A VINDICATION
OF THE DOCTRINE OF
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
ON THE VALIDITY OF
THE ORDERS OF THE SCOTCH AND FOREIGN
NON-EPISCOPAL CHURCHES:
IN THREE PAMPHLETS ON THE SUBJECT.
CONTAINING
I. A GENERAL REVIEW OF THE SUBJECT.
II. A REPLY TO ARCHDEACON CHURTON AND CHANCELLOR
HARINGTON. (SECOND EDITION.)
III. A REPLY TO THE BISHOP OF EXETER'S LETTER TO THE
ARCHDEACON OF TOTNES. (THIRD EDITION.)
BY
W. GOODE, M.A., F.S.A.,
Rector of Allhallows the Great and Less, London.
NEW   YORK:
A. D. F. RANDOLPH, 683 BROADWAY.
1853.








ADVERTISEMENT.
THE three following pamphlets have been called forth, as their
contents will show, by a recent controversy in the Church of
England respecting the validity of the Orders of the ministers of
the Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches. They are now put together
in the hope that they will supply the reader with sufficient materials to enable him to judge of the genuine doctrine of the Church
of England on the subject of a Non-Episcopal ministry; especially
with regard to those Foreign Protestant Churches that were placed
in less happy circumstances than our own Church in the struggle
for their emancipation from the yoke of Popery. A semi-Popish
party-the seeds of which have been perpetuated even from the
times of the Reformation, and have ever since, at fitting opportunities, germinated with more or less luxuriance and vigor —has
recently sprung up in our Church, which would fain limit the
ministry of the Christian Church to those who have been ordained
by Bishops episcopally consecrated, and deriving their episcopal
commission through an uninterrupted line of episcopally consecrated bishops from the Apostles, denying to all others the power
both of preaching and administering the sacraments; and which
maintains, that the Church of Christ, properly speaking, consists
only of those who are in communion with ministers so ordained.
And, extraordinary as it must appear to those who are at all
acquainted with the early history of our Reformed Church, it is
farther asserted by this party that such is the doctrine of our
Church.
It may be fairly supposed that, in the various publications to
which a reply is given in the following pages, all the arguments
that can with any semblance of reason be adduced to prove such a
theory to be the doctrine of our Church have been brought forward;
and, consequently, that the reader may here see this question fully
discussed, and the arguments on both sides carefully stated and
thoroughly sifted.
It is to be regretted that our Church has not, in her Articles,
spoken more clearly and definitely on the point; though the fact
that she has not done so entirely negatives the idea of her holding
the "High-Church" view. No doubt, in the case of a national
Church, it is well that room should be given for some difference of
opinion. But unfortunately the tendency in all independent bodies
of men, and not the least in those of an ecclesiastical kind, is, to




iv                    ADVERTISEMENT.
magnify their own importance, and stretch to the utmost the rights
and privileges of their order. The consequence is, that, in every
established Church, the stream of opinion among the Clergy will,
before long, however it may have commenced, run in the direction
of the exclusive principles of what is called "High-Church"
doctrine.  And this, we may observe by the way, shows the
importance of a State not allowing such a body to have, unnecessarily, any opportunities of tampering with the code of doctrine
originally laid down at its establishment.
The subject is one of no little importance. It is no light matter
to excommunicate from the Chnrch of Christ by far the largest
portion of its professed Protestant members. And they who do
so should take good heed that they have the authority of its great
Head, for fulminating such a sentence against those who, to all
appearance, are equally devoted followers of Him as those who are
pronouncing an anathema against them.
The author of the following pages is as little inclined as ever to
give up the doctrine that the Episcopal form of Church government was of Apostolical institution; but he is equally indisposed
to maintain that it is indispensable to the existence of a valid
Christian ministry and Christian Church; still less, that the Christian ministry can only be perpetuated by bishops episcopally
consecrated in an uninterrupted line from the Apostles. Had it
been so, the Church would not, he believes, have been left without
some definite precept to that effect in the Holy Scriptures; and
certainly, in the absence of such a precept, no man, or body of
men, has a right to lay down such a rule. And however strong
may be the claims of Episcopacy, both from its superior efficiency,
ceteris paribus, and from its Apostolical institution, he believes
that it is entirely contrary to the spirit of the New Testament
Scriptures to deny the validity of every ministry but that which
is derived from the Episcopal succession.
In the following pages, however, the sole question is as to the
doctrine of the Church of England on the subject; and he trusts
he has been enabled to prove that her genuine doctrine is very
different from that exclusive view that has lately been so vehemently
contended for by some of her members. That there may be many
cases in which ministerial orders may be perfectly valid, though in
our view somewhat irregular, and ecclesiastical communities be true
Churches, in real communion with Christ, though not constituted
in the best way, is, he hopes, here clearly shown to be the doctrine
of our Church; and the notion that such communities and their
ministers are outcasts from the family of God, proved to be entirely
opposed both to her creed and practice.
W. G.
LONDON, Oct. 21, 1852.




THE DOCTRINE
OF
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
ON
NON-EPISCOPAL ORDINATIONS:
OR,
THE QUESTION BETWEEN
THE PRIMATE AND THE TRACTARIANS
FULLY DISCUSSED.
Reprinted from the "Christian Observer" for November, 1851.
NEW YORK:
A. D. F. RANDOLPH, 683 BROADWAY.
1853.








THE DOCTRINE
OF THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND
ON
NON-EPISCOPAL ORDINATIONS, &c.
The Exclusive Validity of Episcopal Ordinations Vindicated.
A Sermon. By Rev. G. L. BIBER, LL.D., Perp. Curate of
Roehampton. London: Rivington.
Continuation of Ditto; in Two Sermons. By the same.
A Few Words on the Correspondence between the Archbishop of
Canterbury and Mr. Gawthorn.     By Rev. W. B. BARTER,
Rector of Highclere, &c. London: Rivington.
OUR readers have probably often viewed with interest the action
of a sea, lashed into fury by a sudden tempest, upon a rock
firmly imbedded in its bosom.  Beating, roaring, foaming, the
waves seem as if the very immovability of the obstacle presented
to their course had exasperated them to a state of frenzy. The
rock meanwhile, with placid steadfastness, remains utterly unshaken; covered, it may be, at times, with the boiling surge and
foam, but only to reappear in undisturbed repose, and quietly
make manifest the impotency of its assailants.
We have been irresistibly reminded of such a scene by what
has been lately taking place in our Church.  The cause of truth
and sound Church of England principle has been exposed, in the
person of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to a storm of vituperation and invective such as few but Tractarians would be willing to
raise against the Primate of their Church. These worshippers of
Episcopacy and the Apostolical Succession have discovered, apparently, that such only of the "successors of the Apostles" are
entitled to respect, as maintain their views, and that, however in
theory it is essential to hold " the grace of the Apostolical succession," practically they for whom this grace is claimed may be
treated as if there was nothing of the kind.
Meanwhile the Primate, having calmly maintained his position,
and vindicated the genuine doctrine of the Church of England,
has left his assailants to fret, and fume, and rage to the top of
their bent; not, doubtless, without much grief at seeing such a
display in the bosom of our reformed Protestant Church, but




4
without solicitude as to the result, either for the cause of truth or
of his own character with the public.
A certain Mr. Gawthorn, a befitting convert to Romanism, recently took upon himself to put into undisguised practice the principles of his Jesuit instructors; and, ad majorem Dei gloriam,
endeavored, under a false name, to draw the Archbishop of Canterbury into a correspondence respecting his views on the validity
of the Orders of the Foreign Protestant Non-Episcopal Churches,
conscious that a public statement of his well-known sentiments
would be sure to excite the indignation of a certain party lately
arisen in our Church; and thus a burning torch would be thrown
into the Church of England, which could hardly fail, he supposed,
to do some mischief there. The Primate, having nothing to conceal, freely imparted his views to his unknown correspondent; but
not wishing to give occasion for a public controversy on the subject, marked his note private.  The worthy disciple of the Jesuits
had thus gained his end to the utmost extent of his wishes. IHe
had obtained the desired expression of the Archbishop's sentiments, and the mark private was an additional boon, that might
be turned to considerable account, and pointed at as indicating
that his Grace did not wish his views to be known; though, to use
the language of the Guardian itself (which, to do it justice, has
been much more temperate on this occasion than its brethren
of the same school), the opinion expressed in his note was " the
opinion which ALL THE WORLD has for years known him to entertain." (Guardian for Sept. 17.)
The note was of course as soon as possible made public. And
as it is short, we must again place it before our readers. The
Gawthorn epistle we leave to grace the annals of Jesuitism.
" (Private.)
C" SIR: You are far too severe in your censure of the Bishop of London,
though I wish that his Lordship had explained himself more fully. But in
his original letter to Lord Cholmondeley, he expressly stated that they could
not by law minister in our churches, but that every endeavor would be made
to provide places where they might celebrate Divine worship according to
their own form. I hardly imagine that there are two Bishops on the Bench,
or one Clergyman in fifty throughout our Church, who would deny the validity
of the orders of those Pastors solely on account of their wanting the imposition of Episcopal hands; and I am sure that you have misunderstood the
import of the letter which occasioned your addressing me, if you suppose
that it implied any such sentiment in the writer's mind.
"I remain, sir, your obedient and humble servant,
"W. FRANCIS, Esq."                       "J. B. CANTUAR."
The immediate consequence of the publication of this note was
such as, no doubt, to afford the accomplished pupil of the Jesuits
unmixed gratification. The interests of our Church have been
lately taken under the special patronage of certain agitating
clubs, called Church Unions, having the same aspect towards the
legally appointed authorities of our Church that certain Parisian
clubs had towards their appointed rulers, resolved upon giving




5
them, unsolicited, the most strenuous assistance in the discharge
of their duties-an assistance which may, perhaps, produce ultimately the same happy consummation which has followed the
labors of their predecessors in another country. And still more
recently an important ally has been added to their ranks, in the
person of one who almost daily favors us with his oracular decisions on all points of Ecclesiastical doctrine, government, order,
and discipline, sometimes to the emendation of all historic records
we ever met with, and settles without difficulty, and to the infinite
satisfaction of himself and all who agree with him, all disputed
points. If our Primates would only establish an electric telegraph
between their residences and the Strand, they might save themselves all farther trouble on Ecclesiastical matters. D. C. L. and
his fellow-laborers are ready to teach them the true and genuine
doctrine of the Church of England, on all points whatsoever, at
the shortest notice. And this, not as speaking their own sentiments merely, but those of everybody, always, everywhere, according to the venerable Canon of St. Vincent of Lerins, worthy
of any notice, including, of course, the present generation of
English Churchmen.
We confess that, sometimes, when we have been reading the
magniloquent effusions of D. C. L. and his coadjutors, in their
various organs, in which they address us as the exclusive representatives of orthodoxy in our Church, and the genuine expounders
of the mind and feelings of all the clergy worth being listened to,
we have been strongly reminded of the three tailors of Tooley
Street, who prefaced their lucubrations with the words, " We the
people of England." But it becomes not us to dive too deeply
into the mysterious recesses of the oracular abodes of these
" Catholic" evangelists, or publicly to lift the veil under which
these great unknown have chosen to shroud themselves. D. C.
L., for aught we know, may have a million arguments for putting
himself forward as the great instructor of the Church, and establishing his super-Primatial authority at 332 Strand.
Such, however, being the protection under which the interests
of our Church have been placed, it was not to be expected that
such a letter as that of the Archbishop, in favor of the Orders of
certain foreign non-Episcopal Churches, should be allowed to pass
without notice.
What! that a set of rebellious, schismatical, heretical communities such as these, should be spoken of by the Primate of the
Church of England as having any among them entitled to preach
the word of God and administer the sacraments, to the edification
of any soul among them! —that a set of persons, who, if ever they
do find mercy at the hand of God, must obtain it in a way that
nobody ever heard of, or can conjecture its nature —since it is not
found in the Divine covenant-should be spoken of by the Archbishop of Canterbury as though they really formed part of Christ's
Catholic Church!-this was intolerable.  To suppose that the




6
grace of God could flow through any other channel than Bishops
canonically consecrated, was a notion stamped and sealed with the
brand of heresy by "Catholic consent."     And then, to be a
Bishop, and belong to a Church having the Episcopal form of
church government, and think that Divine grace was communicated to the world by any other medium than a Bishop, what
inconsistency, what treachery, as well as heresy!  And of all
others, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is the exclusive channel of all Divine grace for everybody in his Province, for he consecrates all the bishops, the bishops ordain all the ministers, and
from the ministers, so ordained, alone (Mr. Keble would tell us*),
can we derive "sacramental grace" and "mystical communion
with Christ!" Could any words be too strong to denounce such
impiety!
Such were the outpourings of wrath which D. C. L. and his fellow-laborers in Church Unions, and newspapers, and magazines,
heaped upon the devoted head of the Primate. Anything like
proof that the Primate had uttered what was contrary to the doctrine of our Church, it was far beneath the dignity of these selfconstituted authorities to offer; or if any was vouchsafed by a
more humble laborer, it was a sufficient condescension to inform
the Primate, that when our Church required its ministers to be
episcopally ordained, it declared the exclusive validity of Episcopal ordination for all churches, places, and times. Could it indeed
be doubted, that what " Catholic consent" had established, what
everybody, always, everywhere, worth notice, had maintained,
what all the decently-respectable divines of our Church had, with
one voice contended for, was the true doctrine of our Church?
And that all this was the case, D. C. L., and many other equally
infallible authorities were prepared to maintain against all comers,
and enforce the belief with all the means which the deplorable
spirit of these liberal times might permit.
Amidst the storm thus raised, and while the assailants of the
Primate —as if they had, after all, some awkward misgivings as to
the strength of their cause —were endeavoring to fortify it by the
most gross misrepresentations of the real meaning of the note,
came a well-meant attempt to give the Archbishop an opportunity
of authoritatively disowning the views which his unscrupulous
adversaries had been laboring to fasten upon him, which gave rise
to the following correspondence:"WHITCHURCH CANONICORUM, Sept. 17, 1851.
"MY LORD ARCHBISHOP: Having seen in the public journals a letter
addressed by your Grace to Mr. Gawthorn, and being under the impression
that the purpose and meaning of that communication have been in some degree misunderstood, I venture most respectfully to inquire of your Grace:
first, whether the letter in question is to be considered as an official and
authoritative document, or as an informal expression of private opinion; and,
secondly, whether it was your Grace's intention, in that letter, to state that
* Pref. to Hooker, p. Ixxvii.




7
the Bishops and Clergy of the Church of England generally are of opinion
that Episcopal ordination is simply non-essential to the validity of Orders, in
which case it might be dispensed with amongst ourselves; or whether your
Grace meant to include, in the majority of which you spoke, those who would
be reluctant to pronounce positively on the invalidity of all ordinations to the
ministry performed in foreign parts, where Episcopal ordinations could not
be obtained, though they would not consent that such ordinations should be
introduced into the Church of England, or recognized as conveying power
to officiate in that Church? - I have the honor to be, my Lord Archbishop,
your very humble servant in Christ,
"WILLIAM PALMER.
" His Grace the LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY."
"ADDINGTON, Sept. 19, 1851.
" REVEREND Sir: A letter addressed to me in a spirit of Christian candor
would be entitled to attention, independently of the advantage which it derives when contrasted with other notices which have been taken of the communication fraudulently obtained from me by Mr. Gawthorn.
"In regard to that communication, I take the opportunity of mentioning,
that it is not unusual for me to receive inquiries from persons unknown to
me respecting matters connected with the Church; to which I consider myself bound to reply, when there appears no ground for suspecting the motive
of the writer. Mr. Gawthorn's letter came to me as one of these; and whether
concocted by himself, or with the assistance of others, I cannot think that
it was otherwise than cleverly composed, or contained anything to excite
suspicion.
" My answer was expressed in a manner which I certainly should not have
adopted' in an authoritative or official document,' or if I had believed that I
was writing any other than a private letter. Still, inferences have been
drawn from it for which it furnishes no ground whatever. Otherwise you
could not ask me whether'it was my intention to state that I myself, or the
majority of our Clergy, look upon Episcopal ordination as non-essential to
the validity of Orders, so that it might be dispensed with among ourselves,'
and so that any others than those episcopally ordained could'have power to
officiate in our Church.' This was no part of Mr. Gawthorn's inquiry. His
inquiry was, whether in'my opinion or that of the majority of my brethren,
these foreign clergymen were not truly pastors of the Church of Christ, but
were to be considered as mere laymen.' This I thought equivalent to the
question, whether we hold that no person, in any country, or under any circumstances, will be entitled to minister in the Church of Christ except through
the imposition of Episcopal hands.
"I replied that I imagined this to be as far as possible from the general
opinion, either among our bishops or clergy. I knew that neither our Articles
nor our Formularies justified such an opinion. I knew that many of our
ancient divines had disclaimed such an opinion; and I know that such an
opinion would amount to declaring that no valid sacrament or other ministerial act had ever been performed, except under an Episcopal form of government. And therefore I could not believe, and I still do not believe, that
many of our clergy would venture seriously to maintain such an opinion.
" To be convinced that Episcopal government, and therefore that Episcopal
ordination, is most agreeable to Scripture, most in accordance with primitive
practice, and is in itself the'more excellent way,' is perfectly consistent with
the judgment of Hooker, that'the lineal descent of power by apostolical succession is not, in certain cases, to be urged absolutely, and without any possible exception.' (Book vii. clause 14. See also Book iii. clause 11.)
" Unable as I am to account for the misrepresentations to which I have
been subjected, I am glad to find so proper an opportunity of correcting
them as your letter affords.
"And I remain, Reverend Sir, your faithful servant,
"Rev. WILLIAM PALMER."                      "J. B. CANTUAR."




8
We give these letters that our readers may have the whole of
the case before them. And we see from them that the Archbishop
calmly maintains his ground, and distinctly reasserts his first
statement. Whether or not his Grace took too favorable a view
of the sentiments of his brethren, we are not disposed to inquire;
but whether his doctrine or that of his assailants has the best
claim to be considered the Doctrine of the Church of England,
we shall presently endeavor to determine, not by assertion, but
by proofs.
We must first notice, however, the effect which the publication
of this letter had upon the movement against the Primate, which
was somewhat remarkable. It had apparently been found, that
the furious onslaught made by D. C. L. and his fellow-laborers
had fewer sympathizers than was expected. Even the Guardian,
though certainly not, as its pages continually show, remarkable
for its regard for the reputation of the Primate, prudently warned
its party against following such extreme counsels, honestly confessing, that from "the actual language" of the note, could only
be gathered the doctrine, "that Episcopal ordination is not absolutely essential to a true Christian ministry in any sense of the
word;" and asking, " Have the gentlemen who are going to raise
an agitation on this note cleared up their own minds on this question; so that they will determinately say that under no circumstances whatever can any ordination deviating from the Episcopal one, receive the Divine blessing, and be accompanied with
grace?" (Sept. 17.) And the Editor had previously intimated
his opinion to be, " that the Episcopal organization of the Church
is not so essential, but that there may be, though not so completely, real Christian means of grace and ministries without
it."
We hail the expression of such sentiments in such a quarter,
and are at a loss to understand what cause of quarrel a maintainer
of such views can have found in the Archbishop's note, and regret
that party-feeling should have led him to make the remarks in
which he has indulged. Well might a certain Archdeacon, and
others of the party, complain of it as treason in the camp. But
treason evidently there was, and consequently great risk of certain
threatened protests turning out to be failures. And so this second
letter of the Archbishop was represented to the public as a retractation.  Yes, wondering reader, in the face of the Archbishop's
express reiteration of his former view, and declaration of his adherence to it, the Metropolitan Church Union had the courage to
put forth the following statement:" At a special meeting of the Committee of the Metropolitan Church Union,
held on Friday the 26th of Sept. 1851, a letter from his Grace the Archbishop
of Canterbury, to the Rev. W. Palmer, having been read, Resolved, That forasmuch as the indispensable necessity of Episcopal ordination to the validity
of holy orders appears to this Committee to be recognized by his Grace in
the above letter, no farther steps be taken to procure signatures to the Pro



9
test issued by this Committee, and that the Petition to Convocation on this
subject now in draft be dropped."
And the trustworthy Morning Chronicle, under the oracular
guidance apparently of D. C. L., indulges itself in the followingwe should suppose, perilous-experiment upon public patience and
credulity:"The Primate has clutched, not without evident relief, at the three thin
and unsubstantial straws with which Mr. Palmer has had the charity to offer
to conduct him out of a very Serbonian-looking bog. In a word, the imprudent letter is for all substantial purposes, in fact-whatever even now is his
Grace's lamentable misconception of the true theory of ordination-DIsAVOWED AND RETRACTED; and, so far as this goes, of course it is a matter of
congratulation.  Everybody, all sorts of journals, organs of every class
[everybody, always, everywhere, so that it must be a'Catholic' truth] agreed
in drawing an inference from the Archbishop's letter, for which we are now
assured'there is no ground whatever.' Common consent has for once, we
suppose, been wrong."
We pause to point out to our readers the happy illustration this
writer has afforded us of the real value of the everybody-alwayseverywhere argument, the true meaning of the Tractarian plea of
" common consent."
We will add but one passage more from this production, for, in
all seriousness, it is heart-sickening to transcribe such a tissue of
misrepresentations and calumnies as are contained in that single
article.  " We are not exaggerating the value of his Grace's last
letter, if we pronounce the retractation of his note to Gawthorn to
be inferentially complete."  And with characteristic self-complacency and love of truth, the writer broadly intimates, that the
public are indebted to himself and his fellow-laborers for having
frightened the Archbishop into taking such a course.
These gentlemen are apt disciples of their quondam leader,
Mr. Newman, whose open avowal of his having been in the
habit of making certain statements, simply because they were
" necessary for his position" in the part he,was then playing in
the Church of England, has probably not yet been forgotten by
the public. Mr. Gawthorn has at least the satisfaction of finding
that there is a considerable body, even of those professedly of the
Church of England, whose love of truth appears to be scarcely
more rigid than his own. Indeed it may be doubted, whether a
single act like that of Mr. Gawthorn is not a less offence, and less
injurious to morality, than the conduct of those who professing to
be what they are not, sincere members of a Protestant Church,
are constantly laboring to " unprotestantize" it.
The true character of the representation they have given of the
Archbishop's second letter may be best learned by contrasting it
with the statements of other writers of their own school.  The
remark of the Guardian on this letter, when it appeared, was,
"We cannot pretend to say that" it "much changes the posture
of affairs for better or worse," (Oct. L) And the Bristol Church
Union has published a resolution, in which they distinctly main



10
tain, that the Archbishop's "published explanation of the said.
letter, in his reply to the Rev. W. Palmer, has only served more
fully to elucidate thefact that his Grace does not deem the imposition of Episcopal hands in all cases necessary to valid ordination," and protest against it accordingly. (Guardian, Oct. 15.)
And such is clearly the case. The Archbishop simply repudiated the views that had been falsely charged upon him, and
reaffirmed his original statement, adding arguments in favor of
it; and consequently, as any fair opponent would see, left the
matter precisely as it stood before.
We have here, therefore, a remarkable proof of the fitness of
these self-constituted ecclesiastical authorities for guiding the
Church, when, in a matter so clear as this, they are thus contradicting and opposing one another.
But the truth is, that it was "necessary for the position" of
certain of the Archbishop's opponents, that they should make out
his second letter to be a retractation, for they had rashly committed themselves to an agitation which, it was evident, would be a
failure. The Archbishop's repudiation of the views attributed to
him would otherwise have produced not the slightest effect; for
the imputations, being utterly without ground to rest upon, had
evidently been made for the mere purpose of bringing disgrace
upon him more readily than by calling him into question for what
he really had said; which, however obnoxious to them, would have
afforded them a poor handle with the public. He was to be
punished for having spoken against the Tractarian doctrine; but
this was not sufficiently popular for them to make it their professed ground of attack; and, therefore, according to the wellknown tactics of many in this party, he was to be charged with
maintaining something which might more plausibly be objected to.
And no repudiation on his part of such views would for a moment
have prevented their proceeding with their protests, if only there
had been a chance of success. The ground of their quarrel lay
much deeper than what was their nominal pretext for the assault.
It was in fact the view he really held, that was the object of their
attack, not the misrepresentation which for their own ends had
been palmed upon him.
There is nothing more painful perhaps in the whole Tractarian
movement, than the frequent disregard to truth by which, throughout its course, it has been characterized. Men entertaining Tractarian views are in a false position in our Church, and consequently are continually driven into all sorts of inconsistencies and
offences against truth.  And no declamatory asseverations of
their doctrines being the genuine doctrines of the Church of
England can deceive any who give the slightest attention to the
subject, and desire to know the truth. They commenced with
a profession of slavish submission to bishops; and their doctrine
demands it of them. Their conduct is the very reverse, to a
degree that makes us compare it with thankfulness with that of




11
the supposed undervaluers of the Episcopate, the, to use the ordinary name, Evangelical body, towards other prelates in past times.
Their Catenas parade with the most unblushing effrontery the
names of divines who have directly and clearly opposed their views,
as of advocates in their favor. The interpretation they are compelled to give to our Articles and Formularies (to say nothing
of the veil of secrecy thrown over their practices) is such as to
make the more honest among their disciples writhe under the
consciousness of the duplicity of the course marked out for them.
This is not the mere accusation of an opponent; it is the confession of those who have belonged to them. Witness (to refer
to no other authority) the pamphlet, not long since published,
entitled The Morality of Tractarianism. Whenever they have
tried their ground before a public tribunal, they have been
utterly defeated. In the face of facts like these, frothy declamations, protesting that they are the true exponents of the doctrine of the Church of England, will deceive none but those who
wish to be deceived.
But to the point more immediately before us.
The great question raised in this controversy, is simply this:
Whether it is a doctrine of the Church of England, that Episcopal ordination is a sine qua non to constitute a valid Christian
ministry? In what cases Non-Episcopal Ordinations may (if ever)
be valid, is a farther question not now under consideration, except
so far as concerns the Foreign Churches referred to in the Archbishop's note.
The Archbishop holds the negative, his assailants maintain
the affirmative of this question. And we are glad that the violence of the Tractarian party has brought the matter prominently
before the public, as it affords a good opportunity of impressing upon the public mind the real doctrine of our Church on
the subject, and of showing how grievously that party are misrepresenting it. The more such questions are publicly discussed,
the better will it be for the cause of truth and sound Church-ofEngland principles. We have to thank the Tractarians for having
unintentionally done good service to the cause of truth on more
than one occasion, by giving an impulse to such investigations.
The public would never have had such a complete conviction of
the opposition of the doctrine of our Church to the Romish sacrifice
in the Eucharist, and still less a Judgment respecting it, if the
Tractarians had not attempted to force upon us stone altars. And
certainly, for the public having become far better acquainted with
the doctrine of our Church on the effects of Baptism, and for a
Judgment of no ordinary value respecting it, we are greatly indebted to them. And it would give us no little pleasure, to find
them again blundering into a court of justice in support of some
other of their anti-Protestant dogmas.
In discussing the question now at issue, we shall point out



12
I. The ground taken on this subject by our early divines.
This, in the absence of any definite statement on the subject in
our Formularies, is clearly the best indication we can have of the
mind of our Church respecting it, and of the meaning of any indirect notices touching it in our authoritative documents.
Let us first hear what Mr. Keble himself is compelled to admit
on this point.  Thus he writes:"Since the Episcopal succession had been so carefully retained in the
Church of England, and so much anxiety evinced to render both her Liturgy
and Ordination services strictly conformable to the rules and doctrines of
antiquity, it might have been expected, that the defenders of the English
hierarchy against the first Puritans should take the highest ground, and challenge for the bishops the same unreserved submission, on the same plea of
exclusive apostolic prerogative, which their adversaries feared not to insist
on for their elders and deacons. It is notorious, however, that such was not
in general the line preferred [it was never adopted, as is confessed presently]
by Jewel, Whitgift, Bishop Cooper, and others, to whom the management of
that controversy was intrusted during the early part of Elizabeth's reign.
They do not expressly disavow, but they carefully shun, that unreserved
appeal to Christian antiquity, in which one would have thought they must
have discerned the very strength of their cause to lie. It is enough, with
them, to show that the government by archbishops and bishops is ancient and
allowable; they never venture to urge its exclusive claim, or to connect the
succession with the validity of the holy sacraments; and yet it is obvious,
that such a course of argument alone (supposing it borne out by facts) could
fully meet all the exigencies of the case. It must have occurred to the
learned writers above mentioned, since it was the received doctrine of the
Church down to their days; and if they had disapproved it, as some theologians of no small renown have since done, it seems unlikely that they should
have passed it over without some express avowal of dissent; considering
that they always wrote with an eye to the pretensions of Rome also, which
popular opinion had in a great degree mixed up with this doctrine of apostolical succession.".... "Farther, it is obvious that those divines in
particular who had been instrumental but a little before in the second change
of the Liturgy in King Edward's time, must have felt themselves in some
measure restrained from pressing with its entire force the ecclesiastical
tradition on church government and orders, inasmuch as in the aforesaid
revision they had given up altogether the same tradition, regarding certain
very material points in the celebration, if not in the doctrine, of the holy
Eucharist.... It should seem that those who were responsible for
these omissions must have felt themselves precluded, ever after, from urging
the necessity of Episcopacy, or of anything else, on the ground of uniform
Church tradition."*
Such a passage as this presents many topics for remark; and
we may observe, in passing, that the doctrine of the necessity of
Episcopacy seems to be confessedly rested on tradition.       But
the object for which we have quoted it, is to show the difficulties
in which Mr. Keble confessedly finds himself involved in dealing
with the views of our early divines on this subject. He admits,
that they "never venture to urge the exclusive claim       of the
government by archbishops and bishops, or to connect the succession with the validity of the holy sacraments." But then it is
* Keble's Pref. to Hooker, pp. lix.-lxii.




13
hinted, that they may have held it, because they have not given
an "express avowal of dissent" from it.
Now we hope our readers have too good an opinion of the
honesty and fair dealing of those venerable men, not to feel assured, that, if they had held the doctrine of the absolute necessity
of the Episcopal form of church government, they would have
said so.  Can we suppose that, in the midst of that intimate
intercourse and communion they maintained with the Foreign
Non-Episcopal Churches, they would never have admonished
them of the fatal effect which their want of the Episcopal form of
church government entailed upon their ministrations?   Would
they have acknowledged their ministers in the way they did, as
fellow-laborers in the Church of Christ?
But in fact we shall find, from their own words, that they do,
virtually at least, if not more expressly, disavow the doctrine
advocated by Mr. Keble and his party.  There was no necessity,
at a time when no one in our Church thought of, upholding such
a doctrine, for them to write formally and expressly against it.
But they do disavow such a notion, writing in a way irreconcilable with their holding it. And we must add farther, that it
will be found that the authors whom Mr. Keble quotes as having
first advocated his exclusive doctrine in our Church, bear witness
against it.
Having thus seen how much our opponents are compelled to
concede, let us proceed to consider the following testimonies:And we may notice, first, that even in the time of Henry VIII.,
at the very dawn of the Reformation, the bishops and clergy of
our Church put forth a document containing the very doctrine on
which the validity of Presbyterian ordinations has been chiefly
rested, namely, the parity of bishops and presbyters, with respect
to the ministerial powers, essentially and by right belonging to
them.  In the Institution of a Christian Man, put forth by the
bishops and clergy in 1537, we read as follows:" As touching the sacrament of holy orders, we think it convenient that
all bishops and preachers shall instruct and teach the people committed unto
their spiritual charge, first, how that Christ and his apostles did institute and
ordain, in the New Testament, that besides the civil powers and governance
of kings and princes (which is called potestas gladii, the power of the sword),
there should also be continually in the Church militant certain other ministers or officers, which should have special power, authority, and commission,
under Christ, to preach and teach the word of God unto His people; to dispense and administer the sacraments of God unto them," &c. &c.
" That this office, this power and authority, was committed and given by
Christ and his apostles unto certain persons only, that is to say, unto priests
or bishops, whom they did elect, call, and admit thereunto, by their prayer
and imposition of their hands."
And, speaking of "the sacrament of orders" to be administered
by the bishop, it observes, when noticing the various orders in the
Church of Rome: " The truth is, that in the Nlew Testament there
is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in orders, but
2




14
only of deacons or ministers, and of priests or bishops."  And
throughout, when speaking of the jurisdiction and other privileges
belonging to the ministry, it speaks of them as belonging to
"priests and bishops."
Again, in the revision of this work set forth by the king in
1543, entitled A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any
Christian Man, in the chapter on "the Sacrament of Orders,"
priests and bishops are spoken of as of the same order. For after
having spoken of Timothy being "ordered and consecrated priest"
by St. Paul, and remarked, "whereby it appeareth that St. Paul
did consecrate and order priests and bishops by the imposition of
his hands; and as the apostles themselves, in the beginning of the
Church, did order priests and bishops, so they appointed and
willed the other bishops after them to do the like, as St. Paul
manifestly showeth, in his Epistle to Titus, saying, &c., and to
Timothy, &c.;" it subjoins, shortly after: "Of these two orders
only, that is to say, priests and deacons, Scripture maketh express
mention, and how they were conferred of the apostles by prayer
and imposition of their hands."*
Now this view certainly goes far to remove the difficulty as to
recognizing the validity of Presbyterian ordination in the absence
of bishops; and this view we see was entertained by the leading
bishops and clergy in this country at the very dawn of the Reformation; and those who are at all acquainted with Ecclesiastical
history, know that this view had long been advocated by many of
the divines of the Church of Rome, especially among the scholastic divines, including their great founder, Peter Lombard, the
M aster of the Sentences.
Our opponents are fond of speaking of these early documents,
published at the very dawn of the Reformation, as authoritative
proofs of the doctrine of our Church. The above extracts may
perhaps show them, that, however pleasant the first taste may be,
there are some sours mixed up with the Romish sweets which these
works contain; and if they will have the one, they must be satisfied to take the other.
We decline, for the sake of a momentary gain, to make any
such illegitimate use of these documents. But this we do say,
that if even then the Tractarian doctrine of Episcopacy was not
held by our Church, much less is it conceivable that it was held
after the current of our theology had taken a course so much
more decidedly Protestant, and our divines were recognizing the
ministers of the Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches as their colleagues in the ministry. In these extracts, we see the views on
this subject with which our divines commenced the work of Reformation; and it will hardly be urged that, when they went forward on every other point, they retrograded in this.
But we have still stronger testimony to the views of the leading
* See Formularies of Faith, &c., pp. 101, 105, 278, 281. Oxford, 1825.




