullius imo nec Papae est ilia auferre ; qute sunt autem jurisdictionis, potest ea Papa sus- pendere. ISTow, then, from hence we may arg-ue. " That which by divine authority is to be done only by Bis],iops, that neither Bishops, nor Councils, nor Pope can commit to Presbyters that are not Bishops. Nam in jure divino Papa non potest dispensare. But (according to the judgment and practice of antiquity) the Pope may give the liberty and power of ordaining to Presbyters that are not Bishops; and Bishops also may do the like. Therefore the liberty and power of ordaining is not by divine right belonging to Bishops only, but may be law- fully done by others, the Papists themselves being judges." * That Presbytei's are an order in the Church, de Jure divino, is admitted by Papists and Episcopalians; but that diocesan or prelatic Bishops are so, can never be proved from the AVord of God. That they are of advantage, as a matter of jDrudential arrange- ment for the sake of government and good order, there is nothing in the history of the Church to prove. On the contrary, history furnishes ample evidence to show that the Church has no need of them whatever. Dr Leigliton, father of the Archbishop, puts this clearly and forcibly in his " Zion's Plea against Pre- lacy," and therefore with his summary we conclude. * Jus Divinum Ministerii Anglicani, Ed. 1654, Appendix, pp. 14042. 128 CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT. "Where tlie Spirit recountetli by name all the sorts of ministry, ordinary and extraordinary, of his own appointment (Eph. iv. 11), there is not one word of such a lording ministry, which the Spirit would not have concealed, but undoubtedly set them out with all their titles and prerogatives, if there had been any such superior offices of his appointment and approving. Is it a likely thing that God, who appointed the temple and the taber- nacle, should be so punctual in every particular of His service under the law, and that He would con- ceal His more especial officers and their offices under the gospel ? Would He remember the bars of the ark, and pass by the j)illars of His Church ? Would He appoint the least pins of the house, and forget the master builders ? Would He there men- tion the snuffers of the lights, and here pass by the great lights themselves ? Or, would He there remem- ber the besoms and ashpans, and here not once men- tion Bishops and Archbishops ? This were^ — -« y-f-qct oQav x.cti ret f/.iyeo.ci vx^uQotii — to look to Small things, and overlook the great things. Is it true that a silly ignorant woman tells us in the gospel, that when the Messiah cometh He would tell us all things ? (John iv. 25.) And yet He speaketh never one word of His special offices. Sure these cannot agree. " From the same place of the Ephesians it will appear that such Bisliops and their dependencies are superfluous, therefore they should have no place in God's house. The consequence is clear, because CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT. 129 there is a necessary use of everything that hath any use in God's house. "Nihil tarn necessarium quam cognoscere quid sibi sit necessarium — there is nothing so necessary, saith a father, as to know what is necessary or of use. Now that there is no use of them, it is cleared thus : — " Those officers without which the Church of God is fivlly built up and brought to complete perfection of unity, are not of any use in God's house. " But without the function of Lord Bishops, Arch- bishops, &c., the Church of God is fully built up and brought to complete perfection of unity, witness Eph. iv. 11-13. " Therefore Lord Bishops, Archbishops, &c., are of no use in God's Church. The learned have used the same argument against the Pope, the Church of God being built up and perfected without him ; therefore, he should not be. The argument is every way as good as against these Bishops and every such officer in God's house, without the whicli His house is complete, as against the Pope ; for it cannot be said of those Bishops, as the Lord said of the ass. The Lord hath need of them, (Matt. xxi. 3.)" I CHAPTER X. THE DOCTEINE OF THE EOYAL SUPREMACY, AND THE SPIKITUAL IXDEPENDENCE OF THE CHURCH. Debates in the Westminster Assembly— Coleman — Ligbtfoot, Sel- den, Gillespie — The Thirty-Seventh Article of the Church of England — The Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth — The Irish Articles — Latimer — Cranmer — Usher — John Livingstone — Alexander Henderson — Sir EoundeU Palmer — Dr Ball. " The princes and powers of the world are more jealous than they need to be of the Church's strength ; and yet (which is a secret judgment of God) they have not been afraid to suffer Babylon to be built in lier full strength : ' There were they in great fear, where no fear was ' (Ps. liii. 6) ; for when all shall come to all, it shall lie found that the gospel and true religion is the strongest bulwark, and chief strength for the safety and stability of kings and states." — Gillespie's Sermon lefore the House of Commons, of date March 27, 1(344. One of the ablest treatises in defence of the spiritual freedom of the Church of Christ which the world has yet seen is the learned and valuable work on the Divine Eight of Church Government, put forth by Ministers of the City of London, on the 1st Decem- THE DOCTRINE OF THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. I3l Ler 1646, wliile the Westminster Assembly was yet sitting ; a third edition of which, somewhat aug- mented, was called for in 1654.* The circumstances which called it forth were the struggles which were then being carried on between the Parliament of England and the Westminster Assembly in regard to the nature and limits of the power of the Civil Magistrate on the one hand, and the Church on the other ; the Parliament insisting upon their right to an Erastian control over the Church, and the Assembly, while acknowledging the power of the Civil JMagistrate to a certain extent circa sacra, nobly and resolutely refusing to acknowledge his right to any power or jurisdiction whatever mi sacris. The determination of the Parliament to assume and e.xercise jurisdiction in spiritual matters came out very strongly on various occasions, and in divers manners ; as, for instance, in the matter of suspen- sion " of scandalous and ignorant persons " from the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, in the matter of the Church's right to ordain ministers in the exer- cise of her own divinely- conferred powers, and in the matter of appeals, not frniu the iii/erior ecclesias- tical judicatories to the higher, which the Cliurch admitted and provided for, but from the liighcst Ecclesiastical Court to the Paliament, by whom, or l)y whose Commissioners, judgment was finally to be given. It is evident that the power thus claimed * Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastioi ; or, the Divine Eight of Church Government asserted and evidenced by the Holy Scrip- tures. By sundry JMiuisters of Christ within the City of London. 