15
divines of the English Church at this period. In the autumn of
1540, certain questions were proposed by the king to the chief
bishops and divines of the day,* of which the tenth was this:
"Whether bishops or priests were first? and if the priests were
first, then the priest made the bishop." With the wording of this
question we have nothing to do, and should certainly be sorry to
be made answerable for it; but our object is to see what views
were elicited in the answers. Now to this question the Archbishop
of Canterbury (Cranmer) replied: " The bishops and priests were
at one time, and were not two things, but both one office in the
beginning of Christ's religion."  The Archbishop of York (Lee)
says: " The name of a bishop is not properly a name of order, but
a name of office, signifying an overseer. And although the inferior
shepherds have also care to oversee their flock, yet, forsomuch as
the bishop's charge is also to oversee the shepherds, the name of
overseer is given to the bishops, and not to the other; and as they
be in degree higher, so in their consecration we find difference
even from the primitive Church." The Bishop of London (Bonner)
says: " I think the bishops were first, and yet I think it is not of
importance, whether the priest then made the bishop, or else the
bishop the priest; considering (after the sentence of St. Jerome)
that in the beginning of the Church there was none (or, if it were,
very small) difference between a bishop and a priest, especially
touching the signification." The Bishop of St. David's (Barlow),
and the Bishop elect of Westminster (Thirlby), held that bishops
and priests " at the beginning were all one."  Dr. Robertson, in
his answer, says: "Nec opinor absurdum esse, ut sacerdos episcopum consecret, si episcopus haberi non potest."  Dr. Cox (afterwards Bishop of Ely) says: "Although by Scripture (as St.
Hierome saith) priests and bishops be one, and therefore the one
not before the other, yet bishops, as they be now, were after
priests, and therefore made of priests." Dr. Redmayn, the learned
Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, says: "They be of like
beginning, and at the beginning were both one, as St. Hierome
and other old authors show by the Scripture, whereof one made
another indifferently."  Dr. Edgeworth says: "That the priests
in the primitive Church made bishops, I think no inconvenience
(as Jerome saith, in an Epist. ad Evagrium).  Even like as
soldiers should choose one among themselves to be their captain;
so did priests choose one of themselves to be their bishop, for consideration of his learning, gravity, and good living, &c., and also
for to avoid schisms among themselves by them, that some might
not draw people one way, and others another way, if they lacked
one Head among them." With respect to the other answers,
which are from the Bishops of Rochester (Heath) and Carlisle
(Aldrich), and Drs. Day, Oglethorp, Symmons, Tresham, and
* These questions and answers are given by Burnet, in his History of the Reformation,
and Collyer, in his Ecclesiastical History.




16
Coren, it is difficult to judge what the views of the writers would
have been on the point we are now considering.
All the leading divines, therefore, whose testimonies we have
just quoted, were of opinion that bishops and priests were, properly and strictly speaking, of the same order, though differing in
degree.
Nay, more; we find by the answers to the next question, that,
even at that time, some were prepared to take the next step, and
grant to presbyters, under some circumstances, the power to
ordain presbyters; and that most of them replied uncertainly to
the question. The question was this: "Whether a bishop hath
authority to make a priest by the Scripture or no? And whether
any other but only a bishop can make a priest?"  The reply of
Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, goes much beyond what we
should wish to plead for, and is as follows: "A bishop may make
a priest by the Scripture, and so may princes and governors also,
and that by the authority of God committed to them, and the
people also by their election: for as we read that bishops have
done it, so Christian emperors and princes usually have done it;
and the people, before Christian princes were, commonly did elect
their bishops and priests."  The answers given by the rest to the
latter part of the question w'ere to the following effect. Dr. Cox
(made in 1559 Bishop of Ely) and Dr. Tresham openly admit, that,
in a case of necessity, others may ordain besides bishops. The
Archbishop of York says: "That any other than bishops or
priests may make a priest, we neither find in Scripture nor out of
Scripture;" clearly implying that priests may make a priest.
The Bishops of Rochester and Carlisle, the Bishop elect of Westminster, and Drs. Redmayn, Symmons, Robertson, Leighton,
Curren, Edgeworth, and Oglethorp, reply only, that they have
never read that others besides bishops assumed the power of
ordaining. The Bishop of London and Dr. Day give no reply to
this part of the question. So that not one ventures to determine
definitively that the power of ordination belongs exclusively to
bishops.
Such was the doctrine of the leading divines of our Church at
this period on the subject. We may therefore safely leave it to
the reader to determine, whether, when in 1549 they put forth the
Ordinal, with a Preface in which they speak of the "three orders"
of the Christian ministry, they meant to assert, that the Episcopal and Priestly orders were so completely two distinct orders,
that the special duties for the performance of which bishops had
been set apart could under no circumstances be performed by
priests; and were not rather using the word " order" in a large
and general sense; especially when we find that the Services
never apply the word order or ordering to the making of bishops,
but only in the case of deacons and priests, and speak of the consecration of bishops; and that most of our early divines, as, for
instance, the most distinguished among the earliest defenders of




17
our Church against the Puritans, Archbishop Whitgift held (as we
shall show presently) that bishops and priests are, strictly speaking, of the same order.
Let us proceed to the divines of Queen Elizabeth's reign, when
our Formularies were finally constituted and established as (with
a few exceptions) they now stand.
Unfortunately, the question now at issue was not so brought
into controversy at that period as to enable us to find many direct
testimonies upon the subject; for no one but a professed Romanist
dreamed of throwing a doubt upon the validity of the Orders of
the divines of the Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches. We are
therefore thrown upon their incidental notices of the matter. But
even where the witness is not direct, it is sufficiently plain to indicate the doctrine held. And, in fact, the ground then taken on
this subject by our leading divines was much lower than what the
lowest of the (so-called) Low Churchmen of modern times have
ordinarily maintained; for they expressly defend the position,
that the form of church government adopted is a matter of indifference, left to the free choice of each Church for itself.
We give the precedence, as the order of time demands, to the
learned Bishop of Exeter, Dr. Alley, who in his Prtelections upon
1 Peter, read publicly in St. Paul's, in 1560, says:" What difference is between a bishop and a priest, S. Hierome, writing
ad Titum, doth declare, whose words be these:'Idem est ergo presbyter,
qui episcopus,' &c.; a priest, therefore, is the same that a bishop is, &c."
And having given Jerome's words in full, he adds:" These words are alleged, that it may appear priests among the elders to
have been even the same that bishops were. But it grew by little and little that
the whole charge and cure should be appointed to one bishop within his precinct, that the seeds of dissension might utterly be rooted out." (Alley's
Poor Man's Library, 2d ed. 1571, tom. i. fol. 95, 96.)
It could hardly be doubted, then, by one who held this, that if
the circumstances of the Church required it, Presbyterian ordination would be valid.
About the same period, namely, in 1563, we have a much
stronger testimony from   Dr. Pilkington, then Bishop of Durham:"Yet remains one doubt unanswered in these few words, when he says,
that'the government of the Church was committed to bishops,' as though
they had received a larger and higher commission from God of doctrine and
discipline than other lower priests or ministers have, and thereby might
challenge a greater prerogative. But this is to be understood, that the privileges and superiorities, which bishops have above other ministers, are rather
granted by men for maintaining of better order and quietness in commonwealths,
than commanded by God in his word. Ministers have better knowledge and
utterance some than other, but their ministry is of equal dignity. God's commission and commandment is like and indifferent to all, priest, bishop, archbishop, prelate, by what name soever he be called..... St. Paul calls the
elders of Ephesus together, and says,' the Holy Ghost made them bishops to
rule the Church of God.' (Acts xx.) He writes also to the bishops of Philip



18
pos, meaning the ministers.....St. Jerome, in his commentary on the 1st
chapter Ad. Tit., says that'a bishop and a priest is all one.'.... A bishop is
a name of office, labor, and pains." (Confut. of an Addition. Works, ed.
Park Soc. pp. 493, 494.)
Both these were among the bishops who settled our Articles, on
the accession of Queen Elizabeth.
Our next witness shall be Bishop Jewell, of whose standing in
our Church it is unnecessary to add a word. On the parity of
order in priests and bishops, he says:" Is it so horrible a heresy, as he [Harding] maketh it, to say, that by the
Scriptures of God a bishop and a priest are all one? or knoweth he how far,
and unto whom, he reacheth the name of an heretic? Verily Chrysostom
saith:' Between a bishop and a priest in a manner there is no difference.'
(In 1 Tim. horn. 11.) S. Hierome saith....' The apostle plainly teacheth us,
that priests and bishops be all one.' (ad Evagr.) S. Augustine saith:' What
is a bishop but the first priest; that is to say, the highest priest?' (In Qucest,
N. et TV Test. q. 101.) So saith S. Ambrose:' There is but one consecration
(ordinatio) of priest and bishop; for both of them are priests, but the bishop
is the first.' (In 1 Tim. c. 3.) All these and other more holy Fathers, together with St. Paul the apostle, for thus saying, by M. Harding's advice,
must be holden for heretics." (Def. of Apol. Pt. ii. c. 9. div. i. Works, p.
202. See also Pt. ii. c. iii. div. i. p. 85.)
But there is a passage in his writings still more strongly bearing on the point in question. Harding had charged our Church
with deriving its orders from apostate bishops, &c. Jewell replies:" Therefore we neither have bishops without church, nor church without
bishops. Neither doth the Church of England this day depend of them whom
you often call apostates, as if our Church were no Church without them.....
If there were not one, neither of them nor of us left alive, yet would not therefore the whole Church of England flee to Lovaine. Tertullian saith:'And we
being laymen, are we not priests? It is written, Christ hath made us both a
kingdom and priests unto God his Father. The authority of the Church,
and the honor by the assembly, or council of order sanctified of God, hath
made a difference between the lay and the clergy. Where as there is no assembly of ecclesiastical order, the priest being there alone (without the company of other priests) doth both minister the oblation and also baptize. Yea,
and be there but three together, and though they be laymen, yet is there a
church. For every man liveth of his own faith.'  (Def. of Apol. Pt. ii. c. v.
div. i. p. 129.)
It is needless to point out how much this passage implies.
We proceed to Archbishop Whitgift.
And first, as to the parity of order in bishops and priests, he
speaks thus:" Every bishop is a priest, but every priest hath not the name and title of a
bishop, in that meaning that Jerome in this place [Ad Evagr.] taketh the
name of a bishop... Neither shall you find this word episcopus commonly
used but for that priest that is in degree over and above the rest, notwithstanding
episcopus be oftentimes called presbyter, because presbyter is the more general
name." (Def. of Answ. to Adm. 1574, fol. p. 383.)
" Although Hierome confess, that by Scripture presbyter and episcopus is
all one (As IN DEED THEY BE quoad ministerium), yet doth he acknowledge a
superiority of the bishop before the minister..... Therefore no doubt this




19
is Jerome's mind, that a bishop in degree and dignity is above the minister,
though he be one and the self-same with him in the office of ministering the
word and sacraments." (lb. pp. 384, 385.)
Secondly, as to the form of government to be followed in the
Church. His adversary Cartwright, like the great body of the
Puritans, contended for the exclusive admissibility of the platform of church government he advocated; and, like Archdeacon
Denison, maintained that " matters of discipline and kind of government are matters necessary to salvation and of faith."      And
this is Whitgift's reply:" I confess that in a church collected together in one place, and at liberty,
government is necessary in the second kind of necessity; but that any one
kind of government is so necessary that without it the Church cannot be saved,
or that it may not be altered into some other kind thought to be more expedient,
I utterly deny, and the reasons that move me so to do be these. The first is,
because Ifind no one certain and perfect kind of government prescribed or commanded in the Scriptures to the Church of Christ, which no doubt should have
been done, if it had been a matter necessary unto the salvation of the Church.
Second-ly, because the essential notes of the Church be these only; the true
preaching of the word of God, and the right administration of the sacraments:
for (as Master Calvin saith, in his book against the Anabaptists):'This honor
is meet to be given to the word of God, and to his sacraments, that wheresoever we see the word of God truly preached, and God according to the same
truly worshipped, and the sacraments without superstition administered,
there we may without all controversy conclude the Church of God to be:'
and a little after:'So much we must esteem the word of God and his sacraments, that wheresoever we find them to be, there we may certainly know
the church of God to be, although in the common life of men many faults
and errors be found.' The same is the opinion of other godly and learned
writers and the judgment of the Reformed Churches, as appeareth by their
Confessions. So that notwithstanding government, or some kind of government, may be a part of the Church, touching the outward form and perfection of it, yet is it not such a part of the essence and being, but that it may
be the Church of Christ without this or that kind of government, and therefore
the kind of government of the Church is not necessary unto salvation." (lb.
p. 81.)
" Ideny that the Scriptures do....set down any one certain form and kind
of government of the Church to be perpetual for all times, persons, and places
without alteration." (lb. p. 84.)
And speaking of the platform of church government contended
for by Cartwright, he says:"Yet would I not have any man to think that I condemn any churches
where this government is lawfully and without danger received; only I have regard to whole kingdoms, especially this realm, where it cannot but be dangerous." (Ib. p. 658.)
In Tract 17, c. iv. he undertakes expressly to prove:     "That
there is no one certain kind of government in the Church which
must of necessity be perpetually observed." (lb. p. 658.) And he
remarks in it:" It is plain that any one certain form or kind of external government perpetually to be observed, is nowhere in the Scripture prescribed to the Church;
but the charge thereof is left to the Christian magistrate, so that nothing be
done contrary to the word of God." (lb. p. 659).




20
The equality of bishops and presbyters jure divino, was also expressly maintained at this period by the learned Dr. W. Whitaker,
Reg. Prof. of Div. at Cambridge. Among other remarks on the
subject, he says, referring to Jerome's words in his Commentary on
Titus, c. i.:" Si Episcopi consuetudine non dispositione Dominica presbyteris majores
sunt, turn humano non divino jure totum hoc discrimen constat." (Resp. ad
Camp. defens. adv. J. Durceum. lib. vi. Op. tomn. i. p. 149.)
And to the reference of his opponent to Jerome's Epistle to
Evagrius, showing that the power of ordination had been placed in
the hands of the bishop, he replies:" Quod autem affers ex eadem Epistola, ad humanam non divinam constitutionem pertinet. Etsi enim ortu suo iidem erant ambo, postea tamen (inquit Hieronymus) unus electus est, qui cceterisprceponeretur; atque inde natum
est illud episcopi ac presbyteri discrimen." (Ibid.)
Of course, then, that which owed its origin to human appointment might, by the same authority, in any individual church, be
laid aside.
Our next witness shall be Hooker, in himself a host. And
when our readers have perused the extracts we are about to give
from his writings, they will be able to judge of the honesty with
which his name has been used in favor of the exclusive doctrine of
the Tractarians, both in their Catenas and in their recent onslaught
on the Primate.
" Now whereas hereupon (he observes) 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 themselves; in which respect it was demanded of Beza at Poissie,'By what authority he could administer the holy sacraments, &c.' [Our readers will observe the instance cited, the very case now in question between the
Archbishop and his assailants.].... To this we answer, that there may be
sometimes very just and stfficient reason TO ALLOW ORDINATION MADE WITHOUT
A BISHOP. The whole Church visible being the true original subject of all
power, it hath not ordinarily allowed any other than bishops alone to ordain;
howbeit, as the ordinary course is ordinarily in all things to be observed, so
it may be, in some cases, not unnecessary that we decline from the ordinary
ways. Men may be extraordinarily, yet allowably, two ways admitted unto
spiritualfunctions in the Church. One is, when God Himself doth of Himself
raise up any..... Another.... when the exigence of necessity doth
constrain to leave the usual ways of the Church, which otherwise we would
willingly keep." (Eccl. Pol. vii. 14. See also iii. 11.)
Here is a direct assertion of the validity of such orders as those
of Beza.
And in a former passage of the same book, he distinctly admits
the power of the Church at large to take away the Episcopal form
of government from the Church, and says:"Let them [i. e. bishops] continually bear in mind, that it is rather the force
of custom, whereby the Church, having so long found it good to continue under
the regiment of her virtuous bishops, doth still uphold, maintain, and honor them




21
in that respect, than that any such true and heavenly law can be showed by the
evidence whereof it may of a truth appear, that the Lord himself hath appointed
presbyters forever to be under the regiment of bishops;" adding, that "their
authority" is " a sword which the Church hath power to take from them." (Ib.
vii. 5. See also i. 14, and iii. 10.)
And, therefore, though he admits the office and superiority of
bishops to be of Apostolical institution, and takes much higher
ground on the subject than most of his contemporaries, yet all
that he expressly undertakes to prove on the subject is, that
such superiority is "a thing allowable, lawful, and good."      (lb.
vii. 3.)
We will take next the testimony of Hadrian Saravia; of whom
Mr. Keble writes thus:
" Saravia is a distinct and independent testimony to the doctrine of exclusive
[the Italics are ours] divine right in bishops.  And since Saravia was
afterwards in familiar intercourse with Hooker, and his confidential adviser
when writing on nearly the same subjects, we may with reason use the
recorded opinions of the one for interpreting what might seem otherwise
ambiguous in the other."  (Pref. to Hooker, p. lxvii.)
Now certainly Hadrian Saravia took very high ground in his
defence of Episcopacy, maintaining that the Episcopal authority
was of Divine institution and Apostolical tradition, and was
taught as well by the word of God as the universal consent of all
Churches;* yet in the same work he speaks thus:"In our fathers' memory Luther, Bucer, (Ecolampadius, and others, had
no other calling than that which they had received in the Church of Rome;
and when it happened to them to be called before Caesar, no question respecting their calling could ever be justly raised; and if it had been, they had an
answer ready more fit in my judgment than that which was made at the Conference at Poissy..... For although all who had assembled there before
the king had not the same kind of ordination, and some were ordained by
bishops of the Church of Rome, others by the Reformed Churches, none of then
ought to have been ashamed of his ordination. They might, so far as I can see,
without any danger, have professed that they had been ordained and called,
some by bishops of the Church of Rome, others by orthodox presbyters, in the
order received in the Churches of Christ, after an examination of their
morals and doctrine, and with the authority of the magistrate and consent of
the people, with the imposition of hands and prayer.  Although I am of
opinion that ordinations of ministers of the Church properly belong to bishops,
yet necessity causes that when they are wanting and cannot be had, orthodox
presbyters can in case of necessity ordain a presbyter; which thing, although
it is not in accordance with the order received from the times of the Apostles,
yet is excused by the necessity of the case, which causes that in such a state
of things a presbyter may be a bishop. Moreover, although the act is out of
the usual order, the calling is not to be considered extraordinary."  [And
then, having remarked that no one ought to receive orders from an heretical
bishop, and that the Romish bishops were all heretics, he adds:] " This also
is true, that in such a state of confusion in the Church, when all the bishops
fall away from the true worship of God unto idolatry, without any violation
of the government of the Church, the whole authority of the Episcopal ecclesiastical government is devolved upon the pious and orthodox presbyters, so
* Episcopalem authoritatem Divinae institutionis et Apostolica traditionis esse defendo,
et id tam Verbo Dei quam universali omnium Ecclesiarum consensu doceri.-(Defenm,
Tract. de div. Ministr. Ev. gradibus: In Epist. dedicat.) Op. 1611.




22
that a presbyter clearly may ordain presbyters..... There is one God, one
Lord Jesus Christ, one Church, one Baptism, one Ministry.  The difference
there is between presbyters and pastors of the Church of Christ consists in
the authority of Ecclesiastical government. And this is not violated, when
the higher orders being in any way removed, those who are of the lowest
grade alone remain, with whom, consequently, the whole power of the keys of
the Church then resides..... But where all the bishops are become
impious heretics, the orthodox presbyters are freed from their jurisdiction,
and ought to vindicate to themselves the power of the keys which they have
received in their ordination..... I certainly know not by what necessity
Master Beza'should have been compelled to resort to an extraordinary calling.
For I do not think that either he, or Nicholas Galasius, or any other that may
have been then present, not ordained by Romish bishops, took upon themselves the
ministry of the Word without a legitimate calling received in the Churches of
Christ."
Nor did he hold that the Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches were
bound to seek Episcopacy from some Reformed Episcopal Church,
for he says: " If they call in the aid of our men, and wish to use
their advice, they can; but if they do not, they ought not to arrogate to themselves any authority over them and their churches,
but to rejoice, and congratulate them upon their conversion, and
offer them communion (offerre societatem)."t
So that here again we have a direct testimony in favor of
the validity of the ordinations of the Foreign Non-Episcopal
Churches.
Let us take next the testimony of Dr. John Bridges, then
(1587) Dean of Salisbury, afterwards Bishop of Oxford. He, as
we shall see, agrees with Archbishop Whitgift, that the form of
church government is a matter left to the discretion of each
church. He speaks of it, indeed, in language which we cannot
reconcile with the respect we feel due to the primitive form of
church government; but yet he was one of the most able and
distinguished prelates of that period.
With respect to the question of order in the case of bishops and
priests, he expressly maintains that bishops are superiors, " not
in the office of their order, yet in the office of their dignity;"
(Defence of the Government Established in the Church of England,
1587, 4to. p. 287); and he speaks of the Episcopal state as "a
high calling, not so much of superior dignity, as of superior charge
in governing of God's Church." (Ib. p. 288.)
And on the subject of the Episcopal government of the
Church-opposing the notion of the Puritans, against whom he
was writing, that one certain form only was allowable-he writes
thus:"If now, on the other side, this be not a matter of necessity, but such as
may be varied, being but a form and manner of Ecclesiastical government, as
the observation of this feast and these fasts were of accustomed order, not of
necessity; then, so long as it is used in moderate sort, without tyranny or
pride, nor anything contrary to the proportion of faith and godliness of life
* Defens. Tract. de div. Ministr. Ev. gradibus, &c. ch. ii. pp. 32, 33. We translate
from the Latin.                   t Ib. p. 18.




23
necessarily maintained thereby (for otherwise, if those fasts or this feast had
been used to be kept superstitiously, it had been so far forth to be condemned),
there is no reason why we should break the bond of peace, and make such
trouble in the Church of God, to reject the government that in the nature
thereof is as much indifferent as the solemnizing this or that day the memorial
of the Lord's resurrection. And yet we celebrate the same on the Sunday
only, as those Bishops of Rome at that time did. Which I hope we do without all offence, though we have no precept in Scripture for it. And therefore,
as Polycarpus and Anicetus, differing in that point, notwithstanding did not
violate the peace and unity of the Church, so, according to Irenseus's rule,
while no such excessive superiority is maintained of us, as the Pope since that
time hath usurped, but such as we find practised in the primitive Church and
in the very apostles' age, we ought neither to condemn, nor speak, nor think evil
of other good Churches that use another Ecclesiastical government than we do;
neither ought they to do the like of ours. Not that every person in one and
the same Church should use this liberty of difference, without controlment
and restraint of the superior in that Church wherein he liveth. For, though
it were lawful for one Church to differ from another, being not so tied to
uniformity, as to unity; yet is it not meet for one Church to differ from itself;
but to be both in unity, and be ruled also by uniformity. Especially where
law binds them to obedience." (Ib. pp. 319, 320.)
Another of the most able prelates of our Church, and defender
of it against the Puritans, was Dr. Thomas Cooper, Bishop, first
of Lincoln, and afterwards of Winchester. In the year 1589, he
published an Admonition to the People of.England, in answer
to the attacks of the Puritan party.      And thus he defends in
this work the form of church government established in this
country:" As touching the government of the Church of England, now defended by
the bishops, this I say. When God restored the doctrine of the Gospel more
sincerely and more abundantly than ever before, under that good young
prince King Edward VI.... by consent of all the States of this land, this
manner of government that now is used was by law confirmed as good and
godly....... As for this question of church government, I mean not at this
time to stand much on it.... Only this I desire, that they will lay down out
of the word of God some just proofs, and a direct commandment, that there
should be in all ages and states of the Church of Christ one only form of outward government." (Ed. Lond. 1847, pp. 61-63.)
So that, far from   maintaining the necessity of the Episcopal
form of church government, he, on the contrary, challenges his
opponents to prove that any particular form of church government is necessary.   And he adds:"Surely, as grave learned men as most that have written in this time....
do make good proof of this proposition. That one form of church government
is not necessary in all times and places of the Church, and that their Senate
or Segniorie is not convenient under a Christian magistrate."
And after pointing out the different forms of church government that prevailed in the Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches, he
says:" All those churches in which the gospel in these days, after great darkness,
was first renewed, and the learned men whom God sent to instruct them, I
doubt not but have been directed by the Spirit of God to retain this liberty
that in external government and other outward orders, they might choose such




24
as they thought in wisdom and godliness to be most convenient for the state
of their country and disposition of the people. Why, then, should this liberty
that other countries have used under any color be wrested from ius?"  (Ib.
p. 66.)
" The reason that moveth us not to like of this platform of government is,
that when we on the one part consider the things that are required to be
redressed, and on the other the state of our country, people, and commonweal, we see evidently, that to plant those things in this Church will draw
with it so many and so great alterations of the state of government and of the
laws, as the attempting thereof might bring rather the overthrow of the
gospel among us, than the end that is desired." (Ib. p. 67.)
This of course disposes of the doctrine of our opponents, root
and branch.
We will add but one more authority for the reign of Queen
Elizabeth.   We began with the Bishop of Exeter; we will end
with one of whose high authority as the proper expounder of
the doctrine of our Church we have lately heard much-the
Dean of the Arches.      We beg the attention of our opponents
to the following statement of the very learned and able Dean of
the Arches in 1584, Dr. Richard Cosin.    It occurs in his answer,
"published by authority," to a Puritan work entitled An Abstract
of Certain Acts of Parliament.    He is opposing the notion that'"a set form" of "external policy of discipline and ceremonies"
is " set down in Scripture," and he says:"Are all the Churches of Denmark, Sweveland, Poland, Germany, Rhetia,
Vallis, Tellina, the nine cantons of Switzerland reformed, with their confederates of Geneva, of France, of the Low Countries, and of Scotland, in all
points, either of substance or of circumstance, disciplinated alike? Nay,
they neither are, can be, nor yet need so to be; seeing it cannot be proved, that
any set and exact particular form thereof is recommended unto us by the word of
God." (Answer to an Abstract, &c. 1584, 4to. p. 58.)
Such are the statements of some of the best authorities for the
doctrine of our Church in the time of Queen Elizabeth, in whose
reign our Articles and Formularies were settled (with slight exceptions) in their present form. And we now challenge the Archbishop's assailants to produce their authorities for the same period.
Can they bring even one for their doctrine? We do not believe
it. And upon the testimonies of this period, be it remembered,
must rest the proof of the original and genuine doctrine of our
Reformed Protestant Church.     That there was a declension from
that doctrine afterwards, in many of our divines, is freely confessed.  But that proves nothing.     It can neither alter nor add
to the doctrine of our Church, as laid down in her Formularies
drawn up in the time of the divines from whom we have been
quoting.   And we shall give presently a series of testimonies,
from their times to our own, showing that their view has, in the
main, been held by a large proportion of our greatest divines ever
since; and farther, that even the highest among our eminent
High Church divines (as they are called), have never advocated
the extreme notions maintained by the Tractarians.




25
The ground taken by our early divines, as shown by the testimonies above given, was, that the Episcopal form        of Church
government is the best and the most scriptural, and comes recormmended to us by the practice of the Church even from the times
of the Apostles, but has not been authoritatively laid down by
Christ or his Apostles as of indispensable obligation, and therefore
is not binding upon all Churches.
They did not oppose the early Nonconformists, on the ground
of the absolute necessity of the Episcopal form of Church government, still less of a succession of bishops consecrated by bishops,
to constitute a Church.   They left such notions to the Romanists.
But they found fault with them, as throwing a well-constituted
Church into confusion and disorder, as causing needless schisms
and divisions, and as sinfully disobeying the ordinances of the
Supreme Power in the State, which had established a Christian
Church agreeable to Holy Scripture and Apostolic practice. The
high-flown claims of our Tractarian High Churchmen to the exclusive admissibility of one system of Church government, were
the weapons, not of the divines of our Church, but of their opponents the Nonconformists.     The Genevan platform of Church
government, was with the Puritans that which alone was conformable to the word of God. Every other, but especially the Prelatical, was to be eschewed as an abomination. And, as to the power
of the civil ruler in religious matters, they spoke of it —much as
the Tractarians now speak of it; except that under Elizabeth they
muttered in the dark what under Victoria is proclaimed in the
market-place.*   Thus it is that extremes meet.
Precisely in accordance with these views of our early divines
are: —
II. The Articles and other Formularies which were drawn up by
the school of theologians to which they belonged.
Thus, in the Article of our Church on the subject of the ministry, we find it carefully worded, so as not to limit a lawful ministry
to those that have Episcopal ordination.
"It is not lawful (says the Article) for any man to take upon him the
office of public preaching or ministering the sacraments in the congregation,
before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those we
ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this
work by men who have public authority given unto them, in the congregation,
to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard." (Art. 23.)
It should seem hardly possible for one acquainted with the circumstances of those times, to read this Article and not see that it
* Hence we may remark, by the way, that when we are considering the events of that
period, and the apparent (and to some extent real) absence of those principles of toleration now so happily established among us, it must not be forgotten, that the object of
the early Nonconformist was, not the mere toleration of their own system, but the utter
subversion of the system of church government then established by the consent of the
sovereign, the clergy, and the people, and the substitution of their own in its stead.
This was notoriously and confessedly their aim; and this it was which infused so much
wrath and bitterness into the controversies of the period.




26
is carefully worded, so as not to exclude the ministry of the Foreign
Non-Episcopal Churches.
But a more authentic interpretation of this Article can hardly
be conceived than that given by Thomas Rogers, chaplain to
Archbishop Bancroft, in his Exposition of the Articles, published
in 1607, as "perused, and by the lawful authority of the Church
of England allowed to be public," and which the Archbishop
ordered all the parishes in his province to supply themselves with.
He deduces from the Article the six following propositions:" 1. None publicly may preach but such as thereunto are authorized. 2.
They must notbe silent who by office are bound to preach. 3. The sacraments
may not be administered in the congregation but by a lawful minister. 4.
There is a lawful ministry in the Church. 5. They are lawful ministers
which be ordained by men lawfully appointed to the calling and sending
forth of ministers. 6. Before ministers are to be ordained, they are to be
chosen and called."
And then, proceeding to point out the testimonies we have in
favor of the truth of these propositions, he observes upon each, as
he comes to it, that the Foreign Reformed Churches maintain it.
On the first:    "All this is acknowledged by the       Reformed
Churches;" referring to the Helvetic, Bohemic, French, and
other Confessions.   On the second: " Hereunto bear witness all
the Churches of God which be purged from superstition and errors;"
referring to the same Confessions.  On the third: " Hereunto do
the Churches of God subscribe;" referring to the same Confessions.
On the fourth: "A truth also approved by the Churches;" referring
to the same Confessions. On the fifth: " So testify with us the
true Churches elsewhere in the world;" referring to the same Confessions. On the sixth: "And this do the Churches Protestant by
their Confessions approve;" referring to the same Confessions.*
And this is not only a testimony as to the meaning of the
Article, but as to the light in which the Foreign Non-Episcopal
Churches were then regarded by the authorities of our Church,
even by so high a Churchman (to use the common phrase) as
Archbishop Bancroft.
Proceeding to a later period, we find Bishop Burnet thus commenting on this Article:"If a company of Christians find the public worship where they live to be
so defiled that they cannot with a good conscience join in it, and if they do
not know of any place to which they can conveniently go, where they may
worship God purely and in a regular way; if, I say, such a body, finding some
that have been ordained, though to the lower functions, should submit itself
entirely to their conduct, or finding none of those, should by a common consent desire some of their own number to minister to them in holy things,
and should upon that beginning grow up to a regulated constitution, though
we are very sure that this is quite out of all rule, and could not be done
* "The Faith, Doctrine, and Religion, &c., expressed in 39 Articles, &c.; the said
Articles analyzed into propositions, and the propositions proved to be agreeable both to
the written word of God and to the extant Confessions of all the neighbor Churches
Christianly reformed." 1607. 4to.