132 THE DOCTRINE OF THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. by the Parliament virtually obliterates all distinc- tion between things civil and sj)iritual, as it practi- cally hands over to the Civil Magistrate all authority and jurisdiction whether in things civil or ecclesi- astical, temporal or spiritual, and is therefore abso- lutely incompatible with the proposition laid down by the Westminster Divines in Chapter xxx., Sec- tion 1, of the Confession of Faith. That proposition is as follows : — " The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His Church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the Civil Magistrate." This noble proposition, so clear and explicit in its terms — with the three subsequent sections- relative to the power of the keys in the matter " of Cliurch censures " — was the battle-field on which the Erastian controversy was mainly car- ried on in the Westminster Assembly. As the principle upon which the Assembly pro- ceeded was to ground all their propositions on the Word of God, and thus to fortify them by Divine authority, the Erastians, finding that it was impos- sible for them to attain their desired end unless they could successfully appeal to the same infallible standard, made a bold attempt to justify the con- trolling power which they claimed for the Civil Magistrate over the Church by a reference to 1 Cor. xii. 28 — " And God hath set some in the Church, first, apostles ; secondarily, prophets ; thirdly, teach- ers ; after that miracles ; then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." The term governments, in the foregoing passage, they THE DOCTEIXE OF THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. If 3 contended had a reference to Christian ^Magistrates, who Averc thus, jure divino, in virtue of tiieir otiice as Magistrates, rulers or governors in tlie Christian Church. This was the position taken up and con- tended for by Coleman and Lightfoot in the As- sembly, and by the rector of Chesilhurst, Mr Hussey. In his sermon before the House of Commons on the 3Uth of July 1645, Coleman says : — 3. " Lay no iiwre lurdcn of governmnil /'jkhi lite slioidders of ministers than Christ hatli itlainhj laid ujjon them. The ministers have other work to do, and such as will take up the whole man, might I measure others by myself. It was the King of Sodom's speech to Abraham, ' Give me tlie persons ; take thou the goods.' So say I, Give us doctrine ; take you the government. As is said, liight Honour- able, give me leave to make this request in the behalf of the ministry, Give us two things, and we shall do well — learning and a competency." 4. "A Christian iiunilsf mtr, ns a (Jirislliin magis- trate, is a governor in the C/mrch. Christ has placed government in His Church, (1 Cor. xii. 28.) Of other governments, beside magistracy, I find no insti- tution ; of them I do, (liom. xii. 1,2.) I find all government given to Christ, and to Clirist as ^Medi- ator, (Eph. i. 22, 23.) I desire all to consider it. To rob the kingdom of Christ of the magistrate, and His governing power, 1 cannot excuse ; no, not from a kind of sacrilege, if the magistrate be His." As put by Hussey, the Erastian principle appears 134 THE DOCTEINE OF THE EOYAL SUPREMACY. in its most unqualified form, and may be summed up and expressed in tlie latter of the two following propositions : — 1. "All government is given to Christ as Ifedi- ator ; and, 2. " Christ, as Mediator, has placed the Christian magistrate under Him, and as His vicegerent, and has given him commission to govern the Church." The arguments advanced by Coleman in his ser- mon, and also by Hussey, as -well as by Selden, the leader and champion of the Erastian party, were thoroughly demolished by Gillespie in his " Brotherly ]''.xariiiuation" of said sermon — in his Nihil Bespoti- (h's, being his reply to Coleman's attempted defence ; in his Ilale Audis; and, more especially, in his immortal Tvork — Aaron's Rod Blossoming, in which he demonstrates the untenableness of the views of Selden, Coleman, and Hussey, and which contains one of the most learned, conclusive, and exhaustive refutations of the Erastian theory which the world has ever seen. In refuting the doctrine of the Erastians, Gillespie enters into an elaborate investigation into " the nature and extent of the Mediatorial sovereignty of Christ," distinguishing between His Headship over the Church, and his Kingly authority, as the eternal Son of God, over the nations, and clearly showing that the doctrine that the magistrate " holds his ofiice of, under, and for Christ, as He is Mediator, and doth act vice Christi, as Christ's vicegerent," has no Avarrant whatever in the ^^^ord of God ; while it THE DOCTEINE OF THE ROYAL SUPEEMACY. 135 is equally clear from the Word of God that magis- tracy, as well as all other things, has been put in subjection to Christ, and that the magistrate, as such, is to use his office and authority so as to be serYiceable to Christ and His cause, and promotive of the interests of His Church in the world. " The distinction," says Gillespie, in concluding the argu- ment in his iI/«/c And is, "of the twofold kingdom of Christ — an universal kingdom, whereby He reign- eth over all things as God, and a special economical kingdom, whereby He is King to the Church only, and ruleth and governeth it — is that which, being rightly understood, overturneth, overturneth, over- turneth, the Erastian principles." There are two primary principles, a right under- standing of which is necessary in order to scriptural views on this important subject — First, The Head- ship of Christ over the Church ; and second. His Kingly authority over the nations. 1. Christ is Head of the Church, which is His body — His media- torial kingdom strictly and properly so called. From that great doctrine springs the spiritual independ- ence of the Church — as respects the power conferred upon Church officers on the one hand, and the rights and liberties of the Christian people on the other. 2. Christ, as the eternal Son of God, is Prince of the kings of the earth, and Governor among the nations. He has, also, as the Lord's anointed, by express appointment and donation by the Father, had all things put under Him — nothing excepted, magistracy specially included, to be subservient to Him in pro- 136 THE DOCTRINE OF THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. moting the interests of His Churcli — His kingdom in the world. And from that great doctrine iiows the duty of nations and their rulers to own the kingdom of Christ and to advance its interests. Wherever the light of Eevelation comes this duty is obligatory, at all times and in all circumstances. The two doctrines are brought before iis in the Scriptures as closely related. As for instance, in the following passages : " And hath put all things xmdev His feet, and gave Him to be the Head of all things to the Church." "As thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eter- nal life to as many as Thou hast given Him." " All power is given unto Me in heaven and on earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations." The mean- ing of these passages being, not that dominion is founded in grace, or that magistracy derives its origin from Christ as Mediator, but that magistracy, which is an ordinance of God, for the public good and His own glory, has been put in subjection under Christ, to be serviceable to Him in promoting the interests of His kingdom in the world. Our reform- ing fathers understood well the important relation in which the two doctrines stand to each other ; and hence, in the preface to the Directory of Govern- ment by the Westminster divines, and approved by the General Assembly of our Church, the two doc- trines are brought before us in their close and inti- mate relationship, as they are presented in the word of God. " Jesus Christ," say the Westminster divines, " upon whose shoulders the government is, THE DOCTRINE OF THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 137 whose name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, tlie mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace ; of the increase of whose government and peace there shall be no end ; who sits upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and justice, from henceforth, even for ever ; having all power given unto Him in heaven and earth by the Father, who raised Him from the dead, and set Him at His own right hand, far above all principalities, and power, and miglit, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, and put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the Head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fulness of Him that fiUeth all in all : He being ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things, received gifts for His Church, and gave officers necessary for the edification of His Church, and perfecting of His saints." From the beginning of her history, the Eeformed Church of Scotland evinced the greatest solicitude to distinguish between the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions ; and to her sense of the great import- ance of having "the marches ridd between them" was owing, in a great measure, her spiritual inde- pendence ; while the viewing of these jurisdictions as collateral, and not co-ordinate and distinct, and the union of them in the person of the Sovereign, formed the greatest barrier to the scriptural refor- mation of the Church of England. It has been 138 THE DOCTRINE OF THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. justly said by Eowe, when speaking of the Eefor- mation in Scotland, " That the Eeformation of Eeli- gion came in otherwise to Scotland than in other parts, because the Queen, who then had the autoritie, being a malicious enemie to God's truth, thought that she should suppresse the Protestants in this kingdom e by the bringing in of Frenchmen to help the Papists, who were upon her syde. Yet the Lord disappoynted her ; and she dieiug, the work of Eeformation prospered ; and the ministers that were took not their pattern from any Kirk in the world ; no, not fra Geneva itself ; but laying God's word before them, made Eeformation according thereunto, both in doctrine first and then in dis- cipline, when and as they might get it overtaken. But in other places (as England) the Eeformation coming in by tlie autoritie of the magistrate, nothing could be gotten done but according to the magis- trat's desire ; whilk hes been the cause why other kirks, professing the same trueth with us, yet had never the sinceritie of discipline amongst them, Avhilk is the thing that verie few magistrats or great personages (who would have absolute and imlimited autoritie and power to doe what they will, both in the State tyi-annicallie, and in the Kirk Autichris- tianlyke) can away with." * The desire on the part of the Church to have the sphere of the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdic- tions clearly defined was not peculiar to the period of the second Eeformation. The illustrious men * Rowe's History, Wodrow Society Ed., p. 12. THE DOCTRINE OF THE EOYAL SUPREMACY. 139 who -were honoured by God to lay the foundations of the Church at the first Eeformation Avere not in- sensible to its importance, because they felt that without " the marches " between the two jurisdic- tions " being ridd," the spiritual independence of the Church could not be maintained. The right of the Church to call and hold Assemblies they firmly insisted on ; and while Knox and his brother Ee- formers maintained and taught that the Civil Magis- trate had important duties discharge circa sacra, such as protecting, defending, and fostering the Cliurch, they would tolerate no jurisdiction or autho- rity in sacris ; and hence the noble declaration of Knox, in Avriting to the people of England from Geneva, in 1559, " That if the Icing would nsurp any other authority in GocVs religion than hecomcth a mem- her of Christ's hody, that first he he admonished ac- cording to God's word ; and after, if he contemn the same, that he he siihject to the yohe of discipline, to Avhom tliey — the ministers — shall boldly say, as Azariah the High Priest said unto Uzziah, King of Judah, ' It is not lawful for thee, Uzziali, to offer incense, but it appertaineth to the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn it : pass out, therefore, for thou hast offended, which thing shall not redound to thy glory. " In the General Assembly of 1565, Sessio 4*'°' the Church, while remitting civil things to the magis- trates, asserted her right to try, in the Ecclesiastical Courts, those guilty of adultery, &c. &c., and " to purge herself of all sic notorious malefactors." 140 THE DOCTIUKE OF THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. The views wliicli the early Eeformers held on the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church and of the State, respectively, were afterwards clearly and fully embodied in the Second Book of Discipline, in the following among other propositions : — " The Kirk, in the last sence, has a certean powar granted be God, according to the quhilk it uses a propre jurisdiction and government exercit to the comfort of the haill Kirk. This powar eccle- siastical is a powar and authoritie granted be God tlie Father, throw the Mediator, Jesus Chryst, unto sic wlia has the speciall government of tlie Kirk committed to them, be lawfull calling, according to the word of God. " The polecie of the Kirk, flowing from this powar, is an ordour or form of spirituall government, exercit be the members apointed thairto be the word of God, giffen be Chryst unto His office-bearers, to be usit for tlie weill of the haill bodie of the Kirk " This power and policie ecclesiasticall is different and distant in the awin nature fra that power and polecie quhilk is callet civill, aperteinand to the civill government of the comoun-weill ; albeit they be bathe of God, and tend to a end, gift' they be rightly usit; to wit, to advance the glore of God, and to haiff guid subjects. " For this powar ecclesiasticall flowes immediately from God, throw the Mediator, Jesus Chryst, and is spirituall, nocht haifhng a teniporall head on erthe, bot only Chryst, the spirituall King and Governor THE DOCTPJNE OF THE KOYAL SUPEEMACY. 141 of His Kirk, now in glorie within the heavenes, at the right hand of His Fathar. " Therefor, this powar and polecie of the Kirk sould lein upon the Word immediatlie, as the onlie ground thairof, and sould be takin from the pure fonteans of the Scripture ; heiring the voice of Chryst, the onlie King of his Kirk ; and therefor sche sould be rewlit be his lawes alleanerlie. It is a tytle falslie usurpit be Antechryst, to call himselff Head of the Kirk, and aught nocht to be attrebutit to angele or man, of what esteat soever he be, saving to Chryst Jesus, the onlie Head and Monarche of His Kirk. "The civill power is callit the Powar of tlie Sword ; the uther is caUit the Power of the Keyes." In 1582 the General Assembly transmitted the following remonstrance to the King, viz. : — That your Majesty, by advice of some counsellors, is taught to take upon your Grace that spiritual power and authority which properly belongs to Christ as only King and Head of the Kirk, the ministry and execution thereof to such as bear office in the ecclesiastical government of the same; so that in your Grace's person some men preases to erect ane new Popedome as though your Majesty could not be full king and head of this Commonwealth unless alsewell the spiritual as temporal sword be put in your hand — unless Christ be bereft of His authoritie and the two jurisdictions confounded which God 142 THE DOCTKINE OF THE EOYAL SUTREMACY. has divided, whicli directly tends to the wrack of all true religion." In the same Assembly (Sessio 16) the following article, among others, Avas read and allowed, "as meit to be proponit. 