27
without a very great sin, unless the necessity were great and apparent; yet if
the necessity is real and not feigned, this is not condemned or annulled by
the Article; for when this grows to a constitution, and when it was begun by
the consent of a Body, who are supposed to have an authority in such an
extraordinary case, whatever some hotter spirits have thought of this since that
time, yet we are very sure, that not only those who penned the Articles, but the
Body of this Church for above half an age after, did, notwithstanding those
irregularities, acknowledge the Foreign Churches, so constituted, to be true
Churches as to all the essentials of a Church, though they had been atfirst irregularly formed, and continued still to be in an imperfect state. And therefore
the general words in which this part of the Article is framed, seem to have been
designed on purpose not to exclude them." (Burnet's Exposition of the XXXIX.
Articles, 5th ed. 1746.)
And Professor Hey justly remarks, that the expression, " who
have public authority given unto them in the congregation,"' seems to leave the manner of giving the power of ordaining
quite free: it seems as if any religious society might, consistently
with this Article, appoint officers, with power of ordination, by
election, representation, or lot; as if, therefore, the right to ordain
did not depend upon any uninterrupted succession."   (Lectures in
Divinity, 2d ed. 1822, vol. iv. p. 166.)
The same view is taken of the meaning of this Article by Bishop
Tomline, ordinarily considered a sufficiently high churchman.
(Expos. of Art. ed. 1799, p. 376.)
It is quite clear that the words of the Article do not maintain
the necessity of Episcopal ordination; and consequently, as the
object of the Article is to show the doctrine of the Church of
England on the subject, it cannot be said that the Church of
England maintains it. No one, therefore, has a right to put forth
such a doctrine as the doctrine of the Church of England.
This is the only place in which our Church touches the question
of ordination in the abstract; and we see that it is carefully
worded, so as to be consistent with the constitution of the Foreign
Reformed Churches.
The notice of the three orders of the ministry as having existed
from the times of the Apostles in the Preface to the Ordination
Service, is simply the statement of a fact, which does not touch
the question of the validity of the Orders of the Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches. The defence of their case rests upon the peculiar
circumstances in which they were placed.    And the recognition
even of the necessity of Episcopal ordination for ministering in
the Church of England was not added till the review after the
Restoration; so that, as we shall see presently, those who had
only Presbyterian ordination, had previously been allowed to
minister in our Church. But this irregularity was very properly
put an end to at the Restoration, both by the Preface to the
Ordination Service, and also by the Act of Uniformity.    (13, 14
Car. II. c. 4.)
We are therefore unable to understand the following remarks
in a note in the Bishop of London's Sermons on the Church. His
lordship says:



28
"Our Reformers, in the Book of Consecration, approved in the 36th Article, insist strongly on the necessity of Episcopal ordination, a point which, as
Bishop Sanderson says,' has been constantly and uniformly maintained by
our best writers, and by all the sober, orderly, and orthodox sons of the
Church;' but they do not presume to say that it is impossible, under any
circumstances, for a Church to exist without it. We may, however, set their
formal approval of the Consecration Book against the private opinions of
Archbishop Cranmer, in his answers to the ninth question concerning church
government." (P. 62.)
Now the simple fact is, that there is not one word about "the
necessity of Episcopal ordination" in that book, as drawn up by
the Reformers, and sanctioned by the Article.  The words that
relate to that point were not inserted in the book until the review
in the time of Charles II., and then refer only to the ministry of
the Church of England.    They do not declare the necessity of
Episcopal ordination to any valid ministry; nor (we think) does
Bishop Sanderson. Consequently, the last observation falls to the
ground; and we may observe, that " the private opinions of
Archbishop Cranmer" on the point, as shown in his Answers (not
to the ninth, but) to the tenth and eleventh Questions on Church
Government, were (as we have shown) shared with him, sufficiently
for our present purpose, by many others of the leading divines of
his day.
But still farther; by the 55th Canon of 1604, all our clergy
are required, in the bidding prayer before, or rather in the commencement of the sermon, to pray for "the Church of Scotland."
Now the Church of Scotland, at the time this canon was passed,
was Presbyterian, as it now is. And, consequently, the very men
who are now protesting against the recognition of any ordinations
as valid but Episcopal, and contending that it is the doctrine of
our Church that there is no such thing as a valid ministry but
through an apostolically descended episcopate, are by canon bound
solemnly to recognize 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
recognition.
Some of her majesty's predecessors have occasionally ordered
this canon to be observed. It would be but a fair return (though
we are far from desiring it) for the remarks in which certain
parties are often indulging themselves, that they should be
favored with a similar order. They are very fond of appealing to
rubrics and canons, when they suit their purpose; and none, we
will venture to say, would be more unwilling, consistently, and
impartially, to carry them out into practice.
III. The practice of our Church for many years after the
Reformation entirely refutes the notion that she holds the ordinations of the Scotch and Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches to be
invalid; for, until the period of the Restoration, ministers of those




29
Churches were admitted to the cure of souls in our Church without
any fresh ordination.
In 1582 (April 6) a license was granted by the Vicar-General
of the Archbishop of Canterbury (Grindal) to a minister of the
name of John Morrison, who had only Scotch orders, in the following terms:"Since you, the foresaid John Morrison, about five years past, in the town
of Garvet in the county of Lothian of the kingdom of Scotland, were admitted
and ordained to sacred orders and the holy ministry, by the imposition of hands,
according to the laudable form and rite of the Reformed Church of Scotland;
and since the congregation of that county of Lothian is conformable to the
orthodox faith and sincere religion now received in this realm of England,
and established by public authority; we therefore, as much as lies in us,
and as by right we may, approving and ratifying the form of your ordination
and preferment (prcefectionis) done in such manner aforesaid, grant to you a
license and faculty, with the consent and express command of the most
reverend Father in Christ the Lord Edmund, by the Divine providence
Archbishop of Canterbury, to us signified, that in such orders by you taken
you may, and have power, in any convenient places in and throughout the
whole province of Canterbury, to celebrate divine offices, to minister the
sacraments, &c., as much as in us lies, and we may dejure, and as far as the
laws of the kingdom do allow, &c." (Strype's Life of Grindal, Bk. 2, c. xiii.
p. 271; or Oxf. ed. p. 402.)
To this we need only add the testimony of Bishop Cosin, confessedly (as the phrase goes) a High Churchman. He says, in
an admirable letter on this subject, written from Paris, Feb. 7,
1650, from which we shall presently give a large extract:" Therefore, if at any time a minister so ordained in these French Churches
came to incorporate himself in ours, and to receive a public charge or cure of
souls among us in the Church of England (as I have known some of them to
have so done of late, and can instance in many other before my time), our
bishops did not reordain him before they admitted him to his charge, as they
must have done, if his former ordination here in France had been void.
NOR DID OUR LAWS REQUIRE MORE OF HIM THAN TO DECLARE HIS PUBLIC CONSENT TO THE RELIGION RECEIVED AMONGST US, AND TO SUBSCRIBE THE ARTICLES
ESTABLISHED."-(Letter to Mr. Cordel, in Basire's "Account of Bishop Cosin,"
annexed to his "Funeral Sermon;" and also in Bishop Fleetwood's Judgment of the Church of England in the case of Lay Baptism, 2d. ed. Lond.
1712, p. 52.)
And the same testimony is borne by Bishop Fleetwood, who
says that this was " certainly her practice [i. e. of our Church]
during the reigns of King James and King Charles I. and to the
year 1661. We had many ministers from Scotland, from France,
and the Low Countries, who were ordained by presbyters only,
and not bishops, and they were instituted into benefices with
cure.... and yet were never reordained, but only subscribed the
Articles." (Judgm. of Church of Engl. in case of Lay Baptism,
1712. 8vo. pt. ii. Works, p. 552.)
If these cases do not prove, that at least our Church has never
disowned the validity of the ordinations of the Scotch and Foreign
Non-Episcopal Churches, and that her practice till the Restoration
was to recognize their validity, nothing would do so. For Dr.
3




30
Cosin, who must have been well acquainted with the matter
(having filled important posts in the Church since the year 1616,
and been librarian to Bishop Overal, and domestic chaplain to
Bishop Neale), speaks of it, not as a custom with some only, but as
the practice of "the bishops " generally, and sanctioned by the law.
The last sentence in the extract from Dr. Cosin, no doubt refers
to the Act 13 Eliz. c. 12, in which it was enacted, that any professing to be a priest or minister of God's word and sacraments,
who had been ordained by any other form than that authorized
by Edw. VI. and Queen Elizabeth, should be called upon to declare his assent and subscribe to the Articles of religion. The
parties more particularly in the eye of the framers of the Act
were probably those ordained by the Romish form, but the application of the clause was of course general.
True, as we have already observed, after the Restoration this
was altered. The Act of Uniformity 13, 14 Car. II. c. 4, ~~ 13,
14, requires that all admitted to any " ecclesiastical promotion
or dignity whatsoever" in our Church, or to administer the Lord's
Supper, should have had "Episcopal ordination." And a clause
of a similar kind was added in the Preface to the Ordination Services; the words, " or hath had formerly Episcopal consecration
or ordination," being inserted at that time.
But this could not affect the doctrine of our Church as previously laid down in the Articles. The Article declaring the doctrine of our Church on the subject of admission to the ministerial
office remained the same as it was when ministers of the Foreign
Non-Episcopal Churches were freely permitted to minister in our
churches. But the Episcopal form of church government being
established in our Church, it was very reasonably required by the
Act, that all who held any "promotion" in it should have received Episcopal ordination, and this especially at a time when
the benefices of the Church had been filled by men attached to the
Presbyterian form of church government, and the Episcopalian
ministers ejected from them. The state of things at the time
shows the object which the Act had in view, as no attempt had
been made previously to get such a law passed against the admission of ministers of Non-Episcopal Churches. And in the very
next section of the Act (~ 15) we find a recognition of those communities as " the Foreign Reformed Churches."  The fact that
our Church requires all who hold office in her communion to be
ordained according to that form of church government which she
has chosen to follow, proves nothing as to her doctrine on the
abstract question of the validity of the Orders of Non-Episcopal
Churches.
Once more; if it were the case that our Church held all but
Episcopal ordinations to be invalid, and that only those who have
been ordained by bishops are entitled to preach the word and administer both the sacraments, the whole Bench of Bishops have
been for more than a century, if not at the present moment, in



31
volved in the guilt of acting directly contraryto the doctrine of the
Church; for the missionaries sent out as ordained ministers by the
Society for the propagation of the Gospel, which is under the especial direction of the Bench of Bishops, used to be for the most part
only in Lutheran orders; and if the practice has been given up,
its discontinuance must be of very recent date.
We ought not to omit to add, that in former times collections
for the relief of the ministers of some of the Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches were made in our churches by public authority. A
Royal Brief was issued by Charles I. during the archiepiscopate of
Archbishop Laud himself, ordering a collection to be thus made
for "the ministers in the Palatinate," which was forwarded to
the bishops by Laud, in a letter, concluding, "not doubting of
your best assistance and furtherance in a work so pious and full
of charity, &c." (Wilk. Cone. iv. 516.) Several instances of such
collections might be adduced.
On these grounds, then, namely, the witness of our early divines,
the statements of our Formularies, and the practice of our Church,
we maintain, without hesitation, that our Church does not hold the
doctrine of the exclusive validity of Episcopal Orders.
We admit that, in that great alteration that gradually took place
subsequently to the reign of Elizabeth, in the tone of the doctrine
practically held in our Church by many of her divines, there was
a great change on this point as well as others.
We find Lord Bacon complaining, just at the close of the reign
of Elizabeth, that some of the clergy denied the validity of the
Orders conferred in the Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches. He
says: " Some indiscreet persons have been bold in open preaching
to use dishonorable and derogatory speech and censure of the
Churches abroad; and that so far, as some of our men, as I have
heard, ordained in foreign parts, have been pronounced to be no
lawful ministers." (Advertisement touch. the Controv. of the
Church of Engl.; Works, ii. 514. ed. 1819.)
This is another proof that men so ordained were allowed by
public authority to minister in our Church; and also, no doubt, a
proof that there had then arisen a school of divines among us that
denied the validity of their Orders. But whatever might be the
case with some hot-headed men in our Church, we do not find the
more eminent divines even of that new school taking such ground.
The utmost length to which they go, is to leave the question of the
validity of such ordinations doubtful, and decline the determination of it; always, as far as we can recollect, protesting against
their having any notion of denying to the Foreign Non-Episcopal
Churches the character and essential privileges of Churches of
Christ, however imperfectly constituted they might consider them to
be. They left it to the superior learning and wisdom of such men
as D. C. L., and the young blood of the Bristol Church Union, to
declare it to be "the fundamental law of the Church Catholic,"
and "its teaching in all ages," "that the imposition of Episcopal




82
hands is essential to all valid ordination; and that, without such
ordination, none have authority to minister the word and sacraments."
Bishop Andrews, for instance, might perhaps have felt a difficulty with respect to much that our earlier divines had written
upon the subject; but, nevertheless, he says, when speaking on the
subject of the proper form of government for the Church, in his
Letters, in 1618, to Du Moulin:"And yet, though our government be by Divine right, it follows not,
either that there is'no salvation,' or that'a Church cannot stand without
it.' He must needs be stone blind, that sees not Churches standing without
it: he must needs be made of iron, and hard-hearted, that denies them salvation. We are not made of that metal, we are none of those ironsides; we put
a wide difference betwixt them. Somewhat may be wanting that is of Divine
right (at least in the external government), and yet salvation may be had...This is not to damn anything, to prefer a better thing before it: this is not
to damn your Church, to recall it to another form, that all antiquity was better pleased with, i. e. to ours: and this, when God shall grant the opportunity,
and your estate may bear it." (Second Lett. to Du Moulin. See Wordsw. Christ.
Instit. vol. iii. p. 239.)
After him, Archbishop Bramhall took the highest ground among
the eminent divines of that day in favor of Episcopacy; but, nevertheless, was far from pronouncing all but Episcopal Orders invalid.
Writing, in 1643, against the Separatists (as the Dissenters were
then called), he says:" In a difference of ways, every pious and peaceable Christian, out of his
discretion and care of his own salvation, will inquire which is'via tutissima'
-' the safest way.'..... And seeing there is required to the essence of a
Church-first, a pastor; secondly, a flock; thirdly, a subordination of this
flock to this pastor-where we are not sure that there is right ordination,
what assurance have we that there is a Church? [But then he immediately
adds] I write not this to prejudge our neighbor Churches. I dare not limit the
extraordinary operation of God's Spirit, where ordinary means are wanting
without the default of the persons. He gave His people manna for food
whilst they were in the wilderness. Necessity is a strong plea. Many Protestant Churches lived under kings and bishops of another communion; others
had particular reasons why they could not continue or introduce bishops;
but it is not so with us.....But the chief reason is, because I Do NOT MAKE
THIS WAY TO BE SIMPLY NECESSARY, BUT ONLY SHOW WHAT IS SAFEST, where so
many Christians are of another mind. I know that there is great difference
between a VALID and a REGULAR ordination; and what some choice divines do
write of case of necessity; and for my part am apt to believe that God looks
upon His people in mercy, with all their prejudices; and that there is a great
latitude left to particular Churches in the constitution of their ecclesiastical
regiment, according to the exigence of time, and place, and persons, so as
order and his own institution be observed." (Serpent-Salve, i 25. Works,
Oxf. ed. vol. iii. pp. 475, 476.)
Again, in another subsequent work (written about 1659), he
writes:" I cannot assent to his minor proposition, that either all or any considerable part of the Episcopal divines in England do unchurch either all or the
most part of the Protestant Churches. No man is hurt but by himself.
They unchurch none at all, but leave them to stand or fall to their own Mas



33
ter. They do not unchurch the Swedish, Danish, Bohemian Churches, and
many other Churches in Polonia, Hungaria, and those parts of the world
which have an ordinary uninterrupted succession of pastors, some by the
names of Bishops, others under the name of Seniors, unto this day. (I meddle not with the Socinians.) They unchurch not the Lutheran Churches in
Germany, who both assert Episcopacy in their confessions, and have actual
superintendents in their practice, and would have bishops, name and thing, if
it were in their power. Let him not mistake himself; those Churches which
he is so tender of, though they be better known to us by reason of their
vicinity, are so far from being'all or the most part of the Protestant
Churches,' that, being all put together, they amount not to so great a proportion as the Britannic Churches alone. And if one secluded out of them
all those who want an ordinary succession without their own faults, out of
invincible ignorance or necessity, and all those who desire to have an ordinary
succession, either explicitly or implicitly, they will be reduced to a little flock
indeed. But let him set his heart at rest. I will remove this scruple out of
his mind, that he may sleep securely upon both ears. Episcopal divines do
not deny THOSE CHURCHES to be true Churches wherein salvation may be had.
We advise them, as it is our duty, to be circumspect for themselves, and not
to put it to more question, whether they have Ordination or not, or desert the
general practice of the Universal Church for nothing, when they may clear
it if they please. Their case is not the same with those who labor under invincible necessity... Episcopal divines will readily subscribe to the determination of the learned Bishop of Winchester [Andrews] in his Answer to
the Second Epistle of Molinceus [quoting the passage we have given above].
This mistake proceedeth from not distinguishing between the true nature
and essence of a Church, which we do readily grant them, and the integrity
and perfection of a Church, which we cannot grant them without swerving
from the judgment of the Catholic Church." (Vindic. of himself and the
Episcopal Clergy, c. 3; Works, vol. iii. pp. 517, 518. See also his Replication
to the Bishop of Chalcedon, Answ. to Pref. ~ 1; Works, iii. 25, 26; and c. 1, ~ 2.
Ib. 69, 70.)
And here we must not omit to notice, in passing (what this last
extract indicates, and is fully confirmed elsewhere in his Works),
that there is another material difference in his views from those
of our modern Tractarians, namely, that what he specially contends
for, is, a succession of pastors, not necessarily bishops consecrated
by bishops, and that out of these pastors one should be appointed
as president over the rest; and, therefore, he speaks favorably
of the Lutheran Churches.      He says, elsewhere, expressly, of
"most" of the Protestant Churches "in High Germany," "all
these have their bishops, or superintendents, which is all one;".
"three parts of four of the Protestant Churches have either bishops
or superintendents, which is all one."    (Serpent-Salve; Works,
iii. 480, 485.) He does not, therefore, insist so much upon a succession of bishops consecrated by bishops, as upon the adoption of
the Episcopal form of government. But this by the way.
We may judge, then, from    these passages of Bishop Andrews
and Archbishop Bramhall, what would have been the feelings of
the most eminent even of our High Church divines respecting the
language adopted on this subject by the Tractarian school.
We will now add a few of the numerous testimonies that could
be given from the writings of our most celebrated divines, since
the close of Queen Elizabeth's reign to the present day, showing




34
the light in which they regarded the Orders of the Scotch and
Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches.
Of Archbishop Bancroft's opinion we may form some judgment
from the countenance he gave to the work of his chaplain, Rogers,
on the XXXIX. Articles, already quoted. But, indirectly, we have
a still more express testimony of his judgment on the subject, as
well as of several of his brother bishops, in the following passage
in Archbishop Spotiswood's History of Scotland. The Archbishop
relates that when, in 1610, a regular episcopate was about to be
conferred upon the Church of Scotland, by the consecration of
three Scottish clergyman (of whom Spotiswood himself was one)
as bishops of that Church, by the Bishops of London, Ely, and
Bath, at the chapel of London-House" A question in the mean time was moved by Dr. Andrews, Bishop of Ely,
touching the consecration of the Scottish bishops, who, as he said,'must
first be ordained presbyters as having received no ordination from a bishop.'
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Bancroft, who was by, maintained,'that
thereof there was no necessity, seeing where bishops could not be had, the
ordination given by the presbyters must be esteemed lawful; otherwise, that
it might be doubted if there were any lawful vocation in most of the Reformed Churches.' This applauded to by the other bishops, Ely acquiesced;
and at the day and in the place appointed the three Scottish bishops were
consecrated." (Spotiswood's Uist. of Church and State of Scotland, 4th ed.
1677, fol., p. 514.)
Next, let us hear Archbishop Usher's judgment, given at the
latter end of his life: -
"I have ever declared my opinion to be, that episcopus et presbyter gradu
tantum differunt non ordine, and consequently that in places where bishops
cannot be had, the ordination by presbyters standeth valid; yet, on the other
side, holding as I do that a bishop hath superiority in degree above a presbyter, you may easily judge that the ordination made by such presbyters as
have severed themselves from those bishops unto whom they had sworn
canonical obedience, cannot possibly, by me, be excused from being schismatical. And howsoever I must needs think that the Churches which have no
bishops are thereby become very much defective in their government, and
that the Churches in France, who, living under a Popish power, cannot do
what they would, are more excusable in this defect than the Low Countries,
that live under a free State; yet, for the testifying my communion with these
Churches (which I do love and honor as true members of the Church universal), I do profess that, with like affection, I should receive the blessed
sacrament at the hands of the Dutch ministers, if I were in Holland, as I
should do at the hands of the French ministers if I were in Charentone."
(Judgment of the late Archbishop of Armagh, &c. By N. Bernard. Lond.
1657, 8vo. pp. 125-127.)
No one probably will question the high value which Bishop
Hall had for Episcopacy, manifested in his Treatise on the subject. Yet, in a Discourse addressed to the Clergy of his Diocese
as Bishop of Norwich, when speaking of the differences between
the Church of England and the Non-Episcopal Churches abroad,
he writes thus:" Blessed be God, there is no difference in any essential matter betwixt the
Church of England and her sisters of the Reformation. We accord in every




35
point of Christian doctrine without the least variation; their public Confessions and ours are sufficient convictions to the world of our full and absolute
agreement. The only difference is, in the form of outward administration;
wherein also we are so far agreed, as that we all profess this form not to be
essential to the being of a Church, though much importing the well or better
being of it, according to our several apprehensions thereof; and that we do
all retain a reverence and loving opinion of each other in our own several
ways; not seeing any reason why so poor a diversity should work any alienation of affection in us one towards another." (The Peacemaker, ~ 6, published
in 1647. Works, by Pratt, vol. viii. p. 56.)
So also our learned Bishop Davenant:"In a disordered Church, where all the bishops have fallen into heresy or
idolatry, where they have refused to ordain orthodox ministers, where they
have considered those only who are associates of their faction and error to be
worthy of holy orders, if orthodox presbyters (for the preservation of the
Church) are compelled to ordain other presbyters, I could not venture to
pronounce such ordinations useless and invalid." And this he proceeds to
apply to the case of certain Protestant Churches. (Determ. qucest., &c. Cant.
1634, fol., q. 42, p. 191.)
And in his Letter to Mr. Dury, on promoting peace among the
Protestant Churches, he says:"< Moreover, I doubt not at all but that the Saxon and Helvetian Churches,
and others which either consent with these, or those, acknowledge themselves
to have, and to desire to retain, brotherly communion with the English, Scottish, Irish, and other Foreign Reformed Churches. Surely, as concerning us,
although we consent not with them in all points and titles of controversial
divinity, yet we acknowledge them brethren in Christ, and protest ourselves
to have a brotherly and holy communion with them." (Prefixed to his
Exhort. to broth. comm. betwixt the Protestant Churches. Lond. 1641. 12mo.
p. 33. See also the Treatise following it.)
One of the most eminent and able divines of our Church was
Bishop Morton, of the 17th century, bishop successively of Chester,
Lichfield, and Durham.   And thus he speaks:"Where the bishops degenerate into wolves, there the presbyters regain
their ancient right of ordaining (consecrandi). I call it ancient, because that
the Episcopate and the Presbyterate are, jure divino, the same, is laid down
by Marsilius, Gratian, &c." (Apol. Cathol. pt. 1, lib. 1, c. 21. Ed. 2d. Lond.
1606, 8vo. p. 74.)
Another able prelate of our Church at this period, and a strenuous
defender of Episcopacy, was Dr. George Downham.          But in a
sermon on this subject, after having undertaken to show the jus
divinum of Episcopacy in the sense of being an apostolical institution, he guards himself against being supposed to take the
ground which the Puritans took in behalf of their platform of
church government, namely, that because it was to be found in
the Scriptures, therefore it was " perpetually and unchangeably
necessary in all Churches," remarking:"Although we be well assured that the form of government by bishops is
the best, as having not only the warrant of Scripture for the first institution,
but also the perpetual practice of the Church from the apostles' time to our
age for the continuance of it; notwithstanding we doubt not, but where this




36
may not be had, others may be admitted; neither do we deny but that silver
is good, though gold be better." (Serm. at Consecr. of Bp. of Bath and Wells.
1608, 4to. p. 95.)
And in his Defence of this sermon, referring to this passage, he
says:
"Which objection and answer I inserted of purpose into the sermon, to preserve the credit of those Reformed Churches where the Presbyterian discipline
is established, and that they might not be exposed or left naked to the obloquies
of the Papists." (Def. of Serm. &c., 1611, 4to. lib. 4, c. 7, pp. 145, 146.)
And expressly, on the point of ordination, he says:" Thus have I reported the judgment of the ancient Church ascribing the
ordinary right of ordination to bishops, but yet, not so appropriating it unto
them as that extraordinarily and in case of necessity it might not be lawful
for presbyters to ordain; and much less teaching (as the Papists imagine)
absolutely a nullity in the ordination which is not performed by a bishop.
For suppose a Church (the state of some Reformed Churches) either altogether destitute of a bishop, or pestered with such as the Popish prelates are,
heretical and idolatrous, by whom no orthodoxal ministers might hope to be
ordained, we need not doubt but that the ancient Fathers would, in such a
case of necessity, have allowed ordination without a bishop, though not as
regular, according to the rules of ordinary church government, yet as effectual
and as justifiable in the want of a bishop." (Serm. pp. 42, 43.)
Lord Bacon, though a layman, may fairly claim a place among
our witnesses. We have already noticed his rebuke of some of the
hot spirits of his day for their language on the subject; but let us
hear the impartial testimony of such a mind as his on the general
question:" For the second point, that there should be but one form of discipline in
all Churches, and that imposed by necessity of a commandment and prescript
out of the word of God; it is a matter volumes have been compiled of, and
therefore cannot receive a brief redargution. I for my part do confess, that
in revolving the Scriptures, I could never find any such thing: but that God
had left the like liberty to the church government, as he had done to the civil
government; to be varied according to time, and place, and accidents, which
nevertheless his high and divine providence doth order and dispose. For all
civil governments are restrained from God unto the general grounds of justice
and manners; but the policies and forms of them are left free: so that
monarchies and kingdoms, senates and seignories, popular states and communalties, are lawful, and where they are planted ought to be maintained
inviolate. So likewise in church matters, the substance of doctrine is immutable; and so are the general rules of government; but for rites and ceremonies, and for the particular hierarchies, policies, and disciplines of
churches, they be left at large." (Cert. Consid. touching Pacif. of Church;
Works, ed. 1819. vol. ii. pp. 529, 530.)
Our next witness shall be one who was confessedly one of the
most able divines of his time, and ranks high, we believe, with
our opponents; we mean, Dean Field.
Discussing the question, " whether the power of ordination be so
essentially annexed to the order of bishops, that none but bishops
may in any case ordain," he points out what is " implied in the calling of ecclesiastical ministers," and that the bishop of a church is




37
only that presbyter that is appointed to be " specially pastor of
the place, who for distinction sake is named a bishop, to wjomn an
eminent and peerless power is given for the avoiding of schisms
and factions;" and maintains that "the power of ecclesiastical or
sacred order" "is equal and the same in all those whom we call
presbyters, that is, fatherly guides of God's Church and people;
and that only for order's sake, and the preservation of peace, there
is a limitation of the use and exercise of the same;" adding:"hereunto agree all the best learned amongst the Romanists themselves,
freely confessing that that wherein a bishop excelleth a presbyter is not a
distinct and higher order or power of order, but a kind of dignity and office or
employment only."  " Hence it followeth, that many things which in some
cases presbyters may lawfully do, are peculiarly reserved unto bishops, as
Ihierome noteth, rather for the honor of their ministry than the necessity of any
law. And therefore we read, that presbyters, in some places, and at some
times, did impose hands and confirm such as were baptized, which, when
Gregory, bishop of Rome, would wholly have forbidden, there was so great exception taken to him for it, that he left it free again. And who knoweth not,
that all presbyters, in cases of necessity, may absolve and reconcile penitents,
a thing in ordinary course appropriated unto bishops? And why not, by the
same reason, ordain presbyters and deacons in cases of like necessity? For seeing the cause why they are forbidden to do these acts, is, because to bishops
ordinarily the care of all churches is committed, and to them in all reason
the ordination of such as must serve in the Church pertaineth that have the
chief care of the Church, and have churches wherein to employ them; which
only bishops have as long as they retain their standing, and not presbyters,
being but assistants to bishops in their churches; if they become enemies to
God and true religion, in case of such necessity, as the care and government
of the Church is devolved to the presbyters remaining Catholic and being of
a better spirit, so the duty of ordaining such as are to assist or succeed them in
the work of the ministry pertains to them likewise."...... " Surely, the best
learned in the Church of Rome in former times durst not pronounce all ordinations of this nature to be void. For not only Armachanus, a very learned
and worthy bishop, but as it appeareth by Alexander of Hales, many learned
men in his time, and before, were of opinion that, in some cases, and at
some times, presbyters may give orders, and that their ordinations are of force;
though to do so, not being urged by extreme necessity, cannot be excused
from over great boldness and presumption." (Of the Church, ed. 1628; lib.
3, c. 39, pp. 155-157. See also ib. lib. 5, c. 27, p. 500.)
Another most important witness on this subject is Archdeacon
Francis Mason, the eminent defender of the Episcopate of the
English Church against the Romanists. In 1641, a tract written
by him was published, vindicating " the validity of the ordination
of the ministers of the Reformed Churches beyond the seas;" being
some papers originally intended by him to form part of his celebrated  Vindication of the Church of England, but for some
reason omitted.    Its publication in this way has caused some
(especially Mason's translator, Lindsay) to cast a suspicion upon
its genuineness; but not only is it spoken of as his by his contemporary Dr. Bernard, Usher's chaplain (Judgment of the late
Archbishop of Armagh, 1657, p. 133), and first appeared in a
Collection of Tracts of which Usher was partly the author, but in
a letter of Dr. Ward (then Master of Sidney College, Cambridge)
to Usher, written shortly after the publication of the first edition




38
of Mason's work in 1613, we find the following passages: " I pray
you inform me, what the specialties are which are omitted in Mr.
Mason's book. I would only know the heads." And then returning to the subject at the close of the letter, he says: " I had
no leisure when I was with you to inquire how Mr. Mason doth
warrant the vocation and ordination of the ministers of the Reformed Churches in Foreign parts." (Parr's Life and Letters of
Usher, 1686, fol., p. 34.)
Now in this tract Mason says: —
The bishop "in his consecration receiveth a sacred office, an eminency, a
jurisdiction, a dignity, a degree of Ecclesiastical pre-eminence." " IIe hath
no higher degree in respect of intension or extension of the character; but
he hath a higher degree, that is, a more excellent place in respect of authority
and jurisdiction in spiritual regiment.  Wherefore seeing a presbyter is equal
to a bishop in the power of order, he hath equally intrinsical power to give orders."
(Pp. 160, 161.)
The speaker for the Romanist (for it is written in the form of a
dialogue), making the precise objection of the Tractarians, observes, "the pre-eminence of bishops is jure divino;" to which
Orthodox answers thus:" First, if you mean by jure divino, that which is according to the Scripture,
then the pre-eminence of bishops is jure divino; for it hath been already
proved to be according to the Scripture. Secondly, if by jure divino you
mean the ordinance of God, in this sense also it may be said to be jure divino.
For it is an ordinance of the apostles, whereunto they were directed by God's
Spirit, even by the spirit of prophecy, and consequently the ordinance of
God. But if by jure divino you understand a law and commandment of God,
binding all Christian Churches, universally, perpetually, unchangeably, and
with such absolute necessity that no other form of regiment may in any case
be admitted; in this sense neither may we grant it, nor yet can you prove it,
to be jure (livino."  "The apostles, in their lifetime, ordained many bishops,
and left a fair pattern to posterity. The Church, following the commodiousness thereof, embraced it in all ages through the Christian world." (Ib. p. 163.)
The Archdeacon then proceeds to defend the validity of the
ordinations in the Foreign Reformed Churches, first on the ground
of necessity; to which the objector, after some discussion, ultimately replies: " Suppose that ordination might be devolved to
presbyters in case of necessity; yet the necessity ceasing, such
extraordinary courses should likewise cease. Why, then, do they
continue their former practice?   Why do they not now seek
to receive their orders from   Protestant bishops?"   To which
Orthodox replies: " The Churches of Germany need not to seek
to foreign bishops, because they have superintendents or bishops
among themselves.   And as for other places which embrace the
discipline of Geneva, they also have bishops in effect;" which he
proceeds to prove by showing that they have among them those
who have "the substance of the office."     And he concludes:
" Thus much concerning the ministers of other Reformed
Churches, wherein, if you will not believe us disputing for the
lazfulness of their calling, yet you must give us leave to believe




39
God himself from    heaven approving their ministry by pouring
down a blessing upon their labors." (Ib. pp. 173-176.)
Another eminent divine of our Church was Dr. Crakanthorp;
and he likewise justifies the Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches in
this matter on the ground of necessity; and as it respects their
not taking the first opportunity of restoring the Episcopal form
of government, only remarks:O( Optamus quidem ex animo, ut cum lex illa necessitatis jam ablata sit,
velint et omnes Ecclesise ad priscum et ab universali Ecclesia constantissime
observatum ordinem, et ordinandi modum redire; clavesque suas Episcopis
restituant: sed optamus, non cogimus. Jus et imperium in eorum Ecclesias nec
habemus nos, nec desideramus." (Defens. Eccles. Anglic. Lond. 1625, 4to. c.
41, ~ 12, pp. 246, 247.)
We must not forget also to notice the similar testimony of the
learned Dr. Willet, in his Synopsis Papismi, of which the fifth
edition was published in 1634, under the authority of the king's
letters patent; but we must content ourselves with referring our
readers to the work. (See 5th Controv. q. 3, p. 276.)
But one of the most important testimonies as to the doctrine of
our Church and her most able divines on this subject, is that of
Bishop Cosin, to which we have already referred. It occurs in a
letter written from Paris in 1650 to a Mr. Cordel, who scrupled
to communicate with the French Protestants.       To the objection
of Mr. Cordel, that " they have no priests," Dr. Cosin thus
replies:" Though we may safely say and maintain it, that their ministers are not
so duly and rightly ordained as they should be by those prelates ard bishops
of the Church who since the apostles' time have only had the ordinary power
and authority to make and constitute a priest, yet that, by reason of this
defect, there is a total nullity in their ordination. or that they be therefore no
priest or ministers of the Church at all, because they are ordained by those only
who are no more but priests and ministers among them; for my part, I would
be loath to affirm and determine it against them. And these are my reasons.
First: I conceive that the power of ordination was restrained to bishops
rather by apostolical practice and the perpetual custom and canons of the
Church, than by any absolute precept that either Christ or his apostles
gave about it. Nor can I vet meet with any convincing argument to set it
upon a more high and divine institution. From which customs and laws of
the Universal Church (therein following the example of the apostles) though
I reckon it to be a great presumption and fault for any particular Church
to recede, and may truly say thatfieri non oportuit (when the college of mere
presbyters shall ordain and make a priest), yet I cannot so peremptorily say,
that factumn non valet, and pronounce the ordination to be utterly void. For
as in the case of baptism, we take just exception against a layman or a woman
that presumes to give it, and may as justly punish them by the censures of
the Church wherein they live, for taking upon them to do that office, which
was never committed unto them; yet, if once they have done it, we make not
their act and administration of baptism void; nor presume we to iterate the
sacrament after them; so may it well be in the case of ordination, and the ministers of the Reformed Congregations in France; who are liable to give an account
both to God and his Church in general for taking upon them to exercise that
power which by the perpetual practice and laws of His Church they were
never permitted to exercise, and may justly be faulted for it, both by the verdict of all others who are members of the Catholic Church (as we are that




40
adhere to the laws of it more strictly and peaceably than they do), and by
the censures of a lawful meeting or general council in that Church, which at
any time shall come to have authority over them. And yet all this while, the
act which they do, though it be disorderly done, and the ordinations which
they make, though they make them unlawfully, shall not be altogether null and
invalid, no more than the act of baptizing before mentioned, or the act of consecrating and administering the Eucharist by a priest that is suspended and
restrained from exercising his power and office in the Church. Therefore, if
at any time a minister so ordained in these French Churches came to incorporate himself in ours, and to receive a public charge or cure of souls among
us in the Church of England (as I have known some of them to have so done
of late, and can instance in many other before my time), our bishops did not
reordain him before they admitted him to his charge, as they must have done,
if his former ordination here in France had been void. Nor did our laws require more of him than to declare his public consent to the religion received
amongst us, and to subscribe the Articles established. And I love not to be
herein more wise or harder than our own Church is, which, because it hath
never publicly condemned and pronounced the ordinations of the other Reformed Churches to be void, as it doth not those of the unreformed Churches,
neither among the Papists (though I hear that the ministers here in France
and Geneva use so to do, who will not admit a Papist priest himself to exercise the office of a minister among them till they have reordained him); for
my part, as to that particular, Idare not take upon me to condemn or determine
a nullity of their own ordinations against them; though in the interim I take
it to be utterly a fault among them, and a great presumption, deserving a
great censure to be inflicted on them, by such a power of the Church as may,
by the grace of God, be at any time duly gathered together hereafter against
them, as well for the amendment of many other disorders and defects in their
Church as for this particular inorderly ordination and defect of Episcopacy
amongst them. Besides that this their boldness, presumption, and novelty
(in setting up themselves without any invincible necessity that they had so to
do, against the apostolical practice and perpetual order of God's Church till
their days) was always faulted, and reserved for farther censure, in due time,
which they have justly merited. Secondly.* There have been both learned
and eminent men (as well in former ages as in this, and even among the
Roman Catholics as well as Protestants), who have held and maintained it
for good and passable divinity, that presbyters have the intrinsical power of
ordination in actu primo; though for the avoiding of schism (as St. Hierom
speaks) and preserving order and discipline in the Church, they have been
restrained ever since the first times, and still are (but where they take a
liberty to themselves that was never duly given them), from exercising their
power in actu secundo; and therefore that however their act of ordaining of
other presbyters shall be void, according to the strictness of the canon (in
regard they were universally prohibited from executing that act, and breaking the order and discipline of the Church), yet that the same act shall not
be simply void in the nature of the thing, in regard that the intrinsical power
remained, when the exercise of it was suspended and taken from them. Of
this opinion and judgment in old time were St. Hierom and his followers,
alleged by Gratian, dist. 93; and of later times, the Master of the Sentences,
lib. iv. dist. 24; Bonavent. ibid. 9, 3, art. 2; with other schoolmen, as Aureol. ibid. art. 2; and Anton. de Rosellis, De Potest. Imper. et Papali, part
iv. c. 18; and in this later age, not only Armachanus, in Sum. ad qucest. art.
1, 11, c. 2, 3, &c. and c. 7, Alphons. a Castro (verb. Episcopus), Mich. Medina, De sacr. horn. orig. lib. 1, c. 5, among the Roman Catholics; but likewise Cassander in Consult. art. 14, besides Melancthon, Clementius [? Chemnitius], Gerardus, and Calixtus, amongst the Protestants; and Bishop Jewel
(Def. 2, p. c. 3, d. 1, &c. 9, div. 1); Dr. Field, of the Church, lib. 3, c. 39;
Hooker, Eccles. Pol. lib. 3, ~ 3, ult., and Mason, among the divines of our
* We have taken the liberty of making the second reason commence here (as it evidently does), instead of at the beginning of the previous sentence.




41
own Church. All which authors are of so great credit with you and me,
that though we are not altogether of their mind, yet we would be loath to let
the world see that we contradict them all, and condemn their judgment openly;
as needs we must, if we hold the contrary, and say, that the ministers of the
Reformed French Churches. for want of Episcopal ordination, have no order at
all." [Our readers will observe here what the view of Bishop Cosin was as
to the sentiments of Jewel, Hooker, Field, and Mason.]
Dr. Cosin adds several other reasons, with which, however, we
need not trouble our readers, except the following:"If the Church and kingdom of England have acknowledged them (as they
did in admitting of them when they fled thither for refuge, and placing them
by public authority in divers of the most eminent cities among us, without
prohibition to any of our own people to go and communicate with them), why
should we, that are but private persons, utterly disclaim their communion in
their own country?"
And, therefore, he concludes that:"Considering there is no prohibition of our Church against it (as there is
against our communicating with the Papists, and that well-grounded upon the
Scripture and will of God), I do not see but that both you, and others that
are with you, may (either in case of necessity, when you cannot have the
sacrament among yourselves, or in regard of declaring your unity in professing the same religion, which you and they do) go otherwhiles to communicate reverently with them of the French Church."*
Similar sentiments are expressed by him in a letter published
by Dr. R. Watson (Lond. 1684, 8vo.), entitled Dr. Cosin's
Opinion, when Dean of Peterborough, and in exile, for communicating rather with Geneva than Rome; and also in his last
Will, inserted in the Preface to his Regni Anglix Relig. et Gubern.
Eccles.  Lond. 1729, 4to.
It is almost unnecessary to refer to the Irenicum of Bishop
Stillingfleet (first published by him in 1659, and a second time in
1662), where he maintains, in a long and elaborate discussion of
the question, that no particular form of church government is necessary, and points out that " the stoutest champions for Episcopacy" had acknowledged, "that ordination performed by presbyters in cases of necessity is valid;" " which," he adds, " doth
evidently prove that Episcopal government is not founded upon
any unalterable Divine right." (Pt. ii. c. 8.)
Thus also speaks Dean Sherlock:"I do allow Episcopacy to be an Apostolical institution, and the truly
ancient and catholic government of the Church, of which more hereafter;
but yet in this very book I prove industriously and at large, that in case of
necessity, when bishops cannot be had, a church may be a truly catholic
church, and such as we may and ought to communicate with, without bishops,
in vindication of some Foreign Reformed Churches who have none; and
therefore I do not make Episcopacy so absolutely necessary to catholic communion as to unchurch all Churches which have it not." " The Church of
England does not deny but that, in case of necessity, the ordination of presbyters may be valid." (Vindic. of some Prot. Principles, &c., reprinted in
Gibson's Preserv., vol. iii. pp. 410, 432.)
* The whole of this letter is given by Basire and Bp. Fleetwood (as referred to above).




42
So the excellent Dr. Claget:"The Church of England doth not unchurch those parts of Christendom
that hold the unity of the faith." (See Brief Disc. cone. the Notes of the
Church, pp. 166-169.)
Even the nonjuror Archbishop Sancroft, in some Admonitions
issued to the clergy of his Province in 1688, speaks in fraternal
terms of the Foreign Reformed Churches, exhorting his clergy"That they warmly and most affectionately exhort them  [i. e. "our
brethren the Protestant Dissenters"] to join with us in daily fervent prayer
to the God of peace for the universal blessed union of all Reformed Churches
both at home and abroad against our common enemies; that all they, who do
confess the holy name of our dear Lord, and do agree in the truth of His holy
word, may also meet in one holy communion, and live in perfect unity and
godly love." (D'Oyly's Life of Sancroft, i. 325; or Wilk. Cone. iv. 619.)
For the sentiments of Archbishop Wake, to the same effect, our
readers may consult some letters (written in 1719) given in the
4th Append. to Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. translated by Maclaine,
Cent. xviii. No. xix.-xxii.; one of which is to "the pastors and
professors of Geneva," whom he addresses as fratres charissimi;
and in another (No. xix.) he says:"Ecclesias Reformatas etsi in aliquibus a nostra Anglicana dissentientes,
libenter amplector.  Optarem equidem regimen episcopae.... et ab iis
omnibus fuisset retentum.... Interim absit ut ego tam ferrei pectoris sim,
ut ob ejusmodi defectum (sic mihi absque omni invidia appellare liceat)
aliquas earum a communione nostra abscindendas credam; aut, cum quibusdam furiosis inter nos scriptoribus, eas nulla vera ac valida sacramenta
habere, adeoque vix Christianos esse pronuntiem." (Mosheim, by Maclaine,
vol. vi. p. 184, ed. 1826.) And in a letter to Father Courayer, dated July 9,
1724, he again expresses the same sentiments.-Mosheim, ib. p. 30, Cent.
xviii. ] 23.)
In 1764, we have Archbishop Seeker following him in the same
strain:"Our inclination is to live in friendship with all the Protestant Churches.
We assist and protect those on the continent of Europe as well as we are able.
We show our regard to that of Scotland as often as we have an opportunity."
(Answ. to Mayhew, p. 68. Life prefixed to Sermons, ed. 1770. p. lxvi.)
And, defending our Reformation, in one of his sermons against
the Romanists, he says: —
"Supposing we had even acted without, and separated from, our Church
governors, as our Protestant brethren abroad were forced to do: was there
not a cause? When the word of God was hidden from men... when
Church authority, by supporting such things as these, became inconsistent
with the ends for which it was established, what remedy was there but to throw
it off and form new establishments?  f in these there were any irregularities,
they were the faults of those who forced men into them, and are of no consequence
in comparison with the reason that made a change necessary." (Serm. vol. vi.
pp. 400, 401.)
Still more strongly speaks the late Bishop Tomline:"I readily acknowledge that there is no precept in the New Testament




43
which commands that every Church should be governed by bishops. No
Church can exist without some government; but though there must be rules
and orders for the proper discharge of the offices of public worship, though
there must be fixed regulations concerning the appointment of ministers;
and though a subordination among them is expedient in the highest degree,
yet it does not follow that all these things must be precisely the same in
every Christian country; they may vary with the other varying circumstances
of human society, with the extent of a country, the manners of its inhabitants,
the nature of its civil government, and many other peculiarities which might
be specified. As it has not pleased our Almighty Father to prescribe any
particular form of civil government for the security of temporal comforts to His
rational creatures, so neither has Ile prescribed any particular form of ecclesiastical polity as absolutely necessary to the attainment of eternal happiness.... As the Scriptures do not prescribe any definite form of church
government, so they contain no directions concerning the establishment of a
power by which ministers are to be admitted to their sacred office." And
therefore, though he advocates Episcopal ordination as "instituted by the
apostles," he does not maintain it as necessary. (Expos. of Art. 23, ed. 1799,
pp. 396, 398.)
We close the list with the testimony of our late respected
Primate, Dr. Howley.
In a statement published by his authority in 1841, the Foreign
Protestant Non-Episcopal Churches are spoken of as "the less
perfectly constituted of the Protestant Churches of Europe."
(Statem. resp. Jerusalem Bishopric, p. 5.)
And in 1835, a letter was addressed by the same Prelate, in
the name of himself and his " brother bishops," to " the Moderator
of the Company of Pastors at Geneva," expressing their "high
respect for the Protestant Churches on the Continent," and speaking of the Genevan Reformation as a " noble achievement, which
brought light out of darkness, and rescued your 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 Almighty God, were the instruments of this happy deliverance," " an event not less glorious to
Geneva than conducive to the success of the Reformation." The
whole letter has been so recently published in the public Journals,
that we need only give these short extracts.
Could it have been supposed, that, sixteen years after, his successor in the Primacy was to be assailed with a storm of vituperation, and even branded by an Archdeacon of his Province as a
heretic, for merely saying that the Church of England does not
deny the validity of the Orders of such Churches?
But in those sixteen years a new school has sprung up in our
Church, chiefly composed of its younger members, who having
formed in their own minds, from their perusal of Romish and
Tractarian works, a Procrustean standard of ecclesiastical doctrine
and polity, are apparently endeavoring, in the total disregard of
the manifest tenets of our Church, to force upon it a position and
character which its whole history repudiates.  The right of private
judgment has rarely been exercised with more unbridled arrogance
than by those among us who professedly disown it. Under the




44
thin veil of high-sounding phrases, " the Church," "Catholic consent," and such like, the Romish dreams of hot-headed or prejudiced,
and often very ill-informed individuals, are urged upon the public
as indubitable verities, which it were a sin to suppose that our
Church does not hold; and by which all who differ from them,
from the highest to the lowest, are to be judged. We say deliberately, even as to the heads of the party, very ill-informed individuals; and on this ground, that whatever may be their learning in other respects (and it is too often to be seen principally in
the trifles of the Church ceremonial), they seem rather to avoid
than examine those sources of information which best show what
the doctrine of our Church really is, as was abundantly proved in
the Gorham case; and palm upon our Church views and doctrines
which they have gathered by their private judgment from antiquity.
But our space warns us that we must restrain our pen. We
deeply regret that our Church should be continually suffering from
these internal dissensions. But we fear that, if she is still to remain a witness for Protestant truth, a conflict awaits her, both
from internal and external foes, more severe than any she has yet
encountered. Would that we could see a more lively consciousness of this coming struggle manifested among those, lay and
clerical, who, under God, must be the instruments for her preservation. Few, however, seem to realize the true character of the
present times.
Meanwhile, no fear need be entertained that the public discussion
of Tractarian dogmas will show that our Church has a leaning
toward them. Just the contrary will, we are convinced, be the
case. And we leave the Archbishop's assailants quietly to weigh
the testimonies given above, and judge for themselves how much
they are likely to gain by their recent outbreak —an outbreak as
unprecedented for its contempt for constituted authorities as it is
destitute of even the shadow of an excuse for it.




A REPLY
TO
ARCHDEACON CHURTON
AND
CHANCELLOR HARINGTON,
ON THE
TERM "CHURCH OF SCOTLAND"
IN THE
FIFTY-FIFTH CANON,
AND ON
NON-EPISCOPAL ORDINATIONS.
BY
W. GOODE, M.A., F.S.A.,
Rector of Allhallows the Great and Less, London.
~eaonb!bition.
NEW YORK:
A. D. F. RANDOLPH, 683 BROADWAY.
1853.




CONTENTS.
Pages
I. ON THE TERM "CHURCH OF SCOTLAND" IN THE
FIFTY-FIFTH CANON.
REPLY TO ARCHDEACON CHURTON -   -     3 to 13
REPLY TO CHANCELLOR HARINGTON   -  -14 to 18
II. ON NON-EPISCOPAL ORDINATIONS, IN REPLY TO
CHANCELLOR HARINGTON   -  -  - -   19 to 32




REPLY TO ARCHDEACON CHURTON AND
CHANCELLOR HARINGTON, ON, &c.
I. ON THE TERM "CHURCH OF SCOTLAND" IN THE
FIFTY-FIFTH CANON.
THE following Letter appeared in the Guardian of Dec. 3,
1851, in reply to one by Archdeacon Churton in the same paper
on Nov. 19 (which I give below),* on the meaning of the term
" Church of Scotland" in the 55th Canon:To the Editor of the Guardian.
SIR: There is an old        saying that, tua res agitur paries cum
proximus ardet. On this principle, even if not on general grounds,
you will perhaps allow me to make a few remarks on an article in
your last Number, for November 19.
Your correspondent, Archdeacon Churton, finds fault, in terms
of positive ridicule, with " Bishop Lee," (as he calls him,) for saying, that in 1604, when our Convocation passed the 55th Canon,
* To the Editor of the Guardian.
"c On peut licitement employer des termes equivoques, quand quelque cause raisonnable y engage."-Pere Lacroix.
Sir: In the notices which I have seen in your paper and elsewhere, of Bishop Lee's
late doctrinal exposition to the clergy of Lancashire, I have not discovered any allusion
to his Lordship's new historical lights on the Church of Scotland. Bishop Lee is reported, in your paper of November 12, to have said that " the Church of England, in
the 55th Canon, enjoined the people to pray for the Churches of England, Scotland, and
Ireland; although the Church was then, as now, Presbyterian, and Episcopacy was not
as yet established."  His Lordship means, of course, the Church of Scotland; not of
England or Ireland.
As it is no special part of my duty to notice what may be said to the clergy on the
other side of Blackstone edge, I have waited a few days, hoping that another hand might
have corrected this ingenious equivocal statement. But as it seems that no such correction has yet been administered, though no doubt many of the learned clergy of Lancashire must have smiled to themselves at the humor of the passage, I hope you will allow
me to offer a briefcomment, which may serve to bring it out of its present obscurity.
The Church of Scotland, in 1604, was about as much Presbyterian as the Diocese of
Manchester was in 1848, during the interregnum before the consecration of the present
learned and moderate Prelate. As early as 1598, if not earlier, an Act of the Scottish
Parliament had secured to the Bishops, and other ecclesiastical Prelates to be appointed
by the king, their seats and voices in Parliament. Before 1600, there appear to have
been Bishops nominated to the Sees of Aberdeen, Argyle, Dunkeld, Brechin, and Dumblane. David Lindsay and George Gladstone were in that year nominated respectively
to the Sees of Ross and Caithness. True, these Bishops-Designate were not consecrated
till a few years later; but when the law of the land had recognized their estate, and the
men were known and appointed, it appears to me a verbal shuffle, and something more
(unintentional, of course), to say that the Church of Scotland " was then, as now, Presbyterian."
Yours very faithfully,
EDW. CHURTON.
YORK, Nov. 17, 1851.




4
bidding the people to pray for the Church of Scotland, that
Church " was then, as now, Presbyterian, and Episcopacy was not
as yet established."
Now having, more than once, publicly made the same statement,
I feel not a little implicated in the censure here so confidently put
forward by the Archdeacon against the Bishop. And I trust you
will permit me briefly to state the grounds on which I have made
the remark that has called forth the Archdeacon's ridicule. I say
ridicule; for so confident is he of the goodness of his cause, and his
own thorough acquaintance with the subject, that he jests about
"his Lordship's new historical lights," and how "no doubt many
of the learned clergy of Lancashire must have smiled to themselves
at the humor of the passage;"and he begs "to offer a brief comment" to point out the truth of the case; and his comment is,
that in 1598, if not earlier, the Scottish Parliament had given seats
and voices in Parliament to the bishops appointed by the king, and
before 1600 bishops had been appointed to several places, though
they were not consecrated till 1610. The inference, I suppose, is
that the Church of Scotland had a true Episcopate in 1604, and
consequently was not then under a Presbyterian form of church
government.  What "the learned clergy of Lancashire " may
think of this reply to the Bishop's statement, I will not venture to
conjecture; but there are some, I suspect, who will see much more
"humor" in it than in the remark which called it forth.
A brief statement of the facts of the case will enable the reader
to judge of the correctness of this comment; and I shall take them
almost wholly from an author to whom the Archdeacon cannot
object, namely, Mr. Lawson.
On the 24th of August, 1560, the jurisdiction of the Pope in
Scotland was abolished, and no bishop or other prelate was to use
any jurisdiction thereafter by the Bishop of Rome's authority.
(Lawson's Episcopal Church of Scotland, p. 24.) And the Romish
Hierarchy was succeeded by what was called the Superintendent
System of church government, the supreme ecclesiastical authority
vesting in a General Assembly of the Protestants, including ministers and laymen. (Ib. 80, et seq.) That is, such was the system
practically adopted, for " no form of church government, not even
the Superintendent System, was legally acknowledged." (Ib. 96.)
But as the bishops and other prelates were considered an essential part of the Parliament of the kingdom, they were allowed to
sit and vote, though deprived of their right to exercise their clerical
functions. And when the Romish bishops were nearly all dead,
the Government of King James became anxious lest the extinction
of one branch of the Legislature, the Spiritual Estate, might cause
the legality of their acts to be questioned; and therefore, in 1571,
" certain of the Protestant preachers were allowed to vote in the
Parliament as the successors of the defunct prelates, and officially
appointed bishops of the vacant sees.". (Ib. 96, 97.) The first
appointed was John Douglas, who was " nominated Archbishop on
Saturday, the 18th of August, 1571, and as such he attended the




5
Parliament, or Convention, held at Stirling, on the 28th of that
month," where he voted as Archbishop of St. Andrews. (Ib. 98.)
"The'consecration' was performed by the lay Bishop of Caithness,
Spotiswood, and David Lindsay, of Leith." After a sermon by
Knox, and an address by Winram, Douglas " declared that he
would be' obedient to the Kirk, and that he should usurp no power
over the same,' and that he would'take no more power than the
Council and General Assembly of the Kirk should prescribe.' The
lay Bishop of Caithness, Spotiswood, and Lindsay, then'laid
their hands and embraced the said rector, Mr. John Douglas, in
token of admission to the bishopric.' Such was the' consecration'
which those three men had the presumption to perpetrate at the
commencement of this spurious Episcopacy; one of them, the
Bishop of Caithness, let it be recollected, never in holy orders;
and even Lindsay's ordination is doubtful-at least it is so considered by Bishop Keith."   " Several of the bishoprics were
speedily filled by the leading men among the Reformed preachers,
and this novel'Episcopacy,' or form of ecclesiastical polity, even
worse than the Superintendent System, and more objectionable
than Presbyterianism, because it was the mere shadow without the
substance, was soon carried completely into operation." (Ib. 108,
110.) " The situation of the titular bishops, and the domination over them by the General Assembly, are evident from sundry
resolutions at this meeting [i. e. of the General Assemby in 1574].
It was declared that the'jurisdiction of bishops in their ecclesiastical function shall not exceed that of superintendents, which they
previously had, and still have,' and that, like them, the said
bishops shall be subject to the discipline of the General Assembly,
as members thereof."  (Ib. 129.)
So that not only was there the absence of anything like consecration to their office, but the episcopal office itself was not given
them; in fact, scarcely more than the name. What sort of an
Episcopate this was, I leave the Archdeacon to determine.
But farther; while this titular Episcopate was called into being
by the Court for political purposes, the General Assembly was
progressing towards a regular Presbyterian form of church government. In the General Assembly of 1581, " the Presbyterian
system, as subsequently known in Scotland, was developed," (lb.
178,) and in the Parliament of 1592 the system of the Presbyterians was ratified as an establishment. (Ib. 239, 240.) But " the
king and council, though they were pleased to confer on Presbytery the advantages of an establishment, had not the least intention
of relinquishing or repressing the titular Episcopate as one of the
three Estates. In 1597 an Act was passed, declaring that'all
ministers provided to prelacies should have votes in Parliament.' "
(lb. 241.) But this was to be " without prejudice of the jurisdiction and discipline of the Kirk establishment by Acts of Parliament."  (Ib. 442.)
So that the state of the case at that time was this. The form
of church government was Presbyterian, established by the law




6
of the land; but it being thought necessary that the Spiritual
Estate should be represented in Parliament, the king had the power
to give certain of the ministers of the Church (to say nothing now
of laymen) the revenues of the old Episcopal Sees, call them
Bishops, and so entitle them to seats and votes in Parliament.
But how far the Episcopal office was given them, the Archdeacon
may judge for himself, from the following rules laid down in the
conference at Falkland, in 1598 (where commissioners from the
various synods met the king to discuss these matters), and ratified
by the General Assembly that met at Montrose in 1600, where the
king himself was present.
"5. That he [the bishop appointed by the king] should be bound to attend
the congregation faithfully at which he should be appointed minister, in all
the points of a pastor, and be subject to the trial and censure of his own Presbytery or Provincial Assembly, as any other of the ministers that bear no
commission. 6. In the administration of discipline, &c., he should neither
usurp nor claim to himself any more power or jurisdiction than any of his
brethren, except he be employed, under pain of deprivation, &c. 7. In Presbyteries, Provincial and General Assemblies, he should behave himself in all
things as one of the brethren, and be subject to their censure. 8. At his
admission to the office of commissionarv [so they called these prelates], he
should swear and subscribe all these and other points necessary; otherwise
he should not be admitted. 9. If it should happen him to be deposed from
the ministry, by the Presbytery, Synod, or General Assembly, he should lose
his place in Parliament, and the benefice be void ipso facto." (Spotiswood's
Hist. bk. vi., a. 1598, pp. 453, 454, ed. 1677.
When these rules were ratified by the General Assembly, in
1600, the two following were added: "That he who was admitted
should yearly render an account of his commission to the General
Assembly, and laying the same down at their foot should be therein continued; or if his Majesty and the Assembly did think fit to
employ another, he should give place to him that was appointed;"
and " that they who had voice in Parliament should not have place
in the General Assembly, unless they were authorized by a commission from the Presbyters [Presbytery] whereof they were members." (Ib. 458.)
Such were the " bishops" of the Church of Scotland in 1600,
and such only they remained in 1604.  Will the Archdeacon deny
that the Church of Scotland, under such circumstances, was under
a Presbyterian form  of government?    That some of the stiffer
sort of Presbyterians, both then and since, found fault with it,
is no proof of its not being a species of Presbyterian form of
government.   And it was a form which the " bishops" adhered to.
So that if the Church to which the 55th Canon refers was the
Church to which these "bishops" belonged (which I suppose will
not be denied), it was a Church under a Presbyterian form of government.
It is worth observing, that when, in 1610, three of these "bishops" presented themselves, by King James's direction, to the English prelates for consecration, Bishop Andrews suggested a doubt
whether they ought to be recognized as having any orders at all,
even those of deacon and priest, but was overruled by Archbishop




7
Bancroft, who said that "where bishops could not be had, the ordination given by the presbyters must be esteemed lawful; otherwise, that it might be doubted if there were any lawful vocation
in most of the Reformed Churches."     This we have on the authority of Archbishop Spotiswood (Hist. 514), who was himself one
of the three then consecrated. And this fact, I may observe,
completely answers the objections raised against the possibility of
the 55th Canon applying to a Presbyterian community from the
supposed views of Bancroft and others.
Most justly, therefore, upon the Archdeacon's own principles,
does Mr. Lawson make the following remarks upon this titular
Episcopate:" The objection to it which must occur to the sound Churchman is, that it
was altogether a vain and futile system; that it was no Episcopacy at all, or
so only in name; that the' consecration' of Douglas and others by unauthorized men, one of whom was a layman, was disgraceful, outrageous, and most
sinful; and that the whole was a political arrangement to serve particular
purposes, and introduce a set of men into the Parliaments to represent the
defunct and absent prelates of the fallen hierarchy, assuming their ecclesiastical titles, and pretending to be invested with functions which it was impossible to obtain without consecration from bishops regularly and canonically
consecrated..... Even the people ridiculed the persons'inaugurated'
by such men as the lay bishops of Caithness, Winram, and Lindsay. They
were long known by the very appropriate and significant sobriquet of Tulchan
Bishops, derived from a practice then prevalent of stuffing a calf's skin with
straw, and placing it before a cow, to induce the animal to give milk, which
figure was called a tulchan-a term derived from a word signifying a model,
or a close resemblance. The tulchan hierarchy was a complete deception,
and was merely one of titles connected with personal arrangements and political expediency, to say nothing of its gross perversion of the real Episcopate,
and its schismatical profanity. The men who figured in it as titulars or
tulchans ought never to have been recognized by Keith in his enumeration of
the Scottish bishops." (Ib. 111, 112.)  " The truth is, that in Scotland THE
CHURCH CATHOLIC BECAME EXTINCT FROM THE REFORMATION TO 1610; for
neither can the ill-digested Superintendent System, with its array of'ministers, exhorters, and readers,' nor the miserable titular Episcopacy incorporated with it, nor the human inventions introduced by Andrew Melville,
under the name of Presbyterianism, nor all three ptit together, be considered
as entitled to any connection with the true and Apostolic Church." (Ib. 133.)
The titulars " were merely nominal bishops for political or party purposes,
unconsecrated, and of no higher authority than their lay preachers." (Ib.
144.) "The titular Episcopate was a matter of mere indifference-a worldly
arrangement for political purposes, the loss of which involved nothing of importance, and utterly indefensible by any arguments-opposed to scriptural
authority, apostolical practice, and primitive antiquity." (Ib. 242.)
Such are the statements of Mr. Lawson respecting this titular
Episcopate; and whatever difference of opinion there may be
between what are called High and Low Churchmen as to some
points in these statements, I suppose both will agree that a grant
of the name and revenues, and certain privileges of the Episcopate,
by the Civil Power for political convenience, can never make a
bishop. Such a notion would indeed be Erastianism of the most
flagrant kind.   These titular Scotch bishops were no more real
bishops than the scarecrows in a field of corn are real men, or the
Irvingite apostles and angels are real apostles and angels.  Even
King James himself, in 1610, guarded himself against being sup



8
posed to consider them in reality bishops. (Spotiswood's History,
p. 514.)  Archdeacon Churton probably regards me as a Low
Churchman; but I can assure him that his reference to these persons as " bishops," and as showing that the Church of Scotland was
then in any degree Episcopal, is a depth of Low Churchism into
which I should be sorry to fall.  It is not the mere fact of their
wanting Episcopal consecration that I insist upon, but that it was
a mere political appointmentfor State purposes, and also that they
did not enjoy the episcopal office. The law of the land, though
recognizing them for convenience sake as bishops in name, had expressly established a non-Episcopal form of church government.
Mr. Lawson, therefore, justly remarks, when speaking of the
views of James I., soon after his accession to the throne of England
in 1603: " He was convinced of the collision which might occur
by the existence of two different ecclesiastical establishments in
Britain, in the event of the accomplishment of the union, and
knowing too well the turbulence and ungovernable tempers of the
supporters of the Presbyterian system, it was a wise and prudent
resolution to attempt to amalgamate Scotland as a sister Church
with the Church of England." (lb. 267, 268.)
Mr. Scott, of Perth, dates the first " overthrow of the Presbyterian Church," in the year 1606 (Ib. 264), on account, probably, of the Acts passed in that year in the Scotch Parliament, one
declaring the king's supremacy over all estates, persons, and
causes, and another entitled, "Anent the Restitution of the Estate
of Bishops;" and in this Mr. Lawson agrees with him, on, as it
seems to me, good grounds; the latter Act referring to much more
than (as stated by Spotiswood, p. 496) the temporalities of the
bishoprics. (lb. 276.) The Parliament, therefore, may be said
to have restored the episcopal form of government, as far as they
could do so, in this year. But, so far as the clergy were concerned, it was with some difficulty that the General Assembly of
this year was induced -even to allow the bishops to be moderators
in the Presbyteries where they were resident. (Spotiswood, pp.
500, 501.)
If the canon, therefore, had been passed between 1606 and
1610, there might have been something in the Archdeacon's argument; but as it is, the canon was passed when, by the law of the
land, as well as the determinations of the ecclesiastics of Scotland,
the form of church government was Presbyterian.
The Archdeacon says: "As early as 1598, if not earlier, an
Act of the Scottish Parliament had secured to the bishops and
other ecclesiastical prelates to be appointed by the king, their
seats and voices in Parliament;" and he adds that before 1600
several bishops had been nominated to different Sees. I reply,
Perfectly true, so far as the name is concerned, but nothing else.
For neither had they consecration nor the episcopal office. They
were subject to their Presbyteries like all the rest of their brethren
(according to rules agreed to by the General Assembly and the
king in 1600), and were merely bishops for civil purposes, to give