1. Seeing tlie spiritual jurisdiction and government of the Kirk is ui'anted be God the Father throw our ]\Iediator, Jesus Christ, and given only to them that preacliing, teaching, and overseeing, bear office Avithin the same, to be exercised not be the in- junctions of men, but be the only rule of God"s Word. That the Act of I'arliament concerning the liberty and jurisdiction of the Kirk be so plainly declared and enlarged that hereafter none other of Avhatsoever degree, or under wliatsoever pretence, have any colour to ascribe or take upon them any part thereof, either in placing or displacing of mini- sters of God's AVord in spiritual livings or offices, without the Kirk's admission, or in stopping the mouths of preachers, or putting them to silence, or taking upon them the judgment in trial of doctrine, or in hindering, staying, or disannulling the censures of the Kirk, or exempting any offender therefrom." The same doctrine was taught and contended for by Henderson, Gillespie, and all the worthies of the second Keformation. And upon the accession of Charles TL, the Scottish Parliament resolved — Act. XV., 7th February, 1G59 — that, before accept- ing the King, he should agree "that all matters civil be determined by the Parliaments of this kingdom, and all ecclesiastic matters by the General Assembly of this Kirk." THE DOCTKINE OF THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 143 Had the doctrine so clearly laid doAvu in the Second Book of Discipline, and in the Thirtieth Chapter of the Confession of Faith — these great authorised "subordinate standards" of the Church of Scotland — been adhered to, instead of being set aside and trampled under foot, the memorable Disruption of 1843 could not possibly have taken l^lace. In England matters were widely different. In- stead of the marches between the civil and ecclesiastical judicatories being ridd, the Sovereign claimed the exercise of both, and, in repudiating the jurisdiction and universal headship of the Pope, assumed the title of Supreme Head of the Church for himself. A certain amount of resistance was .for a time presented by the clergy to the assumption of so sacred a title ; but at length the Convocation of Canterbury, and subsequently the Convocation of York, agreed to admit the claim and accept the title, with the reservation proposed by Archbishop Warliam — quantum per legem Christi licet (so far as the law of Christ permits) — a qualifi- cation which, when proposed, was offensive to Henry, but which was afterwards accepted by him on being reminded that after he had succeeded in finally settling matters with the Pope the restrictive provision could easily be repealed. That the early Picformers of the Church of Eng- land would have ordered matters otherwise than was done is evident from their writings. Indeed, there was no material difference as regards either 144 THE DOCTRINE OF THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. doctrine or discipline between the views enter- tained by them and by the continental and Scotch Eeformers ; but they found it impossible to over- come the repugnance of Henry, and afterwards of Elizabeth, to a Church possessing independent jurisdiction in spu'itual matters. What can be more distinct, in regard to the sole Headship of Christ as respects the Church, which is His Body, than the following article, from "the Confession of England" inserted in Jewell's Apology (1562):— " Art. 4. We believe that there is one Church of God ; . . . . and that this Church is the Kingdom, the Body, and the Spouse of Christ ; that Christ ALONE is the Prince of this Kingdom ; that Christ ALONE is the Head of this Body ; and that Christ ALONE is the Bridegroom of this Spouse." Latimer, who possessed in a great degree that fearlessness which was so characteristic of John Knox, laid down, clearly and boldly, in his dis- courses before the King and the Court, the line of demarcation between the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, insisting on the necessity of carefully keeping them distinct, and warning them to beware " of making a mingle-mangle of them," a warning the neglect of which has been most disastrous to the Church of England. In the Thirty-seventh Article of the Church of England the following clause of limitation was inserted : — "Whereas we attribute to the Queen's Majesty THE DOCTRINE OF THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 145 the chief government, by which titles we under- stand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended ; we give not to our princes the minister- ing either of God's Word or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify : but that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly princes in holy Scriptures by God Himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers." The clause in " the Injunctions " referred to in the Thirty-seventh Article is as follows : — " And further, her Majesty forbiddeth all manner her subjects to give ear or credit to such perverse and malicious persons, which most sinisterly and malici- ously labour to notifie to her loving subjects, how by words of the said Oath {the Oath of Allegiance to her Majesty) it may be collected, that the Kings or Queens of this Eealm, possessors of the Crown, may challenge authority and power of Ministry of divine service in the Church, wherein her said subjects be much abused by such evil-disposed persons. For certainly her Majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any authority than that was challenged and lately used by the said noble Kings of famous memory. King Henry the Eighth and King Edward the Sixth, which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Eealm, that is, under God K l-iG THE DOCTPJNE OF THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner OF PERSONS born within these her realms, dominions, and countries, of what estate, either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be, so as no other foreign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them. And if any person that hath conceived any other sense of the form of the said Oath, shall accept the same Oath with this interpretation, sense, or meaning, her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such in that behalf, as her good and obedient subjects, and shall acquit them of all manner of penalties contained in the said Act, against such as shall peremptorily or obstinately take the same Oath." The Irish Articles are still more explicit, inas- much as the qualifying or limiting clause extends to and includes, not only doctrine, but also govern- fiicnt and discijjHnc. It is thus expressed : — " The King's jMajesty, under God, hath the sove- reign and chief power, within his realms and dominions, over all manner of persons, of what estate, either ecclesiastical or civil, soever they be ; so as no other foreign powers hath or ought to have any superiority over them. "We do profess that the supreme government of all estates within the said realms and dominions, in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as temporal, doth of right appertain to the King's Highness. Neither do we give unto him hereby the administration of the Word and Sacraments, OR the power of the keys ; but the prerogative only, which we see to have been THE DOCTEINE OF THE KOYAL SUPEEMACY. 