9
their vote in Parliament, just as (for the sake of political convenience) the Roman Catholic prelates themselves, after they had
been forbidden even to exercise their clerical functions at all, were
allowed to vote in Parliament.
The Archdeacon adds: "True, these bishops-designate were not
consecrated till a few years later; but when the law of the land
had recognized their estate, and the men were known and appointed,
it appears to me a verbal shuffle, and something more (unintentional, of course), to say that the Church of Scotland'was then,
as now, Presbyterian.' "  So that the Archdeacon would have us
suppose that the law of the land had then authorized the Episcopal
form of church government, and that bishops were accordingly appointed, and their consecration only in a state of abeyance. No
description could be farther removed from the facts of the case.
The State had been in the habit of appointing these titular bishops
since 1571, for the very purpose of their voting in Parliament;
and, so far from the law of the land recognizing their estate as
governors of the Church, it had established Presbyterianism in
1592 as the form of church government to be followed, and had
not in 1604 annulled that argument. And so little was the appointment made on the understanding of future consecration, that,
when such consecration was proposed by King James in 1610, it
was objected to at first by the "bishops" themselves, on the
ground that the Church of England might claim some power over
them. In fact, it is evident that consecration would never have
been thought of, but from the circumstance, which happened subsequently, of King James's accession to the throne of England.
I regret that the Archdeacon should have used the somewhat
offensive phrase of a "verbal shuffle, and something more;" and
in the present case he is peculiarly unfortunate in his application
of it, when his own cause rests solely upon the use of the name of
Bishop, where the thing had no place. The reality is precisely
what the bishop has described it to be, and the Archdeacon is only
able to throw discredit upon the statement by parading before the
reader what turns out to be an empty shadow. His tulchan bishops
are men of straw, that may do very well to frighten young birds,
but will not have the slightest effect upon old ones.
The facts of the case lie in a nutshell. There were no bishops in
1604 in the Church of Scotland, having either Episcopal consecration or the Episcopal office, or even any immediate prospect of one
or the other.
There were no Orders but Presbyterian Orders. The Church
was under the government (subject, of course, to the king) of a
General Assembly, consisting of presbyters and laymen, the representatives of the local presbyteries, by which the affairs of the
different districts into which the country was divided were directed;
to which the "bishops" were subject; these "bishops" not being
allowed, previous to 1606, to be, by right, even the moderators of
the synods held in their dioceses.
If this is not a Presbyterian form of church government, will




10
the Archdeacon say what he calls it? And, be it observed, whatever name may be given to it, it certainly is a non-Episcopal form
and destitute of Episcopal Orders; so that the purpose for which
the Canon has been adduced, namely, to show that our Church
recognizes, as a Church, one which is destitute of Episcopal Orders,
is equally answered, whatever name be applied.
It has lately been said, in opposition to such a view as that advocated above, that the Canon refers to " that branch of Christ's
Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which had existed in Scotland
from the days of St. Ninianus, in the beginning of the fifth century,
and which, amidst persecution and spiritual rebellion, had no more
ceased to exist than had the Church of Carthage during the absence
and persecution of St. Cyprian; which had been represented subsequent to the Reformation by bishops canonically consecrated,
and by the Archbishop of Glasgow, who was restored to his See
in 1599, and retained it till his death in the year 1603."
Now, it would be interesting to know who formed this Church
in 1604, if it was not the Church of which we have been speaking.
All the bishops here mentioned were dead, and had never been
allowed to act as bishops; for the two who joined the Reformed
Church adopted of necessity its discipline, and the Archbishop of
Glasgow was not restored to his See, except as to the enjoyment of
its temporalities. At any rate, being all dead, none of these were
members of it. The king and the titular bishops belonged to the
Church of which the governing body under the king was the
General Assembly. And what the form of church government
agreed to by the king and the General Assembly was in 1604, we
have already seen; and therefore, where the supposed Church is to
be found, distinct from the Church of which we have been speaking,
I am unable to conjecture; and wherever it was, it had no bishops,
for none existed; and only presbyterianly ordained pastors, for
none others were to be found; and consequently, however well the
words sound, I do not see how they advance the cause they are
intended to promote. In truth, ex nihilo nilfit; there were no
bishops and no Episcopal form of church government, and no verborum ambages will produce them. And I should have conceived
that the claim of the Church to which the king and his titular bishops
belonged, would have been too strong for it to have been passed
over by those who made the Canon.
In short, if this matter had not been involved in confusion by
the prejudiced statements of party historians, no question would
have arisen respecting it. But in this case, as in others about
which we have accounts written by a number of zealous partisans
of different views, nothing is easier than apparently to prove, by
the statements of respectable historians, anything we wish. The
zealous Episcopalian, anxious to maintain an uninterrupted series
of bishops from the Reformation, talks of these titular bishops as if
they were realities. The hot Presbyterian, angry at King James's
interference with the General Assembly, often speaks as if his
favorite Presbyterianism had been abolished when the power of




11
that Assembly to do just what it pleased was curtailed; as, for
instance, Calderwood, who tells us that in 1596 " ended the sincere General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland."              And if such
statements are taken as evidence (and as such they have lately
been used), we may give almost any description we please of the
state of the Church of Scotland         at that period.     But if we will
only separate the facts from the prejudiced statements in which
they are involved by the various historians of the period, the case
will be perfectly clear.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
CHARTERHOUSE SQUARE, Nov. 25, 1851.                     W. GOODE.
The answer of Archdeacon Churton to this letter I place in a
note below, as it is the fairest course to let him speak for himself;
and also my reply to a point incidentally arising out of his second
letter, but not touching the point in question.*
* To the Editor of the Guardian.
Sir: If Mr. Goode, as he seems to wish us to know, led Bishop Lee into making that
delusive statement about the Church of Scotland, he was bound to offer a public apology
for it. This, I suppose, he has now done at as much length as he desired; and your
editorial courtesy has not deprived him of any portion of an answer of three columns to
a letter of twenty or thirty lines.
I shall merely beg space to remind your readers that in my letter I stated two or three
historical facts. They were enough for my purpose, though I could'easily have stated
more. Has Mr. Goode contradicted those facts? He knows he cannot. He has wasted
much time and paper in proving that the Scottish bishops, in those years which preceded
their consecration, tlough barons of Parliament, had no spiritual title or power as bishops
in the Church. This he is all the time aware I was so far from denying, that I distinctly
pointed it out.
But he argues that these bishops of Parliament were appointed without any ulterior
design to make them bishops of the Church. Your readers will know how to judge of
this argument, who have read King James the First's Premonition to Christian Monarchs.
They will know how to estimate the value of the assertion, that'" things were tlien progressing towards a regular Presbyterian form of government." Your readers who are
familiar with the Memorials of the Hampton Court Conference will remember in what
reverent terms King James there spoke of the said'" Scottish Presbytery,"' and will
know what to think of the hypothesis, that this monarch's counsellors were fhvorable to
the erection of that most loyal platform.
Mr. Goode has thought it proper to say somewhere in the course of his long letter,
"c Archdeacon Churton probably regards me as a Low Churchman.5" As I have never,
to my knowledge, given any opinion about Mr. Goode, I beg the reader to observe, that
this name is of his own application, and it is a poor artifice of controversy to impute to
me the act of a judgment, which his charity to himself has suggested as something due
to his own reputation.                                               E. C.
YoRK, Dec. 5, 1851.
(Guardian, Dec. 10.)
To the Editor of the Guardian.
SIR: I have not the slightest wish to add one word on the controversy between Archdeacon Churton and myself; but as he has chosen to impute to me a wish to have it understood that I led the Bishop of Manchester into making the statement he did as to the
55th Canon, I must request permission to state that I have never had the slightest communication with the Bishop on the subject, and my letter neither stated nor intimated in
any way that such was the case.
From which of us "c a public apology " for c" delusive statements 9 is most needed, I
willingly leave your readers to determine. Your obedient servant,
W. GOODE.
31 CHARTERHOUSE SQUARE, Dec. 11, 1851.
(Guardian, Dec. 17.)
While this sheet was passing through the press, a reply from Archdeacon Churton to
this letter appears in the Guardian for Dec. 24, which is best left to answer itself.




12
But for the appearance of Chancellor Harington's pamphlet, in
which he has republished several of his letters addressed to the
public Journals on this and the kindred subject of Non-Episcopal
Ordinations,* I should have been contented with the correspondence in the Guardian. But, as Mr. Harington has appealed to
the public in a more permanent form, and his pamphlet is referred
to by the Editor of the Guardian (Dec. 10), in connection with
my Letter, as one in which its readers " will find the historical
facts well and concisely stated, and the argument from the internal
evidence resulting from the Canons themselves forcibly put," it has
appeared to me desirable to publish the above Letter in the same
form, appending a few observations in answer to the Chancellor's
statements on the same subject, and also a reply to his letters on
Non-Episcopal Ordinations.
On Archdeacon Churton's answer it can scarcely be necessary to
offer many remarks. The tone and quality of his Letters I leave
our readers to judge of; and though I deeply regret, for his own
sake and that of the position he holds in the Church, to see him
taking such a course, yet I must say that they are highly characteristic of his party; and I believe that their manifold productions
of this kind have done good service in showing the public the real
value of their inflated pretensions.
The Archdeacon says that he only stated facts, and that I cannot contradict them; and that he " distinctly pointed out," that
the Scottish bishops, at the period in question," bad no spiritual
title or power as bishops in the Church." Now, so far from doing
this, he did, in fact (which, in his haste, he has forgotten), directly
the contrary, for he asserted that "the law of the land had recognized their estate," which it had not done; but, on the contrary (as
I said before), "had expressly established a Non-Episcopal form
of church government." In fact, if he had done so, it would have
spoiled his whole argument, for his readers would at once have seen
the absurdity of his attacking the Bishop of Manchester for saying that the Church of Scotland was under a Presbyterian form of
government, because there were persons called "bishops" in Scotland; when he was compelled at the same time to admit that
these "bishops" "had no spiritual title or power, as bishops, in
the Church." And his charge of a " verbal shuffle " would by his
own testimony have been brought back upon himself.
When he says that I argue " that these bishops of Parliament
were appointed without any ulterior design to make them bishops
of the Church," he is putting words into my mouth, to suit his
purpose, which I never used; and he urges King James's design
to make them real bishops when he might have the opportunity as
overthrowing my argument. My letter, as given above, will show
what I did say. With King James's secret designs and wishes,
* Entitled, " A Letter, &c., on the LV. Canon and the Kirk of Scotland; with an Appendix containing the cases of Morrison, &c., the witness of Anglican divines for Episcopacy, &c. Lond. Rivington." pp. 100, 8vo.




13
whatever they were, we have nothing to do, nor will they do more
to prove what the government of the Church of Scotland really
was, than the Archdeacon's designs and wishes will show what the
government of the Church of England now is.
He remarks, that they who have read King James's Premonition to Christian Monarchs, "will know how to estimate the value
of the assertion, that'things were then progressing towards a
regular Presbyterian form of government.' "  I need hardly remind the reader that these words of mine, spoken with reference
to the period just preceding the year 1581, state a notorious fact,
this form of government having been first developed in the
General Assembly in 1581, and established by Act of Parliament
in 1592.   The king and his counsellors may have as much
wished to introduce a regular Episcopalian Church into Scotland
as King James II. and his counsellors wished to introduce Popery
into England; but what we have to deal with is fact, not the
king's desires.
To impute to me "the hypothesis that this monarch's counsellors were favorable to the erection of that most loyal platform"
of Presbytery, is one of that species of assertion that are best left
to the reader to do justice upon.
We have only to deal with what was done by them; and so far
as this is concerned, it appears that even so late as 1606, when
the king proposed to the General Assembly at Linlithgow, that
his titular bishops should be the permanent moderators of their
synods, and " this overture, seeming to import a great alteration
in the Discipline, was not well accepted of divers," "his Majesty's
Commissioner declared, that it was so far from the king's purpose
to make any change in the present Discipline, as he did not long
for anything more than to have it rightly settled, and all these
eye-lists removed, which had given him so just occasion of discontent." (Spotiswood, p. 501.)
The last paragraph I must confess myself unable to understand.
How it can be an "artifice of controversy" to suppose that
Archdeacon Churton thinks me " a Low Churchman," when it is
notorious that he must do so, if he is true to his own avowed
principles, which I have no doubt he is, passes my poor comprehension.
I would advise the Archdeacon, another time, first to be a little
more careful how he launches a bitter and offensive charge against
others, of uttering a "verbal shuffle, and something more," when
making a statement on a matter on which (to take the most
charitable view) he has but a limited stock of information; and,
secondly, when the opposition of his statements to undeniable
facts is calmly pointed out, to allow his reason (to say nothing
of good manners) to have a little more sway, when he sits down
to make his reply; otherwise, he will find that his misstatements
will rapidly multiply, and be regretted by himself in his calmer
moments.




14
I now proceed to make a few remarks on Chancellor Harington's statements on this subject; the principal of which I have
already noticed in my reply to Archdeacon Churton. And I shall
limit myself to a few remarks, because it appears to me that the
facts proved in my Letter show indisputably what the state of
things was in the Church of Scotland in 1604; and no amount of
extracts giving the views of party writers on the subject, can make
the case different from what facts prove it to have been. With
real respect for Chancellor Harington, I must say that he does
not appear to me to have gone the right way to get at the simple
truth. He may multiply extracts from various writers sufficient
to fill an octavo volume, as easily as his pamphlet: he may ask
one and another what they think about the matter, and present
us with a mountain of testimonies in his favor; but not prove a
single point.  In short, he may heap Pelion upon Ossa, and
Olympus upon Pelion, and be practically as far off as ever from
the throne of truth. He himself informs us, that he has " sought
a solution of this question, so far as the history of the Kirk is
involved, by correspondence and conference with several eminent
Presbyterian writers in Scotland." (P. 5.) Now, with all respect
for these writers, I confess it would have been one of the last
ways I should have thought of for eliciting " a solution of the
question" at issue.  For these Writers would naturally feel
great disgust at King James's interferences with the General
Assembly, and the subtile way in which he endeavored to undermine that Presbyterian form of government which, while he was
compelled to support, he secretly disliked; and would be inclined
therefore to antedate the extinction of what they would wish to
be considered the true and genuine Presbyterian form of government; just as some high Episcopalian writers are inclined to
antedate the establishment of prelacy. It seems to me somewhat
similar to the Pope's recent mode of determining the doctrine of
the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, by writing round
to his bishops, and asking each, What do you think? and, What
do you think? Of course, he got an abundance of answers to his
mind.
What we have to deal with is the simple question, What was
the form of church government in Scotland in 1604? I have
shown, in my Letter, what it was; and I would ask the Chancellor,
as I have asked the Archdeacon, what he calls such a form of
church government. It matters nothing to us what modern Presbyterians think of it. That does not alter the facts of the case,
nor touch the question at issue.  That Church was then under a
Presbyterian form of church government, and it is so now. That
is the statement made; and the truth of it is proved by undeniable facts. That the present mode of carrying out that government may be different from that which was followed at that time,
does not affect the question.
I must beg permission, therefore, to remind the Chancellor, that




15
all his extracts from various authors, as to the non-recognition of
the General Assemblies of the Kirk, after 1597, by certain writers
or parties, and as to their opinion of certain acts of the king
being tantamount to the establishment of Episcopacy, &c., prove
nothing. It is a question of fact with which we are concerned,
and such statements only serve to obscure the truth.
The Chancellor tells us (p. 12), that when we " examine into the
real sentiments of King James," &c. " the idea of the Presbyterian
Kirk... being recognized by the Canon as a branch of Christ's
Holy Catholic Church, is, positively absurd." And he proceeds to
devote six pages to extracts from King James's works and, other
sources, to show how, "from an early period," he had recognized
" Episcopacy as an ordinance of God," &c. &c., and hence to prove
the "absurdity" of such a supposition. Now, to these six pages
my reply shall be given in about six lines. The very Act of 1597,
so much referred to, "sets forth that his Majesty, with advice and
consent of the Estates,' decerns and declares that the KTirk within
this realm, wherein the same religion is professed, is THE TRUE AND
HOLY KIRK, and that such pastors and ministers within the same,
as at any time his Majesty shall please to provide to the office, place,
title, and dignity of a Bishop,Abbot, or other Prelate, shall at all time
hereafter have vote in Parliament, &c.' " (Lawson's Hist. p. 241.)
The former part of these words is omitted by Mr. Stephen. So
that it was " the true and holy Kirk," in King James's estimation,
previous to the Act of 1597. Was it less so in 1604?
The next ten pages nearly are devoted to extracts intended to
show the absurdity of supposing Bancroft to have recognized a
Presbyterian community as a Church. My reply is simply the
account given by Spotiswood, quoted in my Letter, of what took
place at the consecration of the Scotch bishops in 1610, Spotiswood
being one of them. If Chancellor Harington denies its truth, he
may as well deny the value of almost all the records of history we
possess. If he admits it, there is an end to the question as to
Bancroft's views on the point. If, as is asserted (p. 27), Dr. Bancroft " added a more convincing solution," i. e. more convincing
to those who like it better, that addition does not affect the matter.
If he said what Archbishop Spotiswood tells us he did say, it is a
waste of time to discuss the matter any farther.
In the 3d Letter in his Appendix, Mr. Harington takes up this
question again, and speaking of a reference to this statement of
Spotiswood, he says, "if historical truth had been aimed at, it
should have been stated that Heylin and other writers give a very
different solution of the difficulty;" namely, that Bancroft said,
that consecration as a bishop supplied all defects as to the lower
orders. (P. 97.) But does Mr. Harington mean to oppose Heylin's
unsupported assertions, or those of " other writers," to the testimony of Archbishop Spotiswood, who was himself one of the
three bishops then consecrated? If not, his censure for not referring the reader to those assertions falls to the ground. In fact,




16
there is no contradiction between the two, for Bancroft might have
given (as some say he did) both solutions. Mr. Harington proceeds to tell us that Neale ascribes the statement to Abbot. It
would have been better, if he had also told us, that Neale confirms
Archbishop Spotiswood's statement as to Bancroft, ascribing to
Bancroft the precise remark which the Archbishop attributes
to him.
The extract from Malcolm Laing (p. 99) is directly adverse to
Mr. Harington's view; for he says, "their ordination even to
the priesthood was questioned; but the objection was overruled,
lest their former Presbyterian vocation should appear invalid; the
subordinate order of priesthood was included, or supposed to be
included, in the Episcopal; and was supplied, IF DEFECTIVE, by the
regular consecration of these Scottish Bishops." So that here were
two ways of removing the difficulty, either of which might be
adopted by those concerned in the consecration; and perhaps to
Bishop Andrews the latter might be the most acceptable; but we
have in these words rather a confirmation than otherwise of Archbishop Spotiswood's statement.
When therefore Mr. Harington sums up, " Unless the writer in
the Herald can throw any new light upon the subject, I shall conclude that the admission of Presbyterian orders by the bishops
who consecrated the Scottish prelates is still to be proved," I must
reply (leaving the writer in the Morning Herald to answer for
himself), that unless Mr. Harington can prove that Archbishop
Spotiswood's statement, in a matter where he himself was one of
the principal parties concerned, is not to be believed, and so all historical records be made valueless, I shall conclude that such admission is proved. And the public must judge between us.
The truth is, that when all these persons were recognizing and
cherishing as true Churches of Christ the Foreign Reformed
Churches that were under a Presbyterian form of government, it is
to me incomprehensible (I will not use Chancellor Harington's
phrase absurd, lest he might dislike the rebound of his own term),
how it can be urged as impossible that they should recognize the
Presbyterian Church of Scotland as a true Church, and pray for
it as such. Will Chancellor IHarington tell us, why they should
recognize a Genevan ecclesiastical community as a Church (as
even Bishop Cosin did, and communicated with it rather than with
Rome), and repudiate the Presbyterian Scotch Kirk?
Chancellor Harington next proceeds to quote Canons 7, 8, and
9, of 1604, as declaring that all who spoke of the government of
the Church of England as repugnant to the word of God, were excommunicated ipsofacto; and, with exclamations of triumph, deduces the conclusion, that therefore by the Canons every consistent
member of the Church of Scotland was excommunicated ipsofacto.
Surely he must see in a moment, upon reconsideration, the fallacy
of his argument. It is like arguing that, because the law decrees
that everybody that denies the sovereigntyof the Queen is a traitor,




17
and ought to be put to death, therefore every foreigner all over
the world ought to be shot.
These Canons of course apply only to England, and excommunication can only be denounced against those who are considered
as being legally within the Church. You cannot turn a man out
of your house who never was in it.
If Mr. Harington's argument was sound, it would apply as
much to some of the Foreign Reformed Churches-whom our
Church then looked upon with the most favorable eye, as the
great bulwarks of true religion on the Continent-as to the Church
of Scotland. Let Mr. Harington read Beza's abuse of the prelatical government of the Church of England, and then see the
terms in which Archbishop Whitgift (when Archbishop of Canterbury), in 1593, in a letter noticing his statements, addresses him.
He commences by styling him his "most dear brother in God,"
and superscribes his letter to him as "his most dear brother and
COLLEAGUE in Christ, and faithfulpastor of the Genevan Church."
(S'trype's Life of Whitgift, ii. pp. 159, 173.)
Such facts (as Chancellor Harington well knows) might be
easily multiplied a hundred fold. And yet, strange to say, we
are told it is "absurd" to suppose that a Canon of 1604 could
recognize a Presbyterian community as a Church!
Seven more pages are then occupied with extracts from the
Canons of 1606, laying down the claims of the Episcopal form of
church government, and declaring that he who denies them " doth
greatly err."  But cui bono?  The question is not whether our
greatest divines have spoken in the strongest terms of the Scriptural claims of Episcopacy, and maintained that those who rejected
them, and set up another platform of church discipline, did
"greatly err."  No one who knows anything about the matter
can doubt it. But the question is, whether those who, under certain circumstances, have adopted a different form of church government, are to be considered as destitute of any power to minister the word and sacraments, and outcasts from the communion
of the Catholic Church of Christ. Let Chancellor Harington ask
himself the question whether Archdeacon Mason or Bishop Cosin
would not cordially have assented to those Canons, and then let him
remember what both of them have said of the ministry of certain
Non-Episcopal Churches. Archbishop Whitgift no doubt thought
that Beza did " greatly err" when he attacked the prelatical government of the Church of England in such unmeasured terms; but that
did not prevent his addressing him as his " most dear brother and
colleague in Christ."  Oh! for a little more of the same charity
among ourselves in the present day!
TWhen, therefore, the Chancellor concludes: "Perhaps you had
been misled by the seductive charms of Mr. Macaulay, who tells
us that,'in the year 1603, the Province of Canterbury solemnly
recognized the Church of Scotland, a Church in which Episcopal
control and Episcopal ordination were then unknown, as a branch
5




18
of the Holy Catholic Church of Christ,' " I must say, that though
not always disposed to agree with Mr. Macaulay in his ecclesiastical statements, he has here recorded a simple fact, and stated it
with an accuracy of language which places even his words entirely beyond the reach of Mr. Harington's criticism. And I can
only wish that the "seductive charms of Mr. Macaulay" had for
once detached the Chancellor from those "seductive charms" of
modern High Church principles which have led him to turn aside out
of the high-road of proved facts, to seek truth in the by-ways of
prejudiced statements and inferential reasonings from documents
which do not meet the point at issue.
Against Mr. Stephen's assertions in the Postscript, I shall
merely place the facts stated in my'letter. His offered proofs I
shall be happy to see, only reminding him and Mr. Harington
of what seems to me to have been too much forgotten in this
matter, that the mere statements of historians are no proofs of the
real facts of the case. What Collier may say of what took place
in 1606 is, in itself, worth no more than what Mr. Macaulay or
Mr. Stephen may say. And even in the case of contemporary historians, the greatest care is necessary to separate the facts brought
down to us in their statements, from the colorings with which those
facts are clothed. Thus, the statements of Calderwood and Dr.
Hetherington, quoted by Chancellor Harington (p. 7), are so far
from throwing any light on the subject, that they only tend to hide
the truth from the reader, because they give a false view of the
subject.'he interpretation which Chancellor Harington gives to the
Canon, I have already noticed in my Letter to the Guardian,
given above. (See p. 8.) It may be worth while to add that of
Mr. Stephen, as here stated. Both appear to me remarkably to
show the desperate shifts to which our modern High Church interpreters of that Canon are driven to make the words square with
their notions. Mr. Stephen says, that Bancroft "no doubt had
the 55th Canon so framed as to pray for the grace of Reformation
for the Church of Scotland as it then defectively stood; and, by
anticipation, for that Branch of the holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church, when in reality she should be duly organized according
to Christ's appointment.  Therefore the Canon neither does nor
can refer to the Presbyterian Kirk, but to the titular and real Episcopal Church of that country." This, in other words, amounts to
saying Bancroft no doubt framed the Canon according to my view;
therefore the Canon "neither does nor can" mean anything else
than my view. But, to let this pass, let us observe what that view is:
it is, that the Canon referred, at the time it was made, to the titular
Episcopal Church of Scotland, and, after the consecration of the
bishops, to the real Episcopal Church of that country. My reply
is, that in 1604 there was no Church attached to the titular Episcopate. The titular bishops formed part of the Presbyterian Church,
and had sworn submission to the Presbyteries, Provincial and General Assemblies of that Church. Mr. Stephen's alleged Church,
therefore, is a nonentity-a phantasm of his own imagination.




19
II.-ON NON-EPISCOPAL ORDINATIONS.
I NOW proceed to notice the Letters which Chancellor Harington
has reprinted in his Appendix, from the Morning Chronicle, relating to the question of the doctrine of our Church on Non-Episcopal Orders.
The third Letter, which relates to the consecration of the Scotch
Bishops in 1610, I have already noticed. There remain, therefore, only the two former.
I must first observe, however, that I have already discussed this
subject at some length in a Review in the Christian Observer for
November, 1851, which, with the Editor's permission, I have since
reprinted in a separate form;* and, therefore, I shall only add here
what may be necessary to meet Mr. Harington's statements on
the subject, referring to the authorities I have there given. The
first Letter is occupied with the cases of Morrison and the Church
of Alexandria as mentioned by Eutychius. With the reference to
Eutychius I have now no concern, because I am considering the
doctrine of the Church of England; though quite ready, at a suitable time, to discuss that also with Mr. Harington.
Morrison's case I have given in my pamphlet (p. 29); and it
appears that, though he had only Scotch Presbyterian Orders,
Archbishop Grindal granted him a license to minister the Sacraments, &c., in "the whole Province" (not diocese, as Chancellor
Harington states) of Canterbury, which was formally issued by
his Vicar-General.
What is Mr. Harington's reply to this case?
Oh! Archbishop Grindal-the chaplain of Bishop Ridley, a
compiler of the Prayer-Book of 1559, the Bishop of London when
the 39 Articles were drawn up in 1562, the Archbishop of York
when they were finally settled in 1571, and the immediate successor of Parker in 1576 in the See of Canterbury-did not know
what the principles of his Church were. He "acted" in this matter, says Mr. Hlarington, " in direct opposition to the principles of
the Church over which he had presided," and "the truth is not
affected by the vagaries of Archbishop Grindal." (P. 45.) And
he sends him to the Ordinal in the Prayer-Book (which perhaps
the Chancellor forgot, at the moment, he had a principal hand in
* Entitled, " The Doctrine of the Church of England on Non-Episcopal Ordinations,
&c. Hatchard," Svo. pp. 44.




20
preparing) to learn better. I leave Grindal's cause in the hands
of the public.
But Mr. Harington thinks that he has found out another reason
for rejecting the argument derived from this case. He says:
"After all, is it clear how Morrison was ordained? Your contemporary has omitted certain important words which appear in the
Archbishop's license,'per manuum impositionern admissus et ordinatus fueras.' "  And he then proceeds to remark, that "the
First Book of Discipline which was recognized by the Kirk from
1560 to 1581, did not admit imposition of hands in ordination,"
and he "leaves the solution" of this difficulty "in the hands of
Grindal's admirer."
The solution is not far to seek. It will be found in " certain
important words which appear in the Archbishop's license," which
Mr. Harington has " omitted," though they form part of the sentence in which the words he has quoted occur. The sentence runs
thus: " Tu praefatus Johannes Morrison circiter quinque annos
elapsos in oppido de Garvet in comitat. Lothien. regni Scotie per
generalem synodum sive congregationern illius comitatus in dicto
oppido de Garvet congregatam juxta laudabilem Ecclesixs Scotix
reformatwformam et ritum ad sacros ordines et sacrosanctum ministerium per manuum impositionem admissus et ordinatus fueras."
(Strype's Grindal, App. p. 596, Ox. ed.) And Mr. Harington
will find, that ordination by imposition of hands was common in the
Reformed Church of Scotland at that period. He seems entirely
to have forgotten, that the First Book of Discipline never had the
sanction of the law, and therefore was never enforced. And the
words themselves of that Book are not a clear prohibition, for they
run thus: " Other ceremonies than the public approbation of the
people, and the declaration of the chief minister, that the person
there presented is appointed to serve that Church, we cannot approve: for albeit the Apostles used the imposition of hands, yet
seeing the miracle is ceased, the using of the ceremony we judge
not to be necessary."  (Spotiswood, p. 156.) But whatever sense
may be given to these words, the Book had not the sanction of the
law, and in this point particularly was not enforced.
Mr. Harington adds (p. 48), in a postscript:  "When will
members of the Church of England be taught that they can refute
the Papists only by adhering to sound Church principles.   All
other attempts have been, and ever will be, failures."
Will he permit me to remind him, that this argument has recently been so irreparably damaged, that it is absolutely unfit for
farther service?  Has he forgotten, that these were almost the
very words of Mr. Newman himself, when he was hastening rapidly
towards Rome?   And that his "sound Church principles" have
led not himself only, but a host of his followers, into the arms of
Rome? And how does it happen that if the " sound Church principles" of the Morning Chronicle are the only defence against




21
Popery, they are so different from those by which they who originally came out from Rome among us were actuated?
When Mr. HIarington says, that "the eminent anti-Papal controversialists in James II.'s reign were not Dissenters, nor did
they argue on dissenting principles," I quite agree with him;
but neither did they maintain the "sound Church principles" of
those who have assailed the present Archbishop of Canterbury.
There is a mean betwixt the two, which it would be greatly for
the advantage of the interests of truth and peace in our Church
could the "members of the Church of England be taught" to
maintain; and which the works of the chief of these " anti-Papal
controversialists," Wake, Stillingfleet, Tenison, Tillotson, Sherlock, &c., if carefully read, would greatly tend to promote.
In an appendix to this Letter, Chancellor Harington gives an
extract from his pamphlet in reply to Mr. Macaulay,* in which
he takes up the case of Whittingham and Travers-cases which I
am not concerned to defend, because I have not referred to them;
but as it will always, I trust, be my endeavor fairly to meet any
facts or arguments that may be adduced against the views I
maintain (truth, not party-views, being what I desire to promote),
I shall state precisely what bearing these cases seem to me to
have upon the point in question.  They have been adduced, as
Mr. Harington correctly informs us, as instances of persons who
have been allowed to minister in our Church with only Non-Episcopal Orders.
Now, as it respects the case of Whittingham, the Chancellor
must permit me to ask him to review his account of it, for he has
not correctly stated it; and he will find that, when correctly
stated, it assumes a very different aspect from what he has given
to it. Mr. Earington says: " Whittingham's'Orders were called
in question by Archbishop Whitgift,' and a commission was issued
to report thereon; which, but for his death, would have ended in
his being' deprived (to quote Whitgift's language) zithout special
grace and dispensation.' " (Pp. 50, 51.) Mr. Harington forgets
that Whittingham was dead several years before Whitgift became
Archbishop; not to say that Whitgift was Archbishop of Canterbury, and Whittingham Dean of Durham, in the Province of
York; and I must suppose that the name Whitgift, in the first
part of this sentence, was not a slip of the pen for Sandys,
because, if so, Mr. Harington would have referred to Sandys's
account of the matter, which mentions the reason for his calling
WVhittingham's Orders in question. But I cannot wholly account
for the statement; as Strype, in one of the very places to which
Mr. Harington refers us (Annals, II. 2, p. 167, et seq.), tells us
from Sandys's own words what it was. Archbishop Sandys was
"represented as blameworthy for calling in question the Dean's
* Entitled, "The Reformers of the English Church and Mr. Macaulay's History of
England."'




22
(Whittingham's) ministry;" and in his defence to the Lord Treasurer he writes thus: "The discredit of the Church of Geneva is
hotly alleged.  Verily, my Lord, that Church is not touched.
For he hath not received his ministry in that Church, or by any
authority or orderfrom that Church, so far as yet can appear.
Neither was there any English Church in Germany that attempted
the like, neither needed they to have done; having among themselves sufficient ministers to supply the room. But if his ministry,
without authority of God or man, without law, order, or example
of ANY CHURCH, may be current, take heed to the sequel."
(Strype, Ann. II. 2, p. 167, 8, and App. 620.)  And the Memorandum of Archbishop Sandys's Chancellor, on the result of an
investigation into the matter, states:' W. W., now Dean of
Durham, hath not proved, that he was orderly made minister at
Geneva, according to the order of the Geneva [book or office] by
public authority established there." (Strype, ib. p. 170.) The
objection of Archbishop Sandys therefore was, that he had not
been ordained according to the order of the Genevan OR ANY
Church, and had not in fact received any sort of ordination.
Whittingham's case, therefore, is, to say the least, rather
against Mr. Harington than in his favor; for it would seem
likely, from the account of the matter thus given, that Archbishop Sandys would have been satisfied if he had had regular
Genevan Orders.
The case of Travers (who was inhibited by Archbishop Whitgift
from preaching on account of his foreign ordination) is in itself
not very dissimilar, for he had never been regularly ordained in
any of the Foreign Reformed Churches; and this is particularly
objected to him by Whitgift in his remarks upon Travers's
Reasons; but I fully admit that it appears, from those remarks,
that Archbishop Whitgift held, that "the laws of the realm required, that such as are to be allowed as ministers in this Church
of England, should be ordained by a Bishop."  (See Strype's
Whitgift, i. 476-80, and iii. 182-6.)  In this view he was opposed to his predecessor Grindal, and also to the generality of the
Bishops that immediately came after him; as appears from the
statement of Bishop Cosin, a High Church divine, quoted by me
in my pamphlet on this subject;* who, after stating that " our
Bishops" did not reordain such persons before admitting them to
a charge here, says, in direct opposition to Archbishop Whitgift:
" Nor did our laws require more of him than to declare his public
consent to the religion received amongst us, and to subscribe the
Articles established."
Now, I will not (as Mr. Harington has done by Grindal) attack
Archbishop Whitgift for "vagaries," but simply say that the
weight of testimony is against his view of the subject. I am not
surprised, however, that so strict a disciplinarian as Whitgift
should have adopted the view he did. And, in the present day,
* Doctr. of Church of England on Non-Episcopal Ordinations, p. 29.




23
the question is one of very little importance, as the point has
been decided by the last Act of Uniformity and the additions
made to the Preface to the Ordinal. But Mr. Harington will,
perhaps, permit me to leave this question for his consideration:
How it was that if Archbishop Whitgift was right, the additions
came to be made to that Preface, and words touching this matter
inserted in the new Act of Uniformity at the Restoration? To
what purpose?
But farther; so far as concerns the great question now at issue,
Whether the Church of England admits the validity of the NonEpiscopal orders of the Scotch and Foreign Reformed Churches
in the abstract, and apart from the consideration of them as legal
qualifications for the ministry of our own Church, such cases as
these do not touch it. Archbishop Whitgift's views on the abstract
question, Mr. Harington may see in the extracts I have already
given from his works.*
Chancellor Harington, indeed, appears to quote (p. 57) with
approbation, a remark of the Bishop of Exeter, that our Church,
in not admitting to the exercise of the ministry in her communion
persons not episcopally ordained, "seems to imply the absolute
necessity of Episcopal ordination to confer the ministerial character; for, by the most universally admitted rule of Christian communion, all who are constituted Christ's ministers in any one portion of his Church, carry with them their character and commission in every other into which they may migrate."
But the Bishop has here just assumed what he had to prove,
namely, that this rule is admitted by our Church at the present
day. It may have been a "universally admitted rule" at one time
in the Church, but circumstances may have occurred to interrupt
its universal admission on more than one account, and in more than
one way. And such I submit is the case. The bishop's statement
is merely an attempt, more suo, to make his assertion pass as a
proof of the rule of our Church, and hence enforce the doctrine he
wishes to establish.
One word on the extract given by Mr. Harington (pp. 49, 50)
from Dr. Bowden's Letters to Miller (Letter 15), vol. ii. p. 36.
With respect to that part of it which refers to the Act of 1571,
and argues that the passage in it, sometimes referred to on this
subject, was passed with a view principally to the Romanists, I
fully agree with him; but when he goes on to say: "Let it farther be considered, that it was the avowed doctrine of the Church
throughout the whole reign of Elizabeth, that Episcopal ordination
was of Divine appointment, and then it will be evident that the
Act in question could not have been designed to indulge, under
the specified condition, those who had received no other Orders
but Presbyterian"-he seems to me entirely mistaken.
If this passage refers to the language of the Ordinal, when it
* b. pp. 19, 20.




24
speaks of "the avowed doctrine of the Church," then the argument
wholly fails. For the utmost that can be deduced from the language of the Ordinal is, that Episcopacy was of Apostolical institution, which may be fully admitted by those who hold the NonEpiscopal Orders of the Foreign Reformed Churches to be valid.
And if it refers to the language of the divines of our Church of
that day, it is entirely incorrect, as the passages I have already
given from their writings* fully show; for they did not all even
hold that Episcopacy was so far of Divine origin as that it was
regularly instituted by the Apostles. And even if they had so
held, the conclusion sought to be established would not have followed. Those who did hold that doctrine communicated with the
ministers of the Foreign Reformed Churches as men whose ministry was perfectly valid, and their Churches true Churches of Christ.
On this point, therefore, I must dissent from Dr. Bowden; and
it is evident, from Bishop Cosin's statement already quoted, that
our Bishops (speaking generally) took the same view of the case.t
The clause, though it probably had the Romanists particularly in
view, was worded so as to include the case of others also.
In fact, Dr. Bowden himself, though speaking of Episcopacy as
a Divine appointment, only means, as he himself tells us, that it
was instituted by the Apostles; and that will not prove its indispensable necessity for all times, places, and circumstances.
Of Dr. Bowden's sentiments on the great question at issue between Mr. Harington and myself, I shall have occasion to speak
presently, when noticing Mr. Harington's reference to him as a
witness in his favor.
Chancellor Harington's Second Letter is entitled, The TWitness
of Anglican Divines for -Episcopacy. Now, if the object of the
Letter was truly described in these words, I must say, in the language of Mr. Harington himself to his opponent, that his whole
Catena is " nihil ad rem," that he might have "quadruplicated his
authorities, which he might easily have done," and "not have
touched the question at issue; for nobody doubts that our Anglican divines have witnessed "for Episcopacy;" and I can well
afford to be liberal enough to throw him in the addition against
Presbyterianism.
Mr. lHarington tells us that his opponent " has strung together
a Catena of authorities which seem to recognize the validity of
Presbyterian Ordination in certain cases of necessity." (P. 55.)
I will take this as a true account of the matter, for I have not
seen the article, and am not defending it (as I know nothing of it),
but what I deem to be the truth in reply to Mr. IIarington's own
statements in this Letter.
This Catena Mr. Harington thinks useless, because, he says,
the question is this: "Whether the Church Catholic has not,
* See " Doctrine, &c." pp. 17-28.  t Ibid. p. 30.




25
from the first to the nineteenth century, maintained the Divine
institution of Episcopacy, recognizing no other system of Church
polity? And whether the Church of England, as a portion of the
Church Catholic, does not altogether exclude ordination by Presbyters?"
Now, with all respect for Chancellor Harington, I must say, that
this statement is calculated for anything rather than to show
clearly the real point at issue, and might leave disputants to argue
forever to no purpose, each having a different proposition in view
in his arguments. I must remind Mr. Harington of the old saying, that dolus latet in generalibus. When he says that the question is, whether the Church of England excludes ordination by
Presbyters, does he mean that she does this so far as permission
to minister in her own communion is concerned, or as it respects
all Churches, all over the world? If the former (and a considerable portion of his testimonies and remarks apply only to this),
nobody doubts it; the law is now clear; there is no controversy
on the subject. And the reference made to such cases as that of
Morrison, is only for the purpose of showing that, until the Restoration, some of the highest authorities of our Church held that
there was nothing to prevent persons ordained by Presbyters even
ministering in our own Church; which is an undeniable fact, and
greatly strengthens the argument for the point at issue. If Mr.
Harington holds that Archbishop Whitgift took a sounder view of
the subject than the generality of his brethren did, be it so. The
matter is scarcely worth arguing now. And Archbishop Whitgift
is wholly with us in the only question now at issue. But if he
means the latter, then the Catena which he tells us is nihil ad rem,
is obviously multum ad rem. And the latter is the question. He
is well aware that the letter of the present Archbishop of Canterbury (out of which this controversy arose) referred not to the validity of Presbyterian Orders for ministering in our Church, which
our laws forbid, but to the question of their validity in the abstract in the Church of Christ, when given under the circumstances
in which certain Foreign Reformed Churches have been placed by
the corruptions of the Papacy.
I cannot quite understand, therefore, how the Chancellor could
say, after adding a few remarks about Morrison and the Church of
Alexandria, "here the discussion might fairly close."  If he had
closed it there, he would have closed it without touching the point
in question. For if even the writer in the Herald so mistook his
cause as to make it rest upon a supposed right of Presbyterianly
ordained persons to minister in our Church, it surely would have
been better for the Chancellor to have set him right on this point,
and then grappled with the real question at issue.
But he has, in fact, added a long Catena of authorities on the
subject from our English divines-authorities which I cannot but
think he meant to prove, that our Church not only forbids those
in Presbyterian Orders to minister in our Churches, but disallows




26
the validity of such Orders in the abstract, nullifying the ministrations of those who hold them throughout the whole Church of
Christ; and as such I proceed to consider them; for in any other
view they are totally irrelevant to the great question at issue.
One remark more on his definition of the question under discussion. It would surely have been more unambiguous to speak of the
Apostolical institution of Episcopacy, than to use the epithet
Divine. I am quite aware that it has been frequently used, and
also of the sense in which it may be legitimately applied; but I am
also aware, that whenever the matter has been controverted, it has
been found necessary to point out two or three senses in which the
word "Divine" may be used, and (with very few exceptions) to
admit that in one only is it applicable to the origin of Episcopacy,
namely, as instituted by men divinely inspired; and in a formal
definition of this kind, a vague phraseology is surely to be avoided.
Now of the Apostolical institution of Episcopacy I make no doubt;
but then I have equally little doubt of the Apostolical institution
of the practice of anointing the sick with oil. And though I would
not place the importance of one on a par with the importance of
the other, yet if the mere fact of a thing having been Apostolically instituted, renders its observance indispensably necessary in
all ages and all parts of the Church of Christ, the one of these
is as indispensably necessary as the other. And if this argument
does not hold good, then the argument of Mr. Harington for the
indispensable necessity of Episcopacy from this fact falls to the
ground.
There is also one other point on which I would offer a word
before proceeding to a consideration of Chancellor IIarington's
authorities, because I know that much stress is often laid upon it,
and that is, as to the meaning of the term necessity when used by
some of our divines as alone justifying Presbyterian ordination in
a Church.  It is often said, that such and such Presbyterian
Churches might now, if they pleased, receive Episcopacy from
more than one Episcopal Church, and, therefore, that they cannot
urge the plea of necessity. But it is clear that the word necessity
was not used by them in this strict sense. I refer, in proof of
this, to the language of Saravia and Crakanthorp,* both of them
men in the highest repute with my opponents; and the latter of
whom distinctly says, speaking of his wish that those Churches
would avail themselves of the opportunity they then possessed of
obtaining Episcopal Orders, " sed optamus, non cogimus: jus et
imperium in eorum Ecclesias nee habemus nos, nee desideramus."
And this opportunity they have had for more than two centuries
just as much as at the present day; so that all the testimonies of
our divines since that period, such as Mason, Cosin, &c. &c.,
were written under similar circumstances to those which now exist.
It is clear, also, that when Saravia spoke of necessity, he was
alluding to a necessity arising from the corruption of the Bishops
* See " Doctrine, &c." pp. 22, 39.




27
in any particular Church for the sound presbyters of that Church
to perpetuate their order by admitting others to it themselves,
though under ordinary circumstances they would have had no
right to do so.* He was contemplating each Church as an independent community that had a right to order its own affairs.
And when it is urged, that no necessity exists now for the Foreign Reformed Churches lacking Episcopacy, because certain
Episcopal Churches would give them Bishops, I am much inclined
to doubt whether even this could be proved, for there may be still
many impediments, some arising out of their relations to the different States in which they are found, to their reception of Episcopacy, whatever may be the willingness of other Churches to give it
to them.
Mr. Harington's first quotations are taken from the Ordinal as
it stood previous to 1662. Against the interpretation which it is
sought to affix to these, we have first the practice of the Bishops of
that day, as reported by Bishop Cosin,t the 23d Article;j and the
fact that when, at the Restoration, it was wished to exclude those
in Presbyterian Orders from ministering in our Church, words
were added for that purpose.
IHe then proceeds to his Catena, which is formed from the works
of Cranmer, Whitgift, Jewel, Rollock, Bancroft, Morton, Bilson,
Andrews, Hall, Hammond, Hooker, Bramhall, Heylin, Mason,
Cosin, Potter, Sanderson, Downame, Beveridge, Taylor, Barrow,
Sage, Stillingfleet, Brett, Madox, Leslie, Dodwell, Hickes, Burscough, Milbourn, Bowden, Daubeney, Laud, the author of ELxcov
Bac3iLtx, the author of The Beauty of the Church of England,
Peter Du Moulin, and Thomas's Answer to Owen.
Now I suppose it will strike the most cursory reader that several
of these authors were Non-jurors.  Under this description come
Brett, Leslie, Dodwell, Hickes; a school of writers whose remarks
on the very point we are now considering, obtained for them, from
one of the most eminent of " the eminent anti-Papal controversialists in James II.'s reign," to whom Mr. Harington has referred
us, the appellation of "furiosi scriptores." ~  I will, therefore,
willingly make Mr. Harington a present of them.
Of the others, it can hardly be worth while to spend our time
upon the opinions of such very small personages as Robert Burscough, Luke Milbourn, the author of The Beauty of the Church
of England (from whom Mr. HIarington has given us five pages),
and John Thomas, whose work we are told is " strongly recommended by Dr. Hickes" the Non-juror. Moreover, Bishop Sage
and Dr. Robert Rollock belong to Scotland, not England. And
of the latter of these I would ask Mr. Harington himself, whether
he is prepared to maintain that Dr. Rollock, who acted in the
* See the extracts from him in my former pamphlet, pp. 21, 22.
t See the pamphlet already referred to, p. 29.
t lb. pp. 26, 27.' See former pamphlet, p. 42.




28
General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Kirk of Scotland, and was
in the communion of that Church till his death in 1599, believed
the ministrations of the pastors of that Church to be invalid.
With the rest I will now proceed to deal.
I will take the case of Dr. Bowden, the American, first; because
it remarkably illustrates the real nature of the whole Catena.
Chancellor Harington has made great use of Dr. Bowden, taking
some of his authorities from him. And though I cannot think all
Dr. Bowden's arguments valid, or his authorities rightly applied,
his work bearing, to my mind, marks of haste and inaccuracy, yet
I quite admit it to be, as a whole, a valuable defence of Episcopacy. It will be well, then, to ascertain what the object of Dr.
Bowden was; it was, to prove against the assertion of the Presbyterian Dr. Miller that Episcopacy was a mere human institution,
that, on the contrary, it was " of Divine institution;" meaning by
these terms, not that it was ordained by any "express command"
of God or our Lord Jesus Christ, which he repudiates, but that it
was instituted by the Apostles, "men divinely inspired," and
therefore, at the least, had " a Divine sanction." (Lett. 17.) And
all his arguments and authorities are directed to the establishment
of this point. Consequently, they do not touch the question now
at issue, which is-not whether Episcopacy was or was not instituted
by the Apostles, but-whether Orders derived from an uninterrupted succession of duly consecrated Bishops from the time of the
Apostles, are so necessary to the existence of a Church and a valid
ministry that neither can exist without them. And unfortunately
for Mr. Harington, Dr. Bowden explicitly and expressly repudiates such a notion. He says:  "Every Episcopal writer that I
have ever met with maintains, that this government is not absolutely necessary to the very salvation of the Church, but that it is so
necessary, that the Church cannot be in a sound and perfect state
without it."  The latter, of course, every Episcopalian must think.
Again:   "I am not endeavoring to unchurch other denominations. This is not the question in this discussion."  But this is
the question between the Archbishop and his assailants. And Dr.
Bowden goes on to say: "What the essence of a Church is,
neither Presbyterians nor Episcopalians have as yet determined.
Upon the question, What defect unchurches, unanimity is not to
be looked for..          When you shall have the good fortune
to agree among yourselves, what is the precise point at which a
Church loses that character, perhaps your discoveries will lead
Episcopalians to unanimity; till then, I fear, we shall not be
agreed, whether the Divine right of Episcopacy necessarily involves
the consequence, that denominations which have not Bishops, when
it proceeds from necessity, want a valid ministry; and whether,
again, the want of such a ministry completely unchurches." He
does not therefore suppose, that all true Episcopalians must hold
that such denominations " want a valid ministry," and he did




29
not apparently think so himself. He adds: "Wake, Bingham,
Pretyman, and Gisborne, assert the Apostolic institution of Episcopacy... Bingham and Wake, particularly the former, are
among its ablest advocates. Yet these four divines do not consider
it as essential to the very being of a Church. When Christians
can have it, they ought to have it; but when they cannot, necessity
frees them from all blame.  This appears to be the more common opinion of Episcopalians."  "I acknowledge that they [the
Reformers of the Church of England] do not consider it as essential to the very being of a Church; but after making this concession, they insist upon it as necessary to a well organized, sound,
and perfectly Apostolical Church; and that a departure from it
where it is, is an unjustifiable schism; except when a Church imposes
upon its members sinful terms of communion." (Lett. 17.) I
give the context, that I may not be supposed anxious to keep back
any part of Dr. Bowden's views.
Notwithstanding, therefore, Dr. Bowden's opinion of the Apostolical institution of Episcopacy, he admits, that it may reasonably
be maintained, and is "the more common opinion of Episcopalians,"
that it "is not essential to the very being of a Church," and that
there may be "a valid ministry" without it. Consequently Dr.
Bowden's testimony is worse than useless to Mr. Harington. It
is opposed to him. And his whole Catena, with the exception of
his Non-juror witnesses, and perhaps one or two others of a similar
school, are at best in the same predicament, and some of them
still more strongly opposed to his views.
Dr. Bowden has justly drawn a distinction between the views of
Episcopalians on the subject, admitting that some of them maintain the higher ground that a regular Episcopal succession is essential to the very being of a Church, and that there cannot be a
valid ministry without it; and I am quite ready to concede to Mr.
Harington that such Episcopalians there have been, and now are,
in our Church. But then he must allow me to request him to confine his Catena to such as do hold this; and I can assure him that
I will then leave him in quiet possession of it, and not contend
with him for a moment as one who has any right in those "furiosi
scriptores," as Archbishop Wake called them, who take such a
view. But when he lays claim to the support of those who have
distinctly repudiated such a notion, and the whole glory of his
Catena is derived from names so used, he must excuse my protest
against such an (unintentional) misrepresentation of their views.
It is obvious, on the first glance at his Catena, that he has mixed
together, without discrimination, divines who notoriously differed
in their judgment on the very point under discussion;, and has
only obtained an appearance of their combined support by an inaccurate representation of the question at issue.
I must again repeat, that that question is not the Apostolical
Institution of Episcopacy, which I hold as strongly as Chancellor




30
Harington can do;* but whether the Foreign Reformed Churches,
considering the peculiar circumstances in which they have been
placed, (lo or do not possess a valid ministry.
The first remark, therefore, which I have to make upon all the
authorities worth noticing in the Catena is, that the testimonies
quoted do not touch the question.  And the second is,that many of
the best of the authors here quoted, have elsewhere expressly opposed the notion of the absolute necessity of _Episcopacy to constitute a valid ministry.  This I shall now proceed to show; and a
proof of this will be the best evidence of the truth of the first remark.   For if many of the most eminent of the authors so quoted
have expressed themselves in the most express and explicit terms
in favor of the view of which Chancellor Harington quotes them
as the opponents, such language as Mr. Harington has quoted
from them, does not prove, in the case of any who use it, that they
held what he seeks to establish.
Without, therefore, going through the whole Catena (which is
quite unnecessary), I shall content myself with showing what
many of the best of his witnesses have said elsewhere.
Of Cranmer I will merely say, that it shows great courage even
to name him in such a matter.    I shall only refer, in reply, to
the documents I have already quoted in my former pamphlet;
showing his entire repudiation of the notion Mr. Harington seeks
to fix upon him.
Of Whitgift I say the same, and make the same reference.t
And I must add that, as Mr. Harington's quotation is from the
Archbishop's letter to Beza, it would have been better if he had
told us, that the letter is addressed to Beza as his "most dear brotherin Christ," and superscribed to him as "his most dear brother and
COLLEAGUE in Christ, and faithful pastor of the Genevan Church."
For I take it for granted, that though the extract is given from
Dr. Bowden, Mr. Harington must be familiar with the Letter
itself as given by Strype. (Life of Whitgift, ii. pp. 159, 173.)
For Bishop Jewel, the passages I have given~ from his writings
so completely refute the interpretation which Mr. Harington
would affix to the passages he has quoted, that nothing need be
added here.
Archbishop Bancroft's express testimony in favor of the validity
of the Orders of the Foreign Reformed Churches, I have given
above,ll and in my former pamphlet.[
Bishop lMorton's direct recognition of the right of Presbyters to
ordain, when the Bishops of a Church have departed from the
true faith, I have given in the same place.**  In fact, Mr. Harington merely gives a general reference to his work, entitled,
"The Episcopacy of the Church of England justified to be Apos* I may perhaps be permitted to refer as evidence of this to my defence of this view
nearly ten years ago, in my Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol. ii. pp. 60-72. And in
pp. 72-110, 1 have discussed the question now at issue, and have seen no reason to
change the ground I there took on the subject.
t Sea pp. 13-16.       t See pp. 19, 20.     ~ See p. 18.
II See pp. 7 and 15, 16, above. ~ See p. 34.  ** See p. 36.




31
tolical," a proof of which does not (to use Mr. Harington's own
words) "touch the question at issue."
Bishop Hall says, that "there is no difference in any essential
matter betwixt the Church of England and her sisters of the Reformation;' and as to the difference in the form of church government, " we all profess this form not to be essential to the being
of a Church."*
Hooker tells us, with reference to the case of Beza, that "there
may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow Ordination made without a Bishop," and that there is no law by which
" the Lord hath appointed Presbyters for ever to be under the
regiment of Bishops,"t &c.
Of Archdeacon Mason we have a work the very object of which
is to vindicate " the validity of the Ordination of the ministers of
the Reformed Churches beyond the seas;" a work originally
forming part of the very book to which Chancellor Harington
refers, to prove Mason an advocate of his own views.1
Bishop Cosin has treated expressly of the same subject, and
taken the same ground; and acted upon it when in exile, by communicating with those Churches, and exhorting others to do so.
His testimony is very full and distinct.~
Bishop Downham, in the very same work that Chancellor
Harington quotes, expressly defends the Ordinations of the
Foreign Reformed Churches, and formally repudiates the notion
that because the Episcopal form of church government is to be
found in the Scriptures, therefore it is "perpetually and tnchangeably necessary in all Churches."l]
So that all these authors, the cream of the Catena, have clearly
and expressly advocated the doctrine which Chancellor Harington
seeks to overthrow by their testimony.
His nominal thesis of the Apostolical institution of Episcopacy
they will no doubt fully support; but his real one, of the indispensable necessity of Episcopacy to a valid ministry and a real
Church, they distinctly oppose.
And consequently, as to all the remaining authors in his list
who have spoken in similar terms, such passages as he has quoted
from them prove nothing as to their views on the real question at
issue. And the authors to whom I have referred are amply sufficient to show what the views of the great body of our most learned
and able divines have been on this subject.eT
My belief is, that even the highest of our High Church divines
of former times (excepting of course such men as the Non-jurors,
Hickes, Dodwell, &c.) would have declined to take the ground now
occupied by the Archbishop's opponents.
For instance, Bishop Andrews, whom     Mr. Harington  has
* See lb.                     t See lb. pp. 20, 21.
] See extracts and a proof of its genuineness given, Ib. pp. 38, 39.
O See it given lb. pp. 39-41.
II See the extracts given Ib. p. 36.
T Some farther testimonies will be found in my former pamphlet.




32
quoted as a witness in favor of his views.  High as Bishop
Andrews might place the claims of Episcopacy, he distinctly
repudiates the notion of unchurching those that are under a different form of church government. (See my former pamphlet, p. 32.)
So again Archbishop Bramhall (another of Mr. Harington's
witnesses); who reminds us that "there is great difference
between a VALID and a REGULAR Ordination."  I have given in
my former pamphlet (pp. 32, 33) abundant proof of the nature of
his views; but I will here add a remark in reply to Chancellor
HIarington's argument that because he reordained some who had
only received the imposition of the hands of Presbyters, therefore
he must have considered their Orders as altogether invalid. I
quite grant, that the reference that has been sometimes made to
the circumstance here referred to, as if it proved that Bramhall
admitted the validity of such Orders because he said he would not
discuss the question of their validity, but advised the parties to be
ordained in order to obtain a legal title to their tithes, is one
which always appeared to me a mistake. The words in the Letters of Orders,' ordines, si quos habuit," appear to me to prove
his wish to leave the question of the validity of their Orders
wholly undecided. But then on the other hand, Mr. Harington
cannot quote him as a witness against the validity of such Orders,
when he himself carefully abstained from committing himself to
that view, and formally and expressly declined to determine the
question (nec validitatem  aut invaliditatem eorundem determinantes); and as to the act of Ordination, he himself supplies the
answer to Mr. Harington's suggestion that he would not have reordained one who in his view had been already ordained, when he
says, that in ordaining he was " solummodo supplentes quicquid
prius defuit per canones Ecclesix Anglicanx requisitum, et providentes paci Ecclesiae ut schismatis tollatur occasio, et conscientiis
fidelium  satisfiat."  And it must also be remembered, that the
case of Presbyterians ordained in Ireland during the great rebellion was very different from that of the ministers of the Foreign
Reformed Churches, with which alone we are now concerned; and
this difference the Archbishop recognizes in the very document
from which I am quoting, observing: " fulto minus omnes Ordines
sacros Ecclesiarum Forinsecarum condemnantes, quos proprio
Judici relinquimus."
How far, therefore, Chancellor Harington's Catena will benefit
his cause, I leave him and the public to judge. For his nominal
thesis, he might easily have multiplied his authorities tenfold, and
that without going to such extreme authors as Ilickes, and Dodwell, and Brett, but he would not have touched the real point he
wishes to establish.  And a large portion of his best witnesses
have, in other parts of their writings, expressly and explicitly
advocated the view he has been laboring to overthrow by their
authority.
Dec. 22, 1851.




A REPLY
TO THE
BISHOP OF EXETER'S
SECOND ARRAIGNMENT OF HIS METROPOLITAN
IN HIS
Wetter to ti) atrcji)acon of Cotnts,
OPPUGNING THE
VALIDITY OF THE ORDERS OF THE FOREIGN
NON-EPISCOPAL CHURCHES.
TO WHICH IS ANNEXED
A REJOINDER TO CHANCELLOR HARINGTON,
ON THE SAME SUBJECT.
" Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence......Neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the Church."-3 John, 9, 10.
BY
W. GOODE, M.A., F.S.A.
Rector of Allhallows the Great and Less, London.
~ljirb (bition.
NEW    YORK:
A. D. F. RANDOLPH, 683 BROADWAY.
1853.








CONTENTS.
REPLY TO THE BISHOP OF EXETER.
PAGE
Preliminary remarks....                                  5, 6
Bishop of Exeter's doctrine...                                    6, 7
Archbishop of Canterbury's doctrine..                          7, 8
On the Nineteenth Article...                               8, 9
On the Twenty-third Article (containing citations from Bp. Pearson,
Bp. Burnet, Foreign Prot. Churches, Rogers on the Articles,
Bp. Tomline, Bp. Jewel, and Hooker)..            9-14
On the Twenty-sixth Article... 14, 15
On the English Ordinal..                                       15-20
On a minister's supposed right to minister throughout the whole
Church, with citation from Abp. Whitgift.... 16, 17
On the question of reordination, with extracts from Abps. Bramhall and Leighton, Bingham, and the Council of Nice.. 17-19
The Bishop's argument from the "Institution of a Christian Man,"
and the "Necessary Doctrine and Erudition" answered.. 20, 21
Vindication of my former reference to these Works... 21-23
Vindication of my former reference to the Scholastic divines, showing the Bishop's attack to be grounded upon a want of knowledge on the point in question, with extracts from Morinus and
Dean Field on the whole subject... 22-30
The view quoted from them supported by the Canons of Ecbright
and Elfric, and the fourth Council of Carthage... 30, 31
Reply to the Bishop's remarks respecting the divines of the reign
of Edward VI., with reference to the views of Ridley, Philpot,
Hooper, Cox, and Aylmer...                       31
Reply to the Bishop's remarks respecting the divines in the reign of
Elizabeth, particularly Hooker and Bp. Bilson... 32-33
Reply to the Bishop's quotations from Bps. Sanderson and Pearson  33-37
Reply to exceptions taken to my former testimonies, particularly
that of Bp. Cosin..... 37, 38
The Bishop's mistake in his mode of arguing..          39
Reply to the Bishop's remarks on the 55th Canon....     39-42
Burnet's account of the consecration of the Scotch Bishops in 1661  42
Reply to various objections.... 42, 43




iv                           CONTENTS.
PAGE
Recapitulation of former testimonies from divines of Queen Elizabeth's reign, namely: Bp. Alley, Bp. Pilkington, Dr. Whitaker,
Bp. Jewel, Abp. Whitgift, Hooker, Saravia, Bp. Bridges, Bp.
Cooper, Dr. Cosin..... 43, 44
Correspondence of our early divines with the Foreign Protestant
Ministers.....                                45
Cases of Scotch and Foreign Protestant Ministers allowed to minister in our Church without any fresh ordination...45, 46
Any difficulty in this arose, not from the ecclesiastical but the
statute law, proved from Bp. Hall..                         46
Abp. Laud probably the first publicly to maintain that there could
be no true Church without bishops...                  47
Extract from Mr. Hallam...                                47
Reference to testimonies already given in former Tract from Bp.
Andrews and Abp. Bramhall; also from Abps. Bancroft, Usher,
Sancroft, Wake, Seeker, and Howley, Bps. Hall, Davenant,
Morton, George, Downham, Cosin and Tomline, Lord Bacon,
DeansjField and Sherlock, Archd. Mason, Drs. Crakanthorpe,
Willet, and Claget....                           48
Additional testimonies from Bp. Hall, Dr. Crakanthorpe, Dr. J.
White, Bp. F. White, Dr. J. Forbes, Bingham, Abp. Sharp,
Abp. Tenison, and Dr. John Scott.. 48-51
General remarks on the remaining portion of the Bishop's "Letter"  51-53
Dr. Phillpotts' rebuke of Mr. Canning for speaking slightingly of
Calvinists..........     53
Reply to the extraordinary comments of the Bishop upon the Ordination Service of the French Reformed Church, showing that
his Lordship has effectually invalidated his own Orders and those
of probably the whole Church, with extracts from Morinus, Theodoret, Jerome, the Apostolical Constitutions, and the Ordination
Services of the Greek Church.... 53-58
The Bishop's account of the French Service rectified...58, 59
Reply to the Bishop's remarks on the 11th Canon of the French Reformed Church, in which the question of the indelibility of Holy
Orders is considered, and answered from Bingham... 59-61
Concluding remarks on the importance of united action among
orthodox Protestants in opposition to the efforts of Popery and
Infidelity; with observations on some statements of the Bishop
of Oxford's recent Charge.... 61-64




REPLY TO THE BISHOP OF EXETER.
~c. C. ~C.
OF the many grievous errors which have been lately put forth
in our Church under the name of genuine Church principles and
Anglo-Catholic doctrine, there is not one, perhaps, more entirely
opposed to the truth of the Gospel and the real doctrine of our
Church, than that the only legitimate and promised channel
through which the grace of God comes to mankind, is a ministry
deriving its Orders from an Apostolically-descended Episcopate.
This doctrine is the ~p-1ov,EvZo;, the primary false principle, that
is at the root of the present controversy among us on the question
of Foreign Ordinations. How it is possible for ministers of our
Church, in the face of all the testimonies that history sets before
us of the close communion maintained by our early Reformers
with the Protestant Continental Churches, to maintain such a view
as the doctrine of the Church of England, it is difficult to understand. But recent experience seems to show, that there are no
bounds to the Romanizing doctrines which some among us can see
clearly set forth in our Protestant Formularies.
To the Bishop of Exeter, and certain others among us, it is
manifest as the sun at noonday, that the Orders of those who were
recognized by our Reformers as esteemed fellow-ministers of
Christ, and most dear colleagues in the Christian ministry, are
pronounced by the Formularies drawn up by those very Reformers
to be altogether invalid and null. But then, it must not be forgotten by the reader, that the same great authority has found his
own doctrine of universal regeneration in baptism in the Calvinistic
Confessions of the Foreign Protestant Churches; and has even,
unconsciously, quoted the words of Calvin himself as bearing
indubitable testimony to the truth of his view.
Whatever, therefore, be the amount of his Lordship's learning
-a question into which I will not enter-it is clear that he has a
principle of interpretation ready upon all occasions, by which the
writings of any individuals may be shown most manifestly to set
forth the doctrine he wishes to defend; even to the extent of
making Calvin himself a maintainer of the opus operatum efficacy
of the Sacraments, and proving those who fraternized with NonEpiscopalian churches and ministers, and considered them the very
choicest portions of Christ's Church, and his favored ambassadors
to a fallen world, to be men who, in the Formularies they drew
up, formally denounced those churches and ministers as uncatholic




6
communities and mere pretenders to powers which they did not
possess.
We may reasonably presume to doubt, however, whether this
principle of interpretation will be as satisfactory to impartial inquirers as it seems to be to the Bishop of Exeter. But as his
Lordship has now publicly come forward with an elaborate defence
of his views in this matter, for the purpose of again arraigning his
Metropolitan at the bar of public opinion, for false doctrine and
teaching opposed to that of his Church,* I venture to offer to the
public the following remarks upon his statements. And I may
the rather be permitted to do this, as, in the course of his pamphlet, he has, in a way with which we are all now painfully
familiar, directly charged me with misrepresentation in my citation
of certain authorities on this subject.
His Lordship's Letter has been called forth, he tells us, by the
reply of the Archbishop of Canterbury to an Address to him from
certain of the Clergy of the Diocese of Exeter, in which they
desired " earnestly to record their conviction, in agreement with
the judgment of our Church, consentient with that of the Catholic
Church, that they only can be deemed validly ordained who have
received'the laying on of hands by those to whom the Apostolic
succession has descended.'" In the reply of the Archbishop to
this very modest production, in which a few presbyters take upon
themselves to lay down the law to the Primate of their Church,
and to pronounce ex cathedrd what is "the judgment of our
Church," and "that of the Catholic Church," his Grace took the
opportunity of " protesting against the unwarranted assumption
which it contained."  Upon which the Bishop of Exeter thus
comments: " Believing, as I do, that this judgment of 220 of my
clergy was substantially right, and apprehending that the censure
passed upon it by the Archbishop, if it remain unnoticed, may
lead to extensive and pernicious error, I deem it my duty to avow
this my belief;" and he proceeds to fulfil "the duty of stating
plainly and explicitly the grounds on which he rests it;" and he
adds: " These grounds will in the present instance be limited to
the authoritative teaching of our own Church, not diverging from
it in any way, except to illustrate that teaching: for the question
is, whether it be the judgment of our Church, that they only are
truly ordained to the Christian ministry who have received Holy
Orders from those to whom the power of conferring them has
descended in succession from the Apostles." (Pp. 12, 13.)
Such is the position which the Bishop of Exeter has taken upon
himself to defend as the doctrine of our Church, proved to be so
by her "authoritative teaching." The reader will observe that
the question to be discussed is not as to the regularity of NonEpiscopal Orders, but as to their validity; that is, whether persons
* In a letter to the Archdeacon of Totnes, in answer to an Address from the Clergy
of that Archdeaconry on the Necessity of Episcopal Ordination. By Henry, Lord Bishop
of Exeter. Murray: 8vo. pp. 88.