147 always given unto all godly princes in holy Scrip- ture by God himself; that is, that he should contain all estates and degrees committed to his charge liy God, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, within their duty, and restrain the stubborn and evil-doers with the power of the civil sword." In his Aaron's Rod Blossoming, when discoursing of the power and privilege of the magistrate in things and causes ecclesiastical — what it is not, and what it is — GiUespie cites the Articles of the Irish Church in support of his argument against the Erastians, and refers to them as " Articles of Faith famous among orthodox and learned men in these kingdoms," and which " do plainly exclude the magistrate from the administration of the Word and Sacraments, and from the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven." * To these Articles the Westminster Assembly were probably more indebted than to any other compen- dium of Christian doctrine. Ussher, who was second to no theologian of his time, and who then, as Arch- bishop of Armagh, presided over the Irish Church, had clear views in regard to the line of demarcation between the civil and spiritual jurisdictions. These are brought out with great distinctness in his speech, delivered in the Castle Chamber of Dublin, concern- ing the Oath of Supremacy, in the following passage (pp. 3, 4, 5) : — " God, for the better settling of piety and honesty among men, and the repressing of pro- faneness and other vices, hath established two dis- * Aaron's Hod Blossoming, Chap. viii. 148 THE DOCTRINE OF THE EGYAL SUPREMACY. tinct powers upon the earth: the one of the leys committed to the Church ; the other of the sword, committed to the Civil Magistrate. That of the keys is ordained to work upon the inward man, having immediate relation to the remitting or retain- ing of sins, (John xx. 23.) That of the sword is appointed to work upon the outward man : yielding i:)rotection to the obedient, and inflicting external punishment upon the rebellious and disobedient. .... When St Peter, that had the keys committed unto him, made bold to draw the sivord, he was commanded to put it up fMatt. xxvi. 52), as a weapon he had no authority to meddle withal. And on the other side, when Uzziah the king would venture upon the execution of the priest's office, it was said unto him, " It pertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense," (2 Chron. xxvi. 1 8.) Let this, there- fore, be our second conclusion : that the power of the sword and of the keys are tivo distinct ordinances of God ; and that the prince hath no more authority to enter %ipon the execution of any part of the priest's function than the priest has to intrude upon any part of the office of the prince." It is evident, from Cranmer's examination before Brokes, Bishop of Gloucester, the Pope's sub-dele- gate, that he understood the title " Supreme Head of the Church," in the sense in which Owen explains and defends it in his animadversions on a treatise THE DOCTEINE OF THE ROYAL SUPEEMACY. 149 entitled Fiat Lvx* viz., as excluding tlie jurisdiction of any and aU foreign potentates, and especially as against the Pope's claim to universal headship and supremacy. During his examination, Cranmer was interrogated thus by Dr Martin, one of the King's Commis- sioners : — Martin — Now, sir, touching the last part of your oration, you denied that the I'ope's Holiness was supreme head of the Church of Christ. Cranmer — I did so. Martin — Who say you, then, is supreme head. Cranmer — Christ. Martin — But whom hath Christ left here in earth His vicar and head of His Church ? Cranmer — Nobody. Martin — Ah! Why told you not King Henry this, when you made him supreme head ? And now nobody is. This is treason against his own person, as you then made him. Cranmer — I mean not but every king in his own realm and dominion is supreme head, and so was he supreme head of the Church of Christ in England. Martin — Is this always true ? And was it ever so in Christ's Church ? Cranraer — It was so. After this, Dr Martin demanded of him, WIio was supreme head of the Church of England ? " Marry," * Tbe production of Cane, a Franciscan Friar. 150 THE DOCTRINE OF THE EOYAL SUPREMACY. quoth my lord of Canterbury, " Christ is the head of this member, so He is of the whole body of the universal Church." "Why," quoth Dr Martin, " you made King Henry VIII. supreme head of the Church." "Yea," said the Archbishop, "of all the PEOPLE of England, as well ecclesiastical as temporal." "And not of the Church?" said Martin. "No," said he ; " for Christ is only head of His Church, and of the faith and religion of the same. The king is head and governor of his people, which are the visible church." " What ! " quoth Martin, " you never durst tell the king so." "Yes, that I durst," quoth he, " and did, in the publication of his style, wherein he was named supreme head of the Chin-ch ; there was never other thing meant." It must, however, be admitted that, in Cranmer's replies before the Council, there is, to say the least of it, a seeming inconsistency. Certainly they are not for a moment to be compared to the manly and nnmistakeable utterances of Alexander Henderson, in his correspondence with Charles I., when he says, " Such an headship as the kings of England have claimed, and such a supremacy as the two Houses of Parliament crave, witli the appeals from the supreme ecclesiastical judicatory to them, as set over the Church in the same line of subordination, I do utterly disclaim, upon such reasons as give myself satisfaction ; although no man shall be more willing to submit to civil powers, each one in their own place, and more umvilling to make any trouble than myself." THE DOCTRINE OF THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 1 5 1 In the same letter Henderson gives his ]^.Iajesty to understand that he was far from being satisfied with the condition of the Church of England. " Learned men," he says, " have observed many de- fects in the Eeformation of the Church of England, as, that it hath not perfectly purged out the Roman leaven ; that it hath depraved the discipline of tlie Church, by conforming it to tlie civil policy ; that it hath added many Church ofifices higher and lower than those instituted by the Son of God, which is as unlawful as to take away offices warranted by the Divine Institution, and other the like, which have moved some to apply this saying to the Church of England, Midti ad 'pcrfedionerti pervenircnt, nisi jam se pcrvcnisse credcrent."* As originally put forward by Henry, and re- asserted by Elizabeth, the claim to supremacy over the Church proved a stumbling-block to not a few of the clergy. And in order to meet the scruples known to be entertained by many, the " Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth " (already referred to), containing limita- tions similar to those embodied in the Articles, and explaining tlie modified sense in which the doctrine of the IJoyal Supremacy over the Church was to be understood, were issued, and instead of the phrase, " the Supreme Head of the Church," the expression "Supreme or Chief Governor" was substituted. Had "the Queen's Injunctions," and the limiting clause in Article 37, been held and declared by formal legal authoritative enactment as qualifying * Second Letter to Charles I. 152 THE DOCTRINE OF THE EOYAL SUPREMACY. the doctrine of the Eoyal Supremacy to the extent specified by John Livingstone in his examination before the Council at Edinbiirgh, in December 1662 ; and had the right of the Cliurch to call and hold her councils and assemblies, irrespective of "the commandment and will of princes," been admitted and secured, along with the proper representation of the congregations in the Church Courts, hoAvever much Presbyterians might disapprove of her form of government, they would doubtless be disposed to admit that the Erastianism of the Church of England was well-nigh cast out of her ; but the melancholy fact is, that "the Queen's Injunctions," and the limiting clause in Article 87 were practically inope- rative, of no real value, altogether powerless in delivering the Church from the Erastian grasp of the sovereign, by which she is rendered utteily help- less in determining matters of doctrine, discipline, and government ; cannot possibly reform herself, has no power to separate the lepers from the clean ; and therefore the only possible remedy is to root up the doctrine of the Eoyal Supremacy, as far as mat- ters sjnritual are concerned, as a tree not of God's planting but of man's, whose fruit has been evil, and that continually, and thus, by unqualified abolition, to make a clean sweep of it. Nothing can be more deplorable than the present condition of the Church of England. We have the melancholy spectacle presented of the Evangelical clergy clinging to the doctrine of the Eoyal Supremacy — in other words, Erastianism in its grossest form — as their very sal- THE DOCTRINE OF THE ROY.VL SUPREMACY. 