7
so set apart have any right to perform anywhere the duties of
the ministerial office, or to expect any Divine recognition or blessing in their performance of them. And if such Orders are not
valid, then the Churches that have not Bishops " descending in
succession from the Apostles," have none among them recognized
by God as his ministers; they are entirely destitute of any persons
holding the ministerial office; and, of course, subject to all the
consequences resulting from such a state of things.
But, as I am anxious that the Bishop's views should be fully
stated before I proceed to investigate them, I will give him the entire benefit of a species of saving clause which he has thrown in,
in one place, when pointing out the answer which he thinks ought
to have been given by the Archbishop to Mr. Gawthorn's inquiry.
He intimates that his Grace's answer ought to have been, that " he
and the Church of England do hold Ordination by Bishops as
necessary; but yet, that we are not forbidden by the Church to
hope that, under the peculiar circumstances under which some
of these foreigners are placed, their ministrations are not void."
(P. 7.)
So that the limitation is this: that, while our Church holds that
Non-Episcopal Ordinations are altogether invalid, and persons so
ordained no ministers at all, yet if a member of it should venture
to express a " hope," that the ministrations of " some" such, under
some peculiar circumstances, "are not void," our Church has not
directed that he should be punished for it. To call them ministers
would indeed be a grave offence; but our Church has not (the
Bishop thinks) told her clergy: You shall not indulge a hope that
the ministrations of any such persons can be of any use. Our
Church is charitable enough not to anathematize those who indulge
such a hope. Such is the limitation with which the Bishop's position is to be connected. Will the reader expect me to take much
farther notice of it?
The judgment of the Archbishop, which it may be well also to
state before I proceed farther, is, that our Church does not " deny
the validity of the Orders" of the Pastors of the Foreign Protestant Churches " solely on account of their wanting the imposition
of Episcopal hands," (Letter to Gawthorn;) while he at the same
time maintains, "that Episcopal government, and therefore that
Episcopal Ordination, is most agreeable to Scripture, most in
accordance with primitive practice, and is in itself the'more excellent way.' " (Letter to Palmer.)
Which of these two views is most consistent with the doctrine
of the Church of England, we are now to inquire.
The Bishop commences his argument with an appeal to the
Formularies of our Church, particularly those parts which had
been referred to by the Archbishop as expressing doctrine with
which his views were "in exact accordance;" namely, the 19th
and 23d Articles, and the Preface to the Ordinal; and out of
these he constructs, by a long process of argumentation and infer



8
ential reasoning, aided by divers additions ab extra, a system of
church government suited to his views. I must endeavor to follow
him in the mazes of the labyrinth he has constructed, and through
whose devious and winding paths he has reached his conclusions.
His Lordship's mode of argumentation on such occasions strongly
reminds one of the ingenious method by which the cuttle-fish is
accustomed to elude the grasp of its pursuers; namely, by pouring
forth an inky fluid which so darkens the waters through which it
takes its course, that their powers of vision are completely unequal
to the task of tracking its path. And I doubt much, whether our
venerable Reformers would be able to recognize their own Formularies, if presented to them in the state in which they reappear
after having been subjected to the action of that potent fluid.
The 19th Article is " Of the Church," and stands thus: "The
visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in
which the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be
duly ministered according to God's ordinance, in all things that
of necessity be requisite to the same."
From this his Lordship deduces three positions: First, that in
any body professing to be a Church of Christ, " the pure word of
God" is to be preached; a deduction which I shall not dispute.
Secondly, it must be "preached;" "THAT IS," says his Lordship,
" publicly set forth for the instruction of the people by persons
duly empowered, or sent, for that purpose; for we know from St.
Paul that the word cannot be'preached'-that is, not merely
recited or taught, but proclaimed with assurance and authorityexcept by those who are duly'sent,' authorized by Him whose
word they proclaim, xtpvxs —men unto whom God'hath committed the word of reconciliation.' " (P. 14.)
Now I beg to ask, where does his Lordship find all this in the
Article?  The Article merely uses the word "preached."  Does
his Lordship really suppose that any one in search of truth will
allow him to raise out of this single word his whole doctrine of
the sort of commission necessary to qualify a man for preaching
the Gospel? Has he forgotten that even laymen were sometimes
allowed to preach in the early Church, and that in the presence
of a bishop? Or, still more, has he forgotten that " they which
were scattered abroad, upon the persecution that arose about
Stephen, travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch,
preaching the word, &c..... And the hand of the Lord was with
them, and a great number believed and turned unto the Lord?"
(Acts xi. 19-21.)  Or (to mention no more) has he forgotten
Apollos, who, when "knowing only the baptism of John," and
therefore certainly not ordained by any apostle or Christian
bishop, " spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord,"
which I suppose amounts topreaching; and after receiving farther
instruction from Aquila and Priscilla, " helped them much which
had believed through grace; for he mightily convinced the Jews,
and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was




9
Christ?" (Acts xviii. 24, &c.) All these, it seems, knew nothing
of the Bishop of Exeter's doctrine, that nobody might, or even
could, "preach," but one specially ordained and publicly set apart
by Divine commission for the purpose.
Of course I am not here touching the question of the necessity
of an inward Divine call and qualification for being am ambassador
of Christ, or of what Apostolical practice teaches us to be proper
for the due appointment of a preacher of the Gospel in a regularly
constituted Church. All I wish now to point attention to is the
absurdity (for I can use no milder term) of attempting to raise
a whole system of church government out of the single word
"preach."
His Lordship's third deduction is that, as the Article requires,
that in a Church "the Sacraments be duly ministered in all
those things that of necessity are requisite to the same," and the
25th Article says, that sacraments are " effectual signs of grace,
&c., by which God doth work invisibly in us," &c.; and a Homily
says, that "in them God embraceth us," &c.; "manifestly, therefore, among' those things that of necessity are requisite to the
duly ministering the same' must be authority from God, given to
those who minister them;" and it is added, that "our Church
has not left the point to be deduced by our sense of what is right:
it is expressly declared in the 26th Article that they who minister
the Sacraments'do not the same in their own name, but in
Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority;" and
hence the consequence is deduced, that the Sacraments can only
be "duly ministered" "by those who have commission and
authorityfrom God given to them for that purpose;" in other
words, individuals divinely commissioned "for that purpose."
Now, one single consideration annihilates the whole of this argumentation; for if it were correct, lay-baptism would be wholly
invalid, which the Bishop well knows is not the doctrine of our
Church; and therefore his third deduction is as groundless as his
second. The question whether non-episcopally ordained ministers
may not be said to minister by Christ's commission and authority,
is one that will more properly come under consideration in reviewing the meaning of the 23d Article; to which the Bishop next
directs our attention.
This Article is entitled, "Of ministering in the Congregation,"
and runs thus: "It is not lawful for any man to take upon him
the office of public preaching or ministering the Sacraments in the
congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the
same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent,
which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public
authority given unto them in the congregation to call and send
ministers into the Lord's vineyard."
It is difficult to understand how any one can read this Article,
and not see how carefully it is worded so as not to exclude from
"lawful calling" the ministers of the Foreign Protestant Churches.




10
As Professor Hey says, in his Commentary on the Articles, the
expression "who have public authority given unto them in the
congregation," "seems to leave the manner of giving the power of
ordaining quite free; it seems as if any religious society might,
consistently with this Article, appoint officers, with power of Ordination, by election, representation, or lot; as if, therefore, the
right to ordain did not depend upon any uninterrupted succession."
(Lect. in Div. vol. iv. p. 166.) And when we recollect the nature
of the intercourse and communion that took place between our
Reformers and those Churches and their ministers, both at the
time when these Articles were first drawn up, in the reign of Edward VI., and at their re-establishment in the reign of Elizabeth,
there is but one way of accounting for a long argumentation, an
effusion of ink covering EIGHTEEN pages, to prove that by " men
to whom public authority is given," &c., the Article "must mean
Bishops"i!) and that "our Church holds that the power of Ordination is in Bishops only." (!!) (P. 33.) Painful as the task is of
taking to pieces such a web of sophistry, such a tissue of false
reasoning and perversion of plain statements, the position of the
writer makes it necessary to guard the public mind against such a
representation of the doctrine of our Church.
His Lordship commences by observing, that by the Article it is' not lawful" to " execute the ministry in the Church" without " a
lawful call and mission."  His Lordship is quite aware, as he
afterwards informs us, that this is held by his opponents as much
as by himself (p. 20), and therefore it might have been supposed
that he would at once have passed on to something relevant to the
question in hand. But it appears, that by some obliquity of vision, of a very unenviable kind, he saw in it an opportunity of flinging against the Primate a charge of fraternizing with Socinians in
the matter. He is "aware" that " Hammond had to defend the
Apostle's precept" as to "mission" being "requisite for teaching
in the Church;" and " against whom?"-" against Volkelius and
other disciples of Socinus, whom he asserts'to be certainly the first
that from the beginning of Christianity have in this controversy
appeared against us.'" To which his Lordship thinks himself
justified in appending the following remark: " This is a sad pedigree; and it behooves those who are unconsciously using the words
and arguments of Socinus and his followers, to ponder their
founder's purpose in using them-which was no other than to assail the faith, by disparaging the Divine mission of its heralds and
guardians." (P. 17.)
Hoping, I suppose, that the reader would be so mystified by his
statements as to identify all "mission" with that which the
Bishop considers proper "mission;" and that he would overlook
the fact that the Bishop's own quotation from Hammond condemns him-for its terms virtually except the Foreign Protestant
Churches from the charge of not thinking any mission requisitehe hurls against the Primate a reproach, which his own statements




11
prove to be groundless., Considering the quarter from which it
comes, I content myself with thus pointing it out.
Into his Lordship's theological lucubrations, occupying the next
two pages, I shall not enter. What we are inquiring about is the
doctrine laid down in the Article. But he concludes thus: " But
is all mission now unnecessary? Mission from God himself? The
Catholic Church hath from the beginning held the contrary; and
our own Church, as a faithful part of it, has in the 23d Article
proclaimed the same truth-the necessity of lawful mission generally in the former of its two propositions-in the latter, THE NECESSITY that this mission be mediately from  God, TRANSMITTED
BY SUCCESSION FROM THOSE WHO, AT THE FIRST, RECEIVED THE
POWER OF THUS GIVING IT IMMEDIATELY FROM OUR LORD HIMSELF." (Pp. 19, 20.) Such is the doctrine which his Lordship has
the courage to assert is laid down in the latter part of the Article!
He admits, indeed, that it is "not so plainly expressed;" and as
the Primate has called it an "unwarranted assumption," he proceeds " to defend it publicly in the face of the Church."
His Lordship says: " There are three several members of the
proposition which we are considering: I. That lawful mission to
the Christian ministry must be from God by an outward call. II.
That we must not look for any outward call from God except
mediately through men. III. That it must be given through men
who have themselves received the power of transmitting it, publicly given to them by those who have themselves publicly received
the power of giving that power from others similarly empowered;
in other words, in uninterrupted succession from the Apostles themselves."  (P. 20.)
Now here it is obvious, that his'Lordship has drawn from the
Article propositions not contained in it. The Article does not
touch the question of the call "from God," but only that of the
external call by men. To assert, therefore, that the Article says
that lawful mission must be "from God by an outward call" is a
direct and palpable misrepresentation of it.
And the Bishop's own authority, Bishop Pearson, whom he so
highly extols (p. 52) —and not without reason —might have shown
him, and in the very passage to which he has referred us, his error
in introducing these words into the Article. For Bishop Pearson,
treating of the mode of Ordination in the Church of England,
says: "Ordinaria vocatio fit a Deo et per homines.  Quatenus est
a Deo, est interna; quatenus est per homines, est externa."
(Minor Theol. Wks. i. 291, 292.)
In defence of the third proposition, the Bishop argues thus:
That when the Article says that the persons through whom lawful
mission must be given, are "men who have public authority
given unto them in the congregation," it clearly means that this
power " is so given by God-pzblice in Ecclesia; that is, in some
outward manner by which it shall be publicly known in the Church
to be given;" the Divine Being being represented, after the first




12
bestowal of the power, by a succession of representatives of those
to whom   the power was first given.   For, says the Bishop, "as
these [i. e., modern Bishops who give power of mission] must in
like manner have received their power of mission from others, who
had received it in like manner, the series must be carried backwards, until, as we before said, it reaches the Apostles, whom our
Lord sent,'as the Father had sent Him,' i. e., with power to send
others." (P. 22.)
This is the foundation on which his whole argumentation rests;
and it is clearly derived from his ADDING words to the Article calculated to carry out his own views. The Article clearly implies,
that there is power in a Church to authorize certain of its members to call and appoint others to the office of the ministry, which
exactly meets the case of the Foreign Protestant Churches.    The
words " authority given unto them by God in the Congregation,"
are very different from what we find in the Article. They would
imply, that the Congregation, or Church, had no voice in the
matter, and could not authorize any of their body to do any act
of the kind.  So that the words which the Bishop has thus foisted
into the Article completely change the character of its doctrine.
They just determine what the Article has studiously left open,
and determine it in opposition to the known sentiments of those
who drew up the Article.    They make it necessary that the mission should be given by some individual or individuals specially, and
individually, and publicly commissioned by God himself, apart
from the Church, to bestow it; while the terms of the Article imply
that God has left sufficient power with the Church to act in such a
matter.
The Article is evidently drawn up so as to comprehend the
Foreign Protestant Churches. It does not pretend to define exactly what our own Church's particular mode of calling and sending
ministers is; but it states the limits of what may be considered a
lawful calling. Most just and pertinent are the remarks of Bishop
Burnet, in his Exposition of this Article:" If," he says, "a company of Christians find the public worship where they
live to be so defiled that they cannot with a good conscience join in it, and
if they do not know of any place to which they can conveniently go, where
they may worship God purely and in a regular way; if, I say, such a Body,
finding some that have been ordained, though to the lower functions, should
submit itself entirely to their conduct; or, finding none of those, should by a
commZonl consent desire some of their own number to minister to them in holy
things, and should, upon that beginning, grow up to a regulated constitution,
though we are very sure that this is quite out of all rule, and could not be
done without a very great sin, unless the necessity were great and apparent;
yet, if the necessity is real and not feigned, this is not condemned or annulled
by the Article; for when this grows to a constitution, and when it was begun
by the consent of a Body who are supposed to have an authority in such an
extraordinary case, whatever some hotter spirits have thought of this since
that time, yet we are very sure, that not only those who penned the Articles, but
the body of this Church for above half an age after, did, notwithstanding those
irregularities, acknowledge the Foreign Churches so constituted to be true
Churches as to all the essentials of a Church, though they had been at first irregularly formed, and continued still to be in an imperfect state. AND THERE



13
FORE THE GENERAL WORDS IN WHICH THIS PART OF THE ARTICLE IS FRAMED,
SEEM TO HAVE BEEN DESIGNED ON PURPOSE NOT TO EXCLUDE THEM.")
In fact, the Article requires nothing more as necessary for lawful calling than what is required in the Confessions of several of
the Foreign Protestant Non-Episcopal Churches; as, for instance,
the Helvetic (Art. 16), Bohemian (c. 9), and Belgic (Art. 31).
And therefore the Bishop might just as well attempt to fasten his
doctrine upon the Confessions of these Non-Episcopal Churches as
upon that of the Church of England.
I have already pointed out, in a former publication,* that the
first Exposition of the Articles-that by Rogers, Chaplain to
Archbishop Bancroft, which was published in 1607, as "perused
and by the lawful authority of the Church of England allowed to be
public," and which the Archbishop (a High-Churchman) ordered
all the parishes in his province to supply themselves with-interprets the Article in this way, and points out its agreement with
the Confessions I have just referred to; and so also does the late
High-Churchman, Bishop Tomline.t
Indeed, the only way in which the Bishop of Exeter can force
his doctrine out of the Article, is by garbling it by the addition of
words which totally alter its obvious meaning. And presuming,
I suppose, upon the ignorance of his readers, he ventures even to
quote, in support of his view of it, the Apology of Bishop Jewel,
which he correctly tells us "had the grateful sanction of that very
Synod in which our present Articles were compiled." Now, not to
mention Bishop Jewel's notorious recognition of certain of the
Foreign Protestant Churches and their ministers, which alone
would render such a reference deserving of unqualified censure,
the fact is, that the Confession of Faith of the English Church
(including this question of Orders), inserted by Bishop Jewel in
his Apology, was placed by the Foreign Reformers in the Harmony of the Confessions of the Reformed Churches, published at
Geneva, in 1581, as one with which all the rest were in agreement.
And so completely opposed is Hooker to the Bishop's interpretation of the Article, that he distinctly intimates that there is no
"heavenly law" whereby it may appear, "that the Lord himself
hath appointed presbyters forever to be under the regiment of
Bishops," and that "their authority" is "a sword which the Church
hath power to take from them," (Eccl. Pol. vii. 5;) and expressly
says that "the whole Church visible" is " the true original subject
of all power;" and that though "it hath not ordinarily ALLOWED
any other than Bishops alone to ordain, howbeit, as the ordinary
course is ordinarily in all things to be observed, so it may be, in
some cases, not unnecessary that we decline from the ordinary
ways;"   and that "there may be sometimes very just and
sufficient reason to allow Ordination made without a Bishop."
(lb. 14).
* The Doctrines ofthe Church ofEngland on Non-Episcopal Ordinations.
t Expos. of Articles, ed. 1799, p. 376.




14
The Bishop's remarks upon Bishop Burnet's Commentary on the
Articles, which he finds most inconveniently in his way, I leave
to their fate.
The quotation from a posthumous work of Bishop Beveridge,
which it does not appear that he left for publication, and which
was said by some, at the time of its first appearance, to have beef
a juvenile work of its author, cannot override the plain language of
the Article.  There is not one word in the Article that even
implies the necessity of Ordination by an apostolically descended
Episcopate.
Before I pass on, I must notice a very remarkable piece of verbal criticism on the part of his Lordship. No one, I suppose, can
have perused the various recent publications that have issued from
his Lordship's pen, without observing the happy ingenuity with
which he occasionally mystifies his admiring readers, by the profound discrimination with which he brings to light some nice turns
of expression in the documents he is quoting, proving beyond contradiction how exactly they fall in with his doctrine. So remarkable an illustration of this occurs here, that I must beg permission
to present it to the reader: " This, then," says the Bishop, "I
scruple not to accept, and to commend to others: as a sound and
irrefragable statement of the real import of the Article; inviting,
in confirmation of it, attention to the reverential tone in which the
Article is conceived:'Atque illos legitime vocatos existimare
debemus.' This is language highly becoming those who recognize
God as the author of lawful mission, but would hardly be used to
designate a call from man. In that case we should rather expect
a categorical declaration that such persons are called." (P. 26.)
So that if I was to say, the Bishop of Exeter ought to consider
such and such persons lawfully called, I should be using a " reverential tone" in the matter, which would show that I recognized
God, and not man, as the author of their mission. Alas! my poor
brains are too dull for such transcendental discrimination.
His Lordship proceeds to cite the 26th Article in confirmation of
his view of the meaning of the 23d. This Article says, that the
ministers of the Church minister "in Christ's name," and "by his
commission and authority;" from which it is argued: "This recognition of ministers exercising their ministry in Christ's name, and
by his commission, negatives all merely human authority in their
appointment." (P. 27.) But this does not touch the real question
at issue; which, in fact, his Lordship, throughout his argumentation, from whatever cause, altogether ignores. The question is,
whether the power of giving the outward call to men to preach and
administer the Sacraments, and of conferring that power upon
others, was so exclusively given by Christ to the Apostles,
and by the Apostles to the Bishops they appointed, that none
other of his followers but those having apostolically derived
power in this respect can, under any circumstances, exercise or
confer it. Now this supposed exclusive gift is just what is to be




15
proved, but what his Lordship throughout his argument assumes.
It does not necessarily follow, that a mission to execute the ministerial office is by mere human authority, because it is not given by a
Bishop deriving his authority by regular succession from the
Apostles. And, as I have shown before, a host of our best divines
do not hold it to be so.* Our learned Dean Field, in his standard
work Of the Church, elaborately defends the position, that presbyters have, so far as the capabilities given to them in their Ordination extend, power equally with Bishops to do all things necessary for the maintenance of God's service, " and that only for
order's sake and the preservation of peace, there is a limitation of
the USE and EXERCISE of the same," confining it to Bishops.t
And, therefore, even supposing that this limitation originated with
the Apostles, and still more if it originated with the subsequent
Church, as Jerome and many other of the ancients maintained,
circumstances might fully justify its being laid aside. And, moreover, it must be recollected, that it is Christ's own act in calling
any one by his Spirit, and qualifying him for his service, that
more especially constitutes any one his minister, not the mere outward commission of man, which insures nothing but the bare
validity of his ministerial acts.
But the 23d Article, says his Lordship, " leaves to a subsequent
Article, the 36th, to tell us who they are to whom this power is
given;" the 36th Article sanctioning the Ordinal. (P. 27.) And
here we find one of those specimens of unfairness, the constant
occurrence of which, in his Lordship's latter publications, deprives
one of all confidence in his statements.  He quotes the Preface to
the Ordinal as it was altered at the Review in 1661, as if it was
thus put forth by the framers of the Articles, giving not the
slightest intimation to the reader of there being any difference
between the two, though the difference is of importance in the
point under discussion, and was fully noticed in a Tract then lying
under his Lordship's eyes, and criticized by him a few pages farther on! Nay, at a subsequent part of his argument (p. 63), it
became convenient to notice this fact, and consequently there we
find it. It does not, indeed, of course, make the sense of the 23d
Article different from what it was before; but it commits our Reformers to a higher view of the importance of Episcopal Ordination than they in reality took.
The Bishop gives the passage thus: "To the intent that these
Orders should be continued and reverently used and esteemed in
the Church of England," "no man shall be accounted or taken to
be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in the Church of England,
or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called,
tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form
hereafter following, or hath formerly received Episcopal consecration or ordination."
* See Doctrine of Church of England on Non-Episcopal Ordinations.
t See the whole passage below, pp. 27-28.




16
And in his Lordship's observations upon this passage, he lays
the greatest stress upon the concluding words, " or hath formerly
received Episcopal consecration or ordination." Now these words,
as his Lordship well knows, were not inserted till the revision of
the Book in 1661, by the Laudian divines, who then had the upper
hand. He knows also, upon the testimony of the High Churchman Bishop Cosin, and others,* lying before him when he wrote,
that, in the previous period of our Church, persons having only
Presbyterian Orders were admitted to minister in our Church,
and that it was the general opinion of the Bishops that there was
nothing to prevent this. Hence, not only was there evidence,
that our Church admitted the validity of the Orders of the Foreign
Protestant Churches, so far as those churches themselves were concerned, but persons so ordained were allowed to minister in our
own Church. And the insertion of those words in 1661, requiring Episcopal Ordination for those who minister in our Churchobviously with a view to the Presbyterians, who, in the civil war,
had usurped the places of the Episcopalian clergy-cannot affect
the doctrine of our Church on the abstract question, whether the
Foreign Protestant Churches are destitute of any validly ordained
pastors.
The direction here given, as it stood both before and after the
Review in 1661, is strictly limited to what is required " in the
Church of YEngland." There is a marked abstinence from any
statement of the necessity of Episcopal Orders for a valid ministry, which it is impossible to conceive that our Reformers would
have observed, if they had held the Bishop of Exeter's notions.
And when we couple this with their known conduct towards the
Foreign Protestant Churches, not the smallest doubt can be left
upon the mind of any reasonable inquirer after the truth that they
did not hold them.
But the Bishop supports his view by two arguments. The first
is this. He says: " If persons from Berlin and Geneva, calling
themselves ministers of Christ's Church, are really such ministers,
it would be a direct act of schism for our Church to reject their
ministry; for all who are Christ's ministers at all, are his ministers throughout his whole Church." (P. 30.) But what a mere
cobweb is this! Has not a Church a right to say to those ministers who come here from a Church under a different form of
government, "We have laid down a rule which we consider most
in accordance with Apostolical usage, requiring a certain mode of
introduction to the ministry among us, and we think it inexpedient
to break it by admitting others not so qualified?" Does it follow
from this, that our Church holds them to be destitute of all right
to exercise the ministerial office anywhere? Where does his Lordship derive his authority for denying to his Church such a prudential mode of action, and shutting her up to the alternative of
* See ~" Doctrine, &c.," pp. 29, 30.




17
either admitting to hold office in her communion any minister of
a Foreign Church, whatever its form of government may be, or
denying that such a one has any right to exercise the ministerial
office to any body of Christians on the face of the earth? The
fact is, that his Lordship has in this point, as well as in his advocacy of the exclusive admissibility of one form of Ecclesiastical
government, been following in the steps of the early Puritans.
His own words are almost identical with those of the notorious
Puritan Travers to Archbishop Whitgift. Travers, to show that he
had a right to be allowed to minister in the Church of England,
though having only Presbyterian Orders (and he could hardly be
said to have any), urged, that " the universal and perpetual practice of all Christendom, in all places, and in all ages, proveth the
ministers lawfully made in any Church of sound profession in
faith, ought to be acknowledged such in any other;'.' he means,
so as to be allowed to minister in it. To which Archbishop Whitgift (who, as we know from his writings, admitted the VALIDITY of
the Orders of the Foreign Protestant Churches, but held that " the
laws of this realm require that such as are to be allowed as ministers in this Church of England should be ordered by a Bishop,
and subscribe to the Articles before him,") replies to the argument
thus: "Excepting always such Churches as allow of Presbytery,
and practise it."  He considered that in such a case an Episcopal
Clurch might fairly object to one not ordained as she required,
acting as one of her own ministers. But he did not deny the
validity of Presbyterian Orders in the abstract.  In the same
paper to which I am now referring, he admits that Whittingham
"was ordained minister by those which had authority in the
Church" in which he was ordained, though he held such Orders
not a sufficient qualification for ministering in the Church of England. (See Strype's Whitgift, App. bk. 8, n. 30.)
The second argument is this, that if any of the ministers of
Non-Episcopal Churches wish to be ministers of the Church of
England, "they must, as a preliminary, renounce all claim at
present to any ministerial character whatsoever," and " present
themselves as lay candidates for holy orders;" "and yet for our
Church thus to insist on their submitting to be ordained anew, if
they already have Orders, would be, not merely an act of schism, but
a manifest desecration of Christ's ordinance, a most sinful rejection
of his commission."  (Pp. 30, 31.)
High-sounding words these, no doubt, and very characteristic
of their author. But the question is, What truth is there in them?
None at all. There is no such "renunciation" required. And
the whole notion about the "desecration of Christ's ordinance"
involved in such a step, is entirely opposed to the views of our
best divines of all parties. What does the High Churchman
Archbishop Bramhall say in his Letters of Orders, when ordaining
one who had previously had only Scotch Presbyterian Orders:
" Non annihilantes priores ordines (si quos habuit), nec~invalidi7




18
tatem eorundem determinantes, multo minus omnes ordines sacros
Ecclesiarum Forinsecarum condemnantes, quos proprio Judici relinquimus, sed SOLUMMODO SUPPLENTES quicquid prius defuit per
canones Ecclesiwe Anglicane requisitum, et providentes paci Ecclesie, ut schismatis tollatur occasio, et conscientiis fidelium satisfiat,
nec ulli dubitent de ejus ordinatione, aut actus sous presbyteriales
tanquam   invalidos aversentur."  (Works, Oxf. ed. vol. i. p.
xxxvii.)
Let his Lordship's friends determine which is the best authority,
the Bishop of Exeter or Archbishop Bramhall.
But, as this is an important point, I shall add some farther
testimonies.
And, first, let us hear the opinion of Archbishop Leighton, one
whose learning as well as piety is unquestionable.  When consecrated Bishop, in 1661, by some of the English bishops, he was
required by them to submit to be first ordained Deacon and Priest,
on the ground partly of the Act of Uniformity, and partly that,
though it might be reasonable to allow Presbyterian Orders under
some circumstances, yet that his had been received from those who
were in a state of schism, and had without reason revolted from their
bishops.* And Leighton's view on the subject is thus stated by
his intimate friend Bishop Burnet: " Leighton did not stand
much upon it.   He did not think Orders given without bishops
were null and void.  He thought the forms of government were
not settled by such positive laws as were unalterable; but only by
Apostolic practices, which, as he thought, authorized Episcopacy
as the best form. Yet he did not think it necessary to the being
of a Church. But he thought that every Church might make
such rules of Ordination as they pleased, and that they might reordain all that came to them from any other Church; and that the
reordaining a priest ordained in another Church imported no more
but that they received him into Orders according to their rules, and
did not infer the annulling the Orders he had formerly received."
(Hist. of his Own Times, vol. i. p. 140.)
The testimony of Archbishop Leighton, therefore, is directly
against the Bishop on all the points of the case.
But a still more important testimony perhaps than even these is
that of the learned Bingham, the author of the Antiquities of the
Christian Church.   He says, in his French Church's Apology
for the Church of England:Nor do I see what can be urged farther in this case, unless it be the business of reordination, which some reckon so great a charge against the Act of
Uniformity; because it obliges every beneficiary to receive Episcopal ordination, according to the form and rites of the Church of England. But what
harm there is in this, I confess Inever yet could see; and I am sure there is
nothingf in it contrary to the principles or practice of Geneva, nor perhaps of
the whole French Church. For at Geneva it is their common practice, whenever they remove a minister from one Church to another, to give him a new
and solemn ordination by imposition of hands and prayer......Now, if it be
* I shall revert presently to their view on this point. See p. 42.




19
lawful, by the rules of the Church of Geneva, for a minister to receive a new
solemn ordination, when he is translated from one Church to another; why
cannot men in England consent to receive a new ordination, when the law
requires it, in order to settle themselves regularly in any Church? especially
when it is for the sake of peace and union, and to take off all manner of
doubtfulness and scruples from the people. I dispute not now, whether their
former ordinations were valid [this question, we see, he does not consider
to affect the point to be determined, namely, whether they could properly
submit to reordination]; it is certain, they are not more valid than those of
Geneva; nor can they themselves think them more valid than the ministers
of Geneva think theirs; wherefore, if it be lawful at Geneva for a minister to
receive a new ordination, because the laws require it, I do not see what can
make it unlawful in England to submit to the same thing, in compliance with
the law, when men have no other regular way to settle themselves in any
cure; let their opinion of their former ordination be what it will, WHICH COMES
NOT INTO THE PRESENT DISPUTE. For even supposing their former ordination
[i. e. the Presbyterian in this country] to be valid, I show they may submit to
a new ordination without sin; and if the will be peaceable, they ought to do it,
after the example of Geneva, rather than set up separate meetings and preach
against the will of their superiors, to the disturbance of the peace of the
Church." (Bingham's Works, vol. ix. ed. 1845, pp. 296, 297.)
I might add other authorities, but after these it is needless to
do so.
I am as well aware as the Bishop of Exeter can be of the decisions of the early Church against reordinations, and, in the state
of things which then existed, can quite enter into their propriety.
But the circumstances of the Church were then different; and
those decisions are no more binding upon us than many that are
totally disregarded by all parties.  And after all, they only laid
down the general rule; for we are not without some precedent
for such reordinations even in the early Church. For the great
Council of Nice directed, that those who had been ordained by
Meletius, after he had been deposed by his Metropolitan, were
not to be admitted to minister in the Church until they had been
qualified to do so by a "more sacred Ordination," (~,vst~xcofEpa
zEcpotovio Ea3covas.)*   The validity of the Ordination is not denied, as it could hardly be, but the defects of its irregularity are
supplied. It could no more be invalid than those of the Donatists,
which we know from Augustine were admitted, in those that came
over to the Church, as sufficient to enable them to minister in the
Church without any fresh Ordination.
" But," adds his Lordship, " we have not yet done with the
Preface to the Book of Consecration and Ordination. In truth, its
very first words, duly considered, are conclusive of the whole question:' It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have
been three orders of ministers in Christ's Church, bishops, priests,
and deacons.' Now, were these orders appointed by man or God?
No one amongst us can hesitate what answer to give-undoubtedly
by God."    And then, having pointed out the offices and powers
which our Ordinal attributes to each, his Lordship seems to sup* Epist. Synod. ap. Socrat. lib. i. c. 9.