153 vation. We have the Eitiialists, on tlie one hand, transforming her into a vast recruiting establishment for tlie Church of Eome ; and we have the Eation- alists, or Broad Church party, on the other, endea- vouring to turn her into a huge Noah's Ark, whose excellency is reckoned in proportion to its capacity to receive beasts clean and unclean aUke ; to receive into its comprehensive embrace ministers and mem- bers of all varieties of doctrinal views and opinions, allowing each and all to disport themselves accord- ing to their pleasure, unrestrained by any fear what- ever of creeds or confessions. When Livingstone was before the Council at Edin- burgh, the Lord Chancellor addressed him thus : — " The Council looks on you as a suspect person, and therefore thinks it fitting to require you to take the oath of alleadgeance. You know it and have con- sidered it ? Mr Livinfjstonc — Yes, my Lord. Lord Chan. — The Clerk will read it to you. (He reads it.) Now that you have heard it read, are you free to take the oath ? Mr Livincjstone — My Lord, I doe acknowledge the King's Majesty (whose person and government I wish God to bless) to be the only lawful supreame Magistrate of this and all other of His Majesty's dominions, and that His Majesty is the supreame civill governour over all persons and in all causes, as well ecclesiastick as civill ; but for the oath as it stands in terms, I am not free to take it. Lord Chan. — I think you and we agree as to the oath ? 1 54 THE DOCTRINE OF THE ROYAL SUPREJIACY. Lord Advocate — My Lord Cliancellor, Your Lord- ship doth not observe that he useth a distinc- tion that the King is the supreame civill governour that he may make Avay for the co-ordinate power of the Presbyterie. When before the Council, John Livingstone gave ample evidence that he knew well how to " ridd the marches between the civil and ecclesiastical juris- dictions " — in other words, how to render to Caesar the things which are CiBsar's, and to God the things which are God's. This he did by two clear and distinct declarations : — L " My Lord, I doe indeed believe and confess that Jesus Christ is the only Head of His Church, and that He only hath power to appoint a govern- ment and discipline for removing of offences in His (own) house, which is not dependent upon civil powers, and nowayes wrongs civil powers. But withall, I acknowledge His IMajesty to have a cumu- lati"\'e power and inspection in the house of God for seeing both the tables of the law keeped ; and that His IMajesty hath all the ordinary power that was in the Idngs of Israel and Judah, and in tlie Chris- tian emperors and kings since the primitive times, for reforming, accmxiing to the Word, what is amiss." 2. " I have always been of that judgment, and am, and wiU be, that His IMajesty is supream gover- nour, in a civil way, over all persons and in all causes." I have said that the melancholy fact is that the THE DOCTRINE OF THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 155 limiting clause in Article 37 relative to the Eoyal Supremacy has been practically useless. A far more melancholy fact, however, is that tlie doctrine of the Eoyal Supremacy, which originally was so distasteful to many of the clergy — against which they protested as an invasion of the prerogative of Christ, the great and only Head of the Church; which was submitted to in hope of being able at some future time to obtain such modifications as would bring the doctrine into harmony with the Scriptures ; which many of them interpreted as binding them to nothing more than a repudiation of the jurisdiction and headship of the Pope — is now clung to by the Evangelical party in the Church of England as their defence and glory, the corner-stone on which the Church, as established by law, not only rests, but ought to rest, as its legitimate and desirable basis. A great deal has been said of late about tlie recent celebrated utterance of a well-known statesman on the doctrine of the Eoyal Supremacy ; but we need not be surprised to find statesmen coming forth thus to defend Erastianism in its grossest forms, Avhen such men as Dr H. ]\I'Neile, formerly of Liverpool, now Dean of Eipon, not only cling to the Eoyal Supremacy, but pronounce glowing panegyrics upon it as the " grand defence " of England. " The history of England," says Dr M'Neile, " since her grand protest and separation, supplies a bright con- trast (to the Papal nations) ; and if, tln'ough over- weening pride in her supposed indefeasible liberties 156 THE DOCTRINE OF THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. and unarrestible progress, she removes lier grand DEFENCE — THE EOYAL SUPREMACY IN ALL CAUSES, ECCLESIASTICAL AS WELL AS CIVIL — slie wiU, in my opinion, imperil the very privileges she now idolises, and supply another illustration of the sacred proverb that pride goeth before a fall." That the doctrine of the Eoyal Supremacy should exercise such a lamentable influence over the minds of such men as Dr M'Neile is one of the strongest evidences of its seductive and blinding effects upon those Avho have been brought up under its baleful shadow. How the spiritual independence of the Church can be best secured is a question of the greatest importance. During the Ten Years' Con- flict, those who constituted the majority of the Church of Scotland, and contended for her indepen- dence when imperilled, were told, both by the Court of Session and by leading members of her Majesty's Government and of the Opposition, that in order to obtain the sj)iritual freedom struggled for, those who valued it ought to retire from the Establishment, and occupy the platform on which the dissenting and non-Established Churches stood, as by so doing the independence in spiritual matters which they insisted on could alone be enjoyed ; but several years after, views the very opposite were proclaimed from the same bench of the Court of Session, and it was boldly stated, in the most un- qualified terms, that no such independence could in any case be conceded ; that the Established Church possessed no intrinsic jurisdiction in spiritual mat- THE DOCTRINE OF THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 157 ters, but solely by derivation from the State ; while non-established Churches, having had no jurisdic- tion, either civil or spiritual, conferred by the State, were without any such authority at all, being mere voluntary associations, whose proceedings were liable to be reviewed by the Civil Courts equally as those of any society, club, or coterie in the kingdom. It has generally been taken for granted that all Erastian control on the part of the State would cease were establishments of religion to be abolished. This, however, is a mere assumptio.n. Were there no Established Churches in the land, the question would still remain, — What standing is the Church of Christ entitled to among the nations of the earth, and how is her spiritual independence to be acknow- ledged and maintained ? Principles have been laid down by our judges on the bench, as for instance in the Culsalmond case, previous to the Disruption of 1843, and in the Cardross case, after the Disruption, which would warrant the interfer- ence of civil rulers with any Church whatever, whether Established or non-Established. The mere disappearance of an Establishment is no security whatever, in or by itself, that the Church which has been disestablished shall be secure in the enjoyment of spiritual freedom. This has been well put by Dr Buchanan in his admirable " History of the Ten Years' Conflict."* " The ground that the Church has received a civil * Ten Years' Conflict, vol. i., p. 21. 158 THE DOCTEINE OF THE EOYAL SUPREMACY. establishment is by no means the only one on which the State may claim a right to control her spiritual freedom. Nor is it the simple renunciation of such an establishment that will suf6.ce to protect the Church from the encroachments and usurpation of the civil power. The only ground on wliich the Church can have any real security for the permanent maintenance of her peculiar rights and liberties, is the recognition by the State of those fundamental principles evolved in the preceding summary, as being inherent in the very essence of the Church — as entering into its very constitution as a divine society, a kingdom not of this world. Let these be acknowledged, and then, whether established or un- established, the Church will be left to act within her own province, undisturbed by external assaults ; but let these fundamental principles be denied, or not admitted, and the want of an establishment will be no protection whatever against the invasions of the secular government." Had the spirit of Cranmer, Latimer, Eidley, Hooper, Jewel, &c., continued to influence and direct the movements of the Church of England, we can- not but believe, taking into account the advances which have been made since their days in civil liberty, that matters, as respects spiritual freedom, would now be far different. The keys which the Head of the Church, as Master in His own house, committed to His servants before ascending to the upper sanctuary — to be used by them during his bodily absence for certain purposes defined by His THE DOCTRINE OF THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 159 Word, that His House might be preserved free from all unauthorized intrusion, and his worship kept sacred and entire, instead of carefully guarding, they have sinfully surrendered, unto the hands of those who have no right whatever to their possession, keys, sooner than surrender which, our covenanting fore- fathers yielded up their lives. Hence the noble testimony of brave old Cargill, in his last speech on the scaffold — " As to the causes of my suffering, the chief is not acknowledging the present autho- rity as it is established in the supremacy and ex- planatory act. This is the magistracy I have re- jected — that which is invested with Christ's power. Seeing that power taken from Christ, which is His glory, and made the essential of an earthly crown, seemed to me as if one were wearing my husband's garments after he had killed him." Since the above was written, the debate on the doctrine of the Royal Supremacy, in connection with the consideration of the Bill for disestablishing the Irish Church, has taken place in the House of Com ■ mons. There can be no doubt that, as far as the appli- cation of the doctrine to the United Church of England and Ireland is concerned, that the exposi- tion given by Sir Eoundell Palmer is historically correct ; while that given by Mr Disraeli and Dr Ball evinced defective knowledge of the principle which they professed to state and defend. Sir Eoimdell Palmer, however, introduced another prin- ciple, which lays the Church entirely at the mercy 160 THE DOCTRINE OF THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. of the Sovereign, viz., the Erastian controlling power, which he insisted on as a necessary condition of the State consenting to establish the Church — the ChurcKs Freedom being the price of the Church's Establishment. The Church of Scotland has always not only admitted but asserted the supremacy of the Sovereign over all Persons in the realm, eccle- siastics not less than civilians, and also the right of dealing with and deciding all ecclesiastical questions in which the destination of property is the primary element involved, as far as said destination is con- cerned ; but the right of the Civil Courts to interfere with her decisions in spiritual matters she has never conceded; and when, in 1843, in violation alike — as she believed then, and believes still — of Scriptural principle, constitutional privilege, and legal right, an attempt was made to deprive her of her spiritual freedom, rather than consent to surrender it, she renounced the benefits of an Establishment, and, under protest that she had been unrighteously dealt with as respects the liberty wherewith she had been invested by her great Head, and which was solemnly gu.aranteed to her by the law of the land, withdrew from connexion with the State to execute, as best she might, by the blessing of her Divine and only Head, the great commission Avith which He had charged her. It is evident that Mr Disraeli and Dr Ball grounded their views mainly upon what is expressed in the 37th Article, overlooking the limitations relative thereto, set forth in the " Injunctions of THE DOCTRINE OF THE KOYAL SUPREMACY. 161 Queen Elizabeth." Of the 37th Article, as it at present stands, I do not, of course, approve ; but at the same time I believe that as formidable a bar- rier, to say the least of it, to the Scriptural Eefor- mation of the Church of England is reared by the 2 1st Article, which declares that " General Councils may not be gathered together without the com- mandment AND WILL OF PRINCES." There can be little hope for a Church in such circumstances. Mr Disraeli seems to imagine that such a prohibitory power on the part of the Sovereign is one of the guarantees for purity of doctrine. Had he affirmed the contraiy, he would have been nearer the truth.* Our own great Eeformer, John Knox, and his noble associates, understood this well, when they said, " Take away from us the Freedom of our Assem- blies, and you take away the blessed evangel." The only man, perhaps, whose opinion as a lawyer as to the real meaning and bearing of the doctrine of the Supremacy of the Crown is entitled to rank along with that given by Sir Koundell Palmer is * The utter helplessness of the Church of England in this re- spect may be shown by the case of Whiston, a Professor of Mathe- matics at Cambridge. The Convocation met to consider his case in 1711. They found him guilty of " several damnable and blas- phemous assertions against the doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity," and accordingly condemned his doctrine with a view to befitting censure. But the Queen refused to ratify their judgment, and the consequence was that they were utterly helijless, while the heretic, having had the shield of the Sovereign cast over him, defied them. Judge Hale lays down the law relating to the Church of England as follows : — " If ecclesiastical laws are not confirmed by Parlia- ment, the king may revoke and aimul them at pleasure." L 162 THE DOCTRINE OF THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. Lord Cairns. Of his great ability and strict con- scientiousness no one can for a moment entertain a doubt, but in regard to this particular question he may, unconsciously, have a bias. Wlien the bill reaches the House of Lords, it will be interesting to have his exposition of the Article relative to the Royal Supremacy ; but we believe that it will be difficult for him, consistently with the history of the doctrine, to give any exposition of it substan- tially different from that of Sir Eoundell Palmer. We pronounce no opinion here on the question of the disestablishment of the Irish Church; but, apart from that question altogether, it is truly sad to see men like Dr Ball insisting and demanding that the grasp of the Sovereign, which has so long prevented anything like freedom of action on the part of the Church, shall on no account be relaxed, when the Articles of the Irish Church, which were mainly drawn up by the greatest theologian who has ever adorned her, expressly denies to the Sovereign the right of ordering the doctrine or administering the discipline and rjovcrnmcnt of the Church — the right, not only of the ministry of the Word, but also of " THE POWER OF THE KEYS." APPENDIX. PEOPOSED CORPOEATE EE-UNION or THE ROMAN CATHOLIC, GREEK, AND ANGLICAN CHURCHES. The Association for promoting the union of Christen- dom was originated in the year 1857. " On the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary " (I quote from the preface to a volume of sermons, "printed for certain members of the Association,") certain Roman Catholics, Greeks, and Anglicans met in the parish of St Clement Danes, Strand, in the City of Westminster — having that morning previously, at their respective altars, asked Almighty God's blessing upon their contemplated plans ; — and, after duly arranging 164 APPENDIX. its organisation, and drawing up the well-known Paper of the Association, thirty-four persons formally enrolled themselves members. A DIGNITARY or the Scottish Episcopal Church was in the chair. The follow- ing resolution was moved by a distinguished Roman Catholic layman, seconded by a well-known clergyman of the Church of England, supported by members of the Greek Church and others, and was unanimously adopted : — " That a Society, to be called the Association for the promoting the Unity of Christendom, be now formed, for united prayer that visible unity may be restored to Christendom ; and that the Paper now before this meeting be sanctioned, printed, and circulated, as the basis upon which this Society desires to act." Since that day, the Association has steadily increased, as will be seen from the following statement : — On September 8, 1858, a year after its formation, there had enrolled themselves members, .... 675 On September 8, 1859 (in addition), . . .833 1860 ,, ... 1060 1861 „ ... 1007 1862 ,, ... 1393 „ 1863 „ . . .1202 1864 „ ... 929* Thus making a total of . . . 7099 Of these the great majority are members of the Church of England ; but there are nearly a thousand belonging to the Latin Communion, and about three * The record for 1864 is incomplete, many of the returns not having been received when the above list was made out. APPENDIX. 165 hundred members of the Eastern Church. The Paper of the Association has been translated into Latin, French, Greek, and ItaHan, and sent abroad in various ways and by different channels. Local secretaries, both at home and in foreign countries, are being increased, and many correspondents are labouring energetically, and with considerable success in the cause. The Association has been approved in the highest ecclesias- tical quarters, both amongst Latins, Anglicans, and Greeks. The Holy Father gave his blessing to THE Scheme when first started, and repeated that blessing with a direct and kindly com- mendation TO one of the English secretaries, who was more recently granted the honour of a SPECIAL interview. The ex-Patriarch of Constanti- nople, and other Eastern Prelates, have approved of the Association, and so likewise have several Bishops, both Anglican and Koman Catholic, in England, Ireland, and Scotland, as well as on the Continent and in America. To the volume of Sermons "by members of the Association," being "members also of the Roman Catholic, Oriental, and Anglican Communions," is pre- fixed the following dedication to the " Most Blessed and most Holy Father in Christ, the Pope ; " the most Blessed and most Holy Father in Christ, the Archbishop and Patriarch of Constantinople, and the most Honourable and most Reverend Father in Christ, the Archbishop of Canterbury, " in hope of the future Union of the flock of Christ, and of the universal diffusion of the Catholic Faith throughout the whole world." 166 APPENDIX. Beatissimo, et Sanctissimo in Christo Patri PlO, DiviNA Providentia, Pap^ Nono, S. Sedis Apostolic^ Episcopo ; Necnon Beatissimo et Sanctissimo in Christo Patri, sophronio, Archiepiscopo Constantinopolitano, Nov^ RoM^ Patriarcile OEcumenico ; Sed et Honoratissimo et Reverendissimo in Christo Patri, Carolo Thom^, Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi, ToTius Anglic Primati, In Spem Unionis Future Gregis Christi, Heu ! Tam Diu in Seipso Partiti, Et in Expectatione Universalis Fidei Catholics Per Totum Orbem Diffusionis, QuAM Concedat Dominus Deus Omnipotens. Amen. The Association has thus received the blessing of the Holy Father, the Pope, — the approval of the ex- Patriarch of Constantinople, and other Eastern Prelates, as well as of several Bishops, both Anglican and Roman Catholic, in our own and other countries ; while, at the meeting at which it "was originated," and its organisation arranged, "A DIGNITARY OF THE Scottish Episcopal Church was in the Chair. Each member of the Association is to pray daily "for the Corporate Re-Union" of these three great bodies which claim for themselves " the inheritance of the APPENDIX. 167 Priesthood and the name Catholic," and in addition to daily prayer for the above object, each Priest comes under an " obligation " to offer, " at least once in three months, the Holy Sacrifice for the same intention." * Associations which seem more befitting a Popish than a Protestant Church, are becoming numerous in the Church of England. Take two of them by way of illustration. First, " The Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ." This " Confraternity was inaugurated on the first Thursday in Advent 1862, to consist of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and members of Brotherhoods and Sisterhoods, and Communicants of both sexes being in communion with the Church of England." The objects of the Association are — - " 1. The honour due to the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament of His Body and Blood. 2. Mutual and special intercession at the time of, and in union with, the Eucharistic sacrifice. " The Superior General, the Superiors of Wards, and certain Priests-associate, annually elected, form the Council." The doctrine taught may be judged of from the title of the sermon which was preached before the Confra- ternity on the occasion of the first anniversary. It is as follows : — " The Union of the Natural and Super- natural Substances in the Holy Eucharist, analogous to that of the Human and Divine Natures in the Incarna- tion." * The Pope has since, we believe, withdrawn from the Associa- tion tlie light of his countenance. 1.68 APPENDIX. The other Association to which I refer is called the Society or Company of the Love of Jesus. Eleven Addresses were delivered before the Society by Dr Pusey during " A Retreat," the subject of the last Address being on "Prayers for departed Com- panions of the Society." To the Address Dr Pusey has prefixed the following dedication : — " To the Foundress of the Society of the Holy Trinity and of the Company of the Love of Jesus, and, under God, the Restorer, after three centuries, of the religious life in the English Church, with the prayer that the work of love for souls which she has so manifoldly designed, and in which she has so unceasingly laboured, may be to her endless bliss as to the glory of the Redeemer, and that the prayers which she has caused to be multiplied may return into her own bosom." Well may we ask, — Where is all this to end ? How pitiful to see a man of Dr Pusey's talents and learning condescending to such miserable twaddle ! THE END. SANSON AND CO., PRINTERS, EDINBURGH. DATE DUE