20
pose that his work is done, and his wished for conclusion made
good.
Now I should be abusing the patience of the reader to attempt
any elaborate confutation of such an argument as this. The
veriest tyro in these matters knows, that there is no ground whatever to attribute the existence of these three Orders to a direct
appointment of God. The utmost that can be said is, that they
were appointed by the Apostles, who were divinely inspired to
deliver the Gospel message to mankind, and therefore, so far as
was necessary for this purpose, under Divine guidance; but as to
their ecclesiastical arrangements, we have no proof that they had
any express Divine direction, still less that the polity they adopted
was unalterable. The extracts I have formerly given* from the
works of many of our greatest divines render it unnecessary to say
a word more on this point.
I have now gone carefully through the whole of the Bishop's
proof of his positions derived from the Formularies of our Church;
and I willingly leave the reader to form his own opinion upon the
two conclusions to which the Bishop would lead him, namely:
"1. That the words of our Church's 23d Article,'by men to
whom public authority,' &c., must mean bishops; and 2. That
our Church holds that the power of Ordination is in bishops only."
(P. 33.)
His Lordship having thus concluded his argument upon the
Formularies of our Church, proceeds to deal with our Reformers
in a similar way. " The doctrine," he observes, " which has been
thus severely censured from the highest place, was the doctrine of
our earliest Reformers." And to prove it to be so, he proceeds to
quote two works notoriously written before they had given up the
errors of Popery on various important points; works published
during the reign of Henry VIII., and which advocate the seven
Sacraments, images and crucifixes in churches, holy water,
creeping to the cross, prayer for the dead, et id genus omne;
namely, the Institution of a Christian lan, and the Necessary
Doctrine.  Such references, however, have this great advantage,
that they show us the desperate shifts to which his Lordship's
cause is reduced, when he can condescend to make so transparent
an attempt to mislead his readers. In these two works, his Lordship announces that he found the power of Ordination attributed
only to bishops. I congratulate him upon the discovery of so
important a help to his cause. Let us hope that his Lordship
will not search farther in the mine he has opened, for the next
thing perhaps may be the discovery that the Reformers held
almost all the doctrines which the world has been in the habit of
thinking that they repudiated, and then in what a position shall
we be placed! I will grant his Lordship, then, all the benefit
which his extracts from those works can bring him, though I
* See my Doctrine of the Church ofEng. on Non-Episc. Ordinations.




21
might take exception to them as being themselves insufficient for
his purpose; and with these remarks I should have left them to
their fate, but for a very characteristic attack of his Lordship
upon myself; to which, however unwilling to detain the reader
with any personal matters, and however indifferent to any such
charges from such a quarter, I am bouhd to offer a few remarks in
reply; and shall avail myself of the opportunity of giving farther
information on the whole subject.
At the commencement of my argument on this matter in a
former Tract,* before giving the proofs we have of our early
Reformers holding the doctrine of the validity under some circumstances of Presbyterian Ordinations, I noticed the fact, that even
before the Reformation a doctrine was held which opens the door
to such a view, namely, that bishops and priests are of one and
the same ministerial order. I observed that, " at the very dawn
of the Reformation, the bishops and clergy of our Church put
forth a document containing the very doctrine on which the validity of Presbyterian Ordinations has been chiefly rested, namely,
the parity of bishops and presbyters with respect to the ministerial
powers essentially and by right belonging to them;" and showed
that this view was maintained in the Institution of a Christian
Man, and the Necessary Doctrine; and then remarked, that
"this view certainly goes far to remove the difficulty as to recognizing the validity of Presbyterian Ordination in the absence of
bishops;" carefully (as the reader will see) recognizing the distinction between the two views; namely, the parity of order in
bishops and presbyters, and the validity of Presbyterian Ordinations; and only observing that the former view went far to remove
the difficulty there is in receiving the latter. And in the remarks
immediately following, as to the opinions of certain divines of our
Church put on record about the same period, I noticed how some
thought that bishops and priests were of the same order, and
"some were prepared to take the next step, and grant to presbyters under some circumstances the power to ordain presbyters;"
still keeping the two views perfectly distinct.  The object of
course was, to show that the prevalence of this view at the very
dawn of the Reformation easily led the way to the view afterwards
adopted by our Reformers, of the validity under some circumstances of Presbyterian Ordinations. And the sole point in attestation of which the two works just referred to were cited, was the
fact, that the FORMER view was there maintained. And so far
from concealing the circumstance, that those works spoke of
bishops as the persons who were to ordain, I gave, among the
very few extracts for which I could find room, one which expressly
stated it, in the following words: "As the Apostles themselves,
in the beginning of the Church, did order priests and bishops, so
* Doctrine of the Church of England on Non-Episcopal Ordinations, &c., reprinted
from the Christian Observer; which of course accounts for its being anonymous, though
it was notorious who was the author.




22
they appointed and willed the other BISHOPS after them to do the
like." (P. 14.)
And I carefully limited the "parity of bishops and presbyters,"
maintained in the works I quoted, to "the ministerial powers
essentially and by right belonging to them," in order not to include
in it that "authority and jurisdiction in spiritual regiment," as
Archdeacon Mason calls it, in which bishops had "a higher
degree" and " more excellent place."  (See my former Tract, p.
38.) There may be ministerial powers belonging to priests by right
of their ordination, which, on grounds affecting the welfare of the
Church, may have been from the first limited, in their " use and
exercise," (as Dean Field says,) to some of their number. And
many divines, as I shall show presently, have considered the power
of conferring Orders to be one of such powers. So that the words
I used were carefully selected, so as to limit the parity of bishops
and presbyters, advocated in the works referred to, in such a way
as not to include the authority confided to bishops in the matter of
Ordination.
In the face of all this the Bishop has not been ashamed to
represent me as concealing certain passages in these works, which
attribute the power of Ordination to bishops, in order to deceive
the reader.
The character of the charge is apparent from what I have already
stated, for I have actually given one such passage, though my
object did not render it necessary for me to notice them. But the
truth is, that the Bishop is, as we shall see more fully presently,
utterly unacquainted with the subject on which he is here speaking. The fact that these works attribute the power of Ordination
to bishops, does not touch my statement as to their teaching; nor,
indeed, prove that their authors would have denied the validity,
under all circumstances, of Presbyterian Ordinations. The Bishop
is evidently unconscious of what an assertion of the parity of order
in bishops and priests means, and supposes that because the Office
of Ordaining is maintained to be confided to bishops, my position
is overthrown, when in fact it is not touched; as I shall presently
show.
His Lordship scornfully observes: "I dwell not on these strange
omissions, because, being anonymous [the article appeared in the
Christian Observer, and the author was well known], they are
not very likely to mislead any prudent readers." (P. 38.) For
once I am happy to follow the Bishop's example, and dwell not on
these suicidal outbreaks of a misguided pen-and, though they
are not anonymous, for the same reason.
I now proceed to his Lordship's criticism upon my remark, that
"those who are at all acquainted with ecclesiastical history know,
that this view had long been advocated by many of the divines of
the Church of Rome, especially among the Scholastic divines,
including their great founder, Peter Lombard, the Master of the
Sentences."  (Doctrine, Qc. p. 14.)




23
Of course, I need not add a word to show the truth of this
remark. And as to its bearing upon the point in question, I was
merely following the leading of some of our greatest divines in
referring to this as preparing the way, to some extent, for the
doctrine that Presbyterian Ordination might, under some circumstances, be valid. I need only instance Dean Field, Archdeacon
Mason, and Bishop Cosin;* particularly the High Churchman
Cosin, who goes farther than I have done, and directly refers to
the Master of the Sentences, and a number of the Scholastic
divines, as holding views from which the validity of the Orders of
"the Reformed French Churches" necessarily follows.
The remark, however, though it must be a trite one with those
who are familiar with the writings of our great divines, seems to
have moved his Lordship's choler in no ordinary degree. He
believes that " no considerable school among them ever intended
to give the slightest countenance to Ordination by any but
bishops." (P. 38.) Perhaps so; no more than they intended to
give countenance to what happened at the Reformation, by some
of their statements that were nevertheless very useful to the
Reformers. Moreover, when they spoke thus, they "were much
influenced by their desire to exalt the Popedom," in depressing
bishops to the same order as priests. Well, perhaps they were.
But what then? Why then, the angry but vapid conclusion is:
"So much for the advocacy, by many divines of the Church of
Rome, of'the parity of bishops and presbyters,"' &c., which
does not seem very profound reasoning. And then as to Peter
Lombard and the Scholastic divines, in whose works his Lordship,
wonderful to say, does "not pretend to be well read," (which is
in truth very evident,) I have most suspiciously abstained from
giving "the slightest reference to any part of their works" in
which the " HERETICAL paradox" (!) with which I charge them is
to be found, and his Lordship has looked and cannot find it. And
he may certainly look forever, and not find his own misrepresentation of my statement, namely, that they advocate " the validity
of Presbyterian Ordination, because they [i. e. bishops and presbyters] were accounted one order." (P. 40.) But if he had only
given a little attention to the statements of even those few of our
own divines that I have just referred to, he would have saved himself the humiliation of such a remarkable display of ignorance on
the whole matter as now follows; and which comes under the
guise of a triumphant reply to my passing reference, on a subordinate point, to the Scholastic divines-a reference supported by
the testimony of such men as Bishop Cosin, and the others whom
I have quoted.
His Lordship observes, that one great inducement with Peter
Lombard and others to consider bishops and priests as "one order,"
* See my former Tract, pp. 36-41; where, however, in my extracts from Field and
Mason, I have not had room for their references to the Scholastic divines.




24
(and that they did so, he admits,) was their desire to magnify the
Sacrament of the Eucharist, which is true enough; but then, adds
the Bishop, as some ancient authors "accounted bishops a distinct
order," "a difficulty presented itself " to them, which "St. Thomas
thus meets," (3d Sup. qu. 40, c. 5:) " Order may be taken in two
ways-in one as it is a sacrament; and then, as has been said before, all order is ordained ad.Eucharistie Sacramentum; wherefore, since the bishop has here no superior power to the priest's,
quantum ad hoe, Episcopate is not an Order.   But Order may be
considered in another way, that is, as it is a certain office, in
respect to certain sacred acts; and so, as the bishop has a power in
hierarchical acts, in respect to the mystical Body [the Church]
superior to the priest, the Episcopate will be an Order: and it is
in this way that Dionysius, and even the Master himself [iv. Dist.
24, s. i. m. iii.] speaks of it as an Order."* (Pp. 42, 43.)
Now, first, I did not say a word about " St. Thomas " in particular, but only referred to some of the Scholastic divines, as Dean
Field and Bishop Cosin have done before me; and therefore am
not responsible for anything he has said.   But the fact is, that
whatever may be the opinion of Thomas Aquinas or any of the
rest about the validity, under some circumstances, of Presbyterian
Ordination (which is a question I have not touched), here is just
the very species of language to which I referred as held by some
of the Scholastic divines; attributing the superiority of the Bishop,
not to his having superior powers so far as his ORDERS were
concerned, but only so far as concerned the OFFICE bestowed upon
him; that is, the official duties he had to perform.  So that the
Bishop has quoted against me a passage precisely confirming my
statement!
And then, if there is no greater difference between a presbyter
and a bishop than this, may not a presbyter, under some circumstances, be authorized by his Church to perform those duties, and
such acts be valid?  True enough, these very Scholastic divines
might (though I do not think all did) maintain the negative of
this; but that is nothing to the purpose; and does not prove that,
in laying down these views, they did not lay a groundwork for
those who chose to maintain the affirmative. And it is amusing
enough, that the Bishop, through his want of acquaintance with
the subject, has just blundered upon the very passage of Aquinas
which our learned Dean Field quotes as maintaining the very doctrine which the Bishop adduces it as opposing; as will be seen in
the extract I shall give almost immediately from the Dean's work
Of the Church.
* As I cannot suppose that the Bishop would not have given the exact words of this
passage, if he had seen the original with his own eyes, he will permit me to advise him
to tell the party who supplied him with this bit of information to be more accurate in his
citations. The whole of the last clause, " and it is in this way," &c., is a substitution
of his for the words " et secundum hoc loquuntur auctoritates inducte;" which were, no
doubt, Dionysius and " Liber Sententiarum." And so the words stand in the Commentary of Aquinas upon the " Liber Sententiarum," from which the whole of this Supplenent to his Summr. Theolog. was compiled.




25
And this passage of Aquinas serves also to answer the Bishop's
argument from the words in the Preface to our Ordinal as to the
"three orders of ministers." (See p. 22, above.)
Here, however, is his Lordship's exclamation, consequent upon
his quotation. "Such, and only such, is'the parity of bishops
and priests as one Order' in the Church of Rome, on which our
learned ultra-Protestant has built his triumphant argument in
favor of Presbyterian Ordination —such the statement to which,
by THUS ADOPTING THEM, HE HAS MADE HIS OWN;" a sentence
founded upon a blunder, and containing two palpable misstatements. For I have neither built my argument in favor of Presbyterian Ordination on such statements, nor adopted them; but simply
stated an undeniable fact as to the views maintained by some of
the Scholastic divines, and the effect those views had in preparing
the way for the doctrine of the validity of Presbyterian Ordinations; and the passage of Aquinas, on which the censure is founded,
is itself a proof of the truth of my statement.
The Bishop tells me that my " self-devotion" to my theory " deserves a better fate than that which it is doomed to meet with." I
am sorry that I cannot return the compliment. I hold that " selfdevotion" to any theory, such as will induce a man to resort to
every expedient to make out his case, deserves no " better fate"
than his Lordship's special pleading is, he may rest assured,
"doomed to meet with."
And after having charged me with " covering my own statement
with the authority of Rome," as if in his anger he had forgotten
all self-respect in the fabrication of his charges, he assures us that
it is "absolutely useless;" nay, that "so far as Presbyterian
Ordination is concerned," I have " actually raised up a very strong
fresh barrier against my views;" for, wonderful to say, he has discovered that Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas tell us that to
confer Holy Orders appertains to bishops only. The vulgar sarcasms that follow, about "penning statements in Evangelical
Magazines," &c., I leave to their fate, only regretting that a
Bishop should descend to language so unworthy of his position.
I would, however, point out to the reader's notice the way in which
Cranmer's name is here paraded by his Lordship (pp. 44, 45) as
on his side of the question, in the face of facts as notorious as
his existence, and which I have before referred to.*
Now, if all this had been put forth by a hot-headed youth fresh
from college, one might have been contented with reminding him
that he ought to have made himself a little better acquainted with
the subject before he spoke so positively about it. But when it
proceeds from one whose position invests whatever comes from
him with a certain degree of influence, and who has set himself
up as the great Instructor of the Church-insulting his Sovereign,
reviling and excommunicating his Metropolitan, and hectoring
* See Doctrine of Church of England, &c. pp. 15, 16.




26
over a large portion of the Church, because they do not adopt his
views of orthodoxy-one is bound to treat it in a different way,
and very plainly point out to the world the utter incompetency of
this self-constituted oracle for the office he would fain assume.
And I must add, that the vaunts of superior theological learning
made in behalf of a certain party among us are in odd contrast
with the stubborn testimony of facts-facts dating from their first
rise.
The correctness of my statement as to the views of some of the
Scholastic divines, is shown by the statement of the learned
Morinus, in his work on Ordinations.
He says that there are four views among " Catholics" on this
subject; and adds:" Prima et antiquis Scholasticis, eorumque Principibus communissima est,
Episcopatum characterem non imprimere, non esse Ordinem seu Sacramentur a Sacerdotio distinctum, Episcopatum nihil illi addere ejusmodi; sed
tantum per consecrationem aliquid sacramentale: quidquid Ordinis proprie
dicti, qua ratione dicuntur septem Ordines; quidquid Sacramenti et characteris habet, illud a Sacerdotio quo necessario ante Episcopatum imbutus esse
debet, haurire. Sed Episcopatum per se nihil aliud dicere quam officium,
dignitatem, potestatem, autoritatem Sacerdoti DATAM mult6 ampliorem et
augustiorem, per consecrationem Episcopalem, ea quam per Sacerdotii characterem nactus feurat." (De Ordin. Antw. 1695, pt. 3, p. 26.)
And he remarks: " Hec passim Scholasticorum Doctorum principes;" referring to Hugo a S. Vict., Peter Lombard, Alexander
Hal., Bonaventura, &c. &c., and among the rest Thomas Aquinas,
in the very passage which the Bishop has quoted from him. And
in the following chapter, showing that this view was maintained
by many of the Fathers, he notices the custom that prevailed for
many years at Alexandria: "Presbyteros Alexandrinos mortuo
Episcopo suo unum ex Ordine et gremio Ecclesioe sume elegisse,
thronoque excelsiori collocasse et Episcopum appellasse;" to whom
of course, when placed in that office, though without any fresh
Ordination or Consecration, the duty of Ordination belonged. And
among other writers, he cites the author of the Quwestiones Veteris
et Novi Testamenti, who lived before Augustine, who says: " Quid
est enim Episcopus, nisi primus presbyter, hoc est summus sacerdos.... In Alexandria et per totam IEgyptum si desit Episcopus,
consecrat Presbyter."  (lb. pp. 30, 31.)
Consequently, on this view of the matter, a presbyter needs no
fresh Ordination to enable him to confer Orders. His Ordination
as presbyter is sufficient to enable him to fulfil all the duties of the
ministerial office, and the difference between a bishop and a presbyter is not as to " the ministerial powers, essentially and by right
belonging to them," but as to the exercise of those powers, which
has been restrained to a certain extent in those presbyters who
have not been appointed to the Episcopal office.
But the "validity" of Presbyterian Orders is a different question. And his Lordship's charge against me, of citing the Scholastic divines as having maintained that doctrine, only shows his




27
want of acquaintance with the subject.       The solution of that
question depends upon the degree in which the restraint laid upon
presbyters in the exercise of their powers is binding upon the whole
Church. Many of the Scholastic divines who hold the view I have
just noticed, would no doubt have maintained that that restraint
was jure divino, and so absolutely binding.   A few of them, however, maintain (as Morinus admits, p. 34) that a bishop is above a
presbyter only "jure humano, non divino;" and therefore, though
even they probably would have contended earnestly for the binding nature of this ecclesiastical arrangement, there was but a
very short step from  their doctrine to that of the validity, under
many circumstances, of Presbyterian Ordination.
Before I pass on, it may be well to present to the reader the
statement of our learned Dean Field, on the whole subject; including his account of the views of those Scholastic divines whom
the Bishop charges me with misrepresenting. Not that I am disposed to attribute any great weight to the teaching of the Scholastic divines, and hence I made but a passing allusion to it in the
Tract that has called forth the Bishop of Exeter's ire; but the
Dean's statement will show what degree of weight is due to his
Lordship's account of the matter.
"The Apostles of Christ and their successors, when they planted the
Churches, so divided the people of God converted by their ministry into
particular Churches, that each city and the places near adjoining did make
but one Church. Now because the unity and peace of each particular church
of God and flock of his sheep dependeth on the unity of the pastor, and yet
the necessities of the many duties that are to be performed in churches of so
large extent require more Ecclesiastical ministers than one; therefore,
though there be many presbyters, that is, many fatherly guides of one
Church, yet there is one amongst the rest that is specially Pastor of the place,
who, for distinction sake, is named a Bishop; to whom an eminent and
peerless power is given, for the avoiding of schisms and factions; and the
rest are but his assistants and coadjutors, and named by the general name of
presbyters. So that in the performance of the acts of Ecclesiastical ministry,
when he is present, and will do them himself, they must give place;
and in his absence, or when being present he needeth assistance, they
may do nothing without his consent and liking. Yea, so farfor order's sake
is he preferred above the rest, that some things are specially reserved to him
only, as the ordaining of such as should assist him in the work of his ministry,
the reconciling of penitents, confirmation of such as were baptized, by imposition of hands, dedication of Churches, and such like. These being the
diverse sorts and kinds of Ecclesiastical power, it will easily appear to all them
that enter into the due consideration thereof, that the power of ecclesiastical
or sacred order, that is, the power and authority to intermeddle with things
pertaining to the service of God, and to perform eminent acts of gracious
efficacy, tending to the procuring of the eternal good of the sons of men, is
equal and the same in all those whom we call presbyters, that is, fatherly guides
of God's Church and people: and that, ONLY FOR ORDER'S SAKE, and the preservation of peace, there is a limitation of the use andl exercise of the same. HEREUNTO AGREE ALL THE BEST LEARNED AMONGST THE ROMANISTS THEMSELVES,
FREELY CONFESSING THAT THAT WHEREIN A BISHOP EXCELLETH A PRESBYTER, IS
NOT A DISTINCT AND HIGHER ORDER, OR POWER OF ORDER, BUT A KIND OF DIGNITY
AND OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT ONLY.*  Which they prove, because a presbyter
* To this sentence he attaches the following references; the first being, as the reader
will observe, the very passage in Thomas Aquinas cited by the Bishop for a contrary




28
ordained per saltum, that never was consecrated or ordained deacon, may
notwithstanding do all those acts that pertain to the deacon's order (because
the higher order doth always imply in it the lower and inferior in an eminent and excellent sort); but a bishop ordained per saltum, that never had
the ordination of a presbyter, can neither consecrate and administer the
Sacrament of the Lord's body, nor ordain a presbyter, himself being none,
nor do any act peculiarly pertaining to presbyters. Whereby it is most evident, that 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's sake, and to preserve the unity and peace of
the Church.  Hence it followeth, that many things which, in some cases,
presbyters may lawfully do, are peculiarly reserved unto bishops, as Hierome
noteth (Contra Luciferianos), Potius ad honorem sacerdotii, quam ad legis necessitatem; rather for the honor of their ministry than the necessity of any law.
And therefore we read (Greg. Januario Ep. 1. 3, indict. 12, epist. 26,) that
presbyters in some places, and at some times, did impose hands, and confirm
such as were baptized; which when Gregory bishop of Rome would wholly
have forbidden, there was so great exception taken to him for it, that he left
it free again. And who knoweth not, that all presbyters in cases of necessity
may absolve and reconcile penitents (Carth. 3, can. 32); a thing in ordinary
course appropriated unto bishops? and why not by the same reason ordain
presbyters and deacons in cases of like necessity? For seeing the cause
why they are forbidden to do these acts, is, because to bishops ordinarily the
care of all churches is committed, and to them in all reason the ordination of
such as must serve in the Church pertaineth, that have the chief care of the
Church, and have churches wherein to employ them; which only bishops
have as long as they retain their standing; and not presbyters, being but
assistants to bishops in their churches; if they become enemies to God and
true religion, in case of such necessity, as the care and government of the
Church is devolved to the presbyters remaining Catholic, and being of a better
spirit; so the duty of ordaining such as are to assist or succeed them in the
work of the ministry pertains to them likewise. For if the power of order,
and authority to intermeddle in things pertaining to God's service, be the
same in all presbyters, and that they be limited in the execution of it, only
for order's sake, so that in case of necessity every of them may baptize, and
confirm them whom they have baptized, absolve and reconcile penitents,
and do all those other acts which regularly are appropriated unto the bishop
alone; there is no reason to be given, but that in case of necessity, wherein
all bishops were extinguished by death, or being fallen into heresy, should
refuse to ordain any to serve God in his true worship; but that presbyters, as
they may do all other acts, whatsoever special challenge bishops in ordinary
course make unto them, might do this also. Who then dare condemn all those
worthy ministers of God, that were ordained by presbyters in sundry churches
of the world, at such times as bishops in those parts where they lived opposed
themselves against the truth of God, and persecuted such as professed it?"
And he then adds some references to show that, even in the
Church of Rome, Ordinations of this nature have been held by
some to be valid; but into this question it is unnecessary to enter.
And as it respects the early Church, he remarks:"All that may be alleged out of the Fathers, for proof of the contrary, may
be reduced to two heads. For first, whereas they make all such ordinations
void, as are made by presbyters, it is to be understood according to the
strictness of the Canons in use in their time, and not absolutely in the nature of
purpose: Thomas, 3, p. in addit. quaest. 40, art. 5. Bonaven. 1. 4, dist. 24, ar. 2, q. 3. Dominicus a Soto, 1. 10, de justitia et jure, q. 1, art. 2, and in 4, dist. 24, q. 2, art. 3. Armacanus, 1. 11, ostendit nullum praelatum plus habere de potestate sacramentali sive
ordinis, quam sinplicis sacerdotes. Cameracensis in 4, quast. 4. Contarenus de
Sacramentis, lib. 4.




29
the thing; which appears, in that they likewise make all ordinations sine
titulo to be void; all ordinations of bishops ordained by fewer than three
bishops with the metropolitan; all ordinations of presbyters by bishops out
of their own churches without special leave; whereas, I am well assured, the
Romanists will not pronounce any of these to be void, though the parties so
doing are not excusable from all fault. Secondly, their sayings are to be
understood regularly, not without exception of some special cases that may
fall out."*
In a subsequent part of his work he reverts to the same subject,
and adds the following remarks:" Touching the pre-eminence of bishops above presbyters, there is some
difference among the School-divines. For the best learned amongst them are
of opinion, that bishops are not greater than presbyters in the power of consecration or order; but only in the exercise of it, and in the power of jurisdiction, seeing presbyters may preach, and minister the greatest of all sacraments, by virtue of their consecration and order, as well as bishops. Touching the power of consecration or order, saith Durandus (in 4 Sent. dist. 24, q.
5), it is much doubted of among divines, whether any be greater therein than
an ordinary presbyter: for Hierome seemeth to have been of opinion, that
the highest power oticonsecration or order is the power of a priest or elder;
so that every priest in respect of his priestly power may minister all sacraments, confirm the baptized, give all Orders, all blessings and consecrations;
but that for the avoiding of the peril of schism, it was ordained that one
should be chosen, who should be named a bishop, whom the rest should
obey, and to whom it was reserved to give Orders, and to do some such other
things as none but bishops do. And afterwards he saith, that Ilierome is
clearly of this opinion; not making the distinction of bishops from presbyters a mere human invention, or a thing not necessary, as Aerius did; but
thinking that, amongst them who are equal in the power of order, and equally
enabled to do any sacred act, the Apostles (for the avoiding of schism and
confusion, and the preservation of unity, peace, and order) ordained that in
each church one should be before and above the rest, without whom the rest
should do nothing, and to whom some things should be peculiarly reserved,
as the dedicating of churches, reconciling of penitents, confirming of the baptized, and the ordination of such as are to serve in the work of the ministry;
of which the three former were reserved to the bishop alone, potins ad honorem
Sacerdotii, quam ad legis necessitatem; that is, rather to honor his priestly and
bishoply place, than for that those things at all may not be done by any
other. And therefore we read (Ambros. in 4 ad Ephes.) that at some times,
and in some cases of necessity, presbyters did reconcile penitents, and by
imposition of hands confirm the baptized. But the ordaining of men to serve
in the work of the ministry is more properly reserved to them. For seeing
none are to be ordained at random, but to serve in some church, and none
have churches but bishops, all other being but assistants to them in their
churches, none may ordain but they only, unless it be in cases of extreme
necessity, as when all bishops are extinguished by death, or, fallen into
heresy, obstinately refuse to ordain men to preach the Gospel of Christ sincerely. And then as the care and charge of the Church is devolved to the
presbyters remaining Catholic, so likewise the ordaining of men to assist
them and succeed them  in the work of the ministry. But hereof I have
spoken at large elsewhere. Wherefore, to conclude this point, we see that the
best learned amongst the Schoolmen are of opinion, that bishops are no
greater than presbyters in the power of consecration or order, but only in the
exercise of it, and in the power of jurisdiction, with whom Stapleton (Relect.
Contro. 2, q. 3, art. 3,) seemeth to agree, saying expressly that Quoad ordinem sacerdotalem, et ea quce sunt ordinis, that is, in respect of sacerdotal order,
and the things that pertain to order, they are EQUAL; and that therefore in all
* O the Church, bk. 3, c. 39, 2d ed. 1628, pp. 156-158.




30
administration of sacraments which depend of order, they are all equal
POTESTATE, though not EXERCITIO; that is, in power, though not in the execution of things to be done by virtue of that power. Whence it will follow,
that ordination, being a kind of sacrament, and so depending of the power
of order, in the judgment of our adversaries might be ministered by presbyters, but that, for the avoiding of such horrible confusions, scandals, and
schisms, as would follow upon such promiscuous ordinations, they are restrained by the decree of the Apostles; and none permitted to do any such
thing, except it be in case of extreme necessity, but bishops, who have the
power of order in common together withpresbyters, but yet so, as that they excel
them in the execution of things to be done by virtue of that power, and in the
power of jurisdiction also."
And he then proceeds to animadvert upon Bellarmine's opposite
view on the subject. (Ib. bk. 5, c. 27, pp. 500, 501.)
I have given these passages in extenso, because they will serve to
show the reader the grounds upon which the validity of Presbyterian
Ordinations is rested in one of the standard works of our Church.
And with them he may compare the recent effusions with which
our Church has been favored on the same subject.
And I must add, that if I had been anxious to dwell upon this
argument, derived from ante-Reformation authorities, for the
parity of order of bishops and presbyters, I might have added
several others of a more stringent kind.
I might have pointed to early canons of our own Church recognizing this doctrine; as, for instance, to one in the Canons of
Ecgbright, Archbishop of York, in 750, Can. 27: "That the
bishop in the church sit elevated above the Bench of Presbyters,
but in the House let him know himself to be a colleague of the
presbyters."  (Wilk. Concil. vol. i. p. 103.)  And again, to the
17th of Elfric's Canons, in 970: " There is no more difference between a bishop and a presbyter, than that the bishop is appointed to
ordain presbyters, and to confirm children, and to hallow churches,
and to take care of God's rights: since it would be too much, if
every presbyter might do this: FOR THEY HAVE THE SAME ORDER,
BUT THE OTHER IS MORE HONORABLE." (Ib. p. 252.)
And above all, I might have referred to an authority which
I am sure his Lordship would have received with the most profound respect. Indeed, I am astonished beyond measure that his
Lordship should venture for a moment to question the truth of
the doctrine in the face of the authority I am about to mention.
Has his Lordship already forgotten the fourth Council of Carthage?
-a Council of which he recently informed his Metropolitan, that
he " need not remind" him, that it was "received generally, and
one whose canons were adopted by the General Council of Chalcedon," and is "thus seen to have had the authority of the whole
Catholic Church?"* His Lordship, therefore (to use his own language to his Metropolitan), " will not consider it irrelevant, if I
present" him with the 35th Canon of this Council, which runs
thus: " Ut Episcopus in Ecclesia et in consessu presbyterorum
* Letter to Archbishop of Canterbury, p. 15.




31
sublimior sedeat. Intra domum vero collegam se presbyterorum
esse cognoscat." (Concil. ed. Hardouin. tom. 1, col. 981.) So
that, according to his Lordship's own showing, my "heretical
paradox" has "the authority of the whole Catholic Church" of
primitive times in its favor. I need not, indeed, inform him of
my own opinion of the authority of this Council, which remains
perfectly unaltered by anything which his Lordship's defenders
have urged against my remarks upon it; and which certainly is
not likely to be changed by the very amusing blunder of his
favored advocate Mr. Watson, who actually confounds the Canons
of this fourth Council of Carthage with what is called the Code of
the African Church; a specimen of the remainder of his pamphlet;
which I leave to the fate the public have already assigned to it.
I can assure his Lordship, therefore, that by me he will not be condemned for rebellion against the doctrine of " the whole Catholic
Church" for not accepting its canons; but his Lordship's selfcondemnation must be complete.
I now go on with my task.
The Bishop next proceeds to deal with the argument derived
from the writings and conduct of our divines. And here his Lordship's attempt at evidence of this kind in his favor almost
amounts to a confession of failure. With the exception of Cranmer, whose views were notoriously opposed to his doctrine, he
quotes none for the reign of Edward VI.  He mentions, indeed,
the name of Ridley (p. 44), but makes no reference to any part of
his writings; and therefore, in reply to this vague claim, I shall
merely refer the reader to Ridley's Letter to Grindal, then at
Frankfort, in which he speaks of his prayers to God "for all
those Churches abroad through the world, which have forsaken the
kingdom of Antichrist, and professed openly the purity of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ," (Works, p. 393;) in which his recognition of those Churches is, I suppose, sufficiently manifest.
And as to other testimonies of this period, they exist in abundance. Thus Archdeacon Philpot, the martyr, says:" I allow the Church of Geneva, and the doctrine of the same; for it is
una, catholica, et apostolica, and doth follow the doctrine that the Apostles
did preach; and the doctrine taught and preached in King Edward's days
was also according to the same." (Works, p. 153.)
Thus also we find Bishop Hooper, and Drs. Cox and Aylmer,
both afterwards bishops, addressing the ministers of the Foreign
Reformed Churches as dear brethren and ministers of the Church
of Christ;* and this before any of our Reformers were indebted to
them for an asylum in time of persecution; a circumstance which
the Bishop somewhat unfairly adduces as rendering invalid a similar
testimony from the divines of Elizabeth's reign.
Many other similar testimonies abound.
* See Letters relative to Engl. Reform. Parker Soc. ed. vol. i. pp. 33, et s., 119, et s.,
275, et s.




82
On proceeding to the reign of Elizabeth, the Bishop finds himself, in the early part of that reign, in a state of things so entirely
opposed to his views, that he is obliged to shut up all argument in
some general remarks as to the gratitude of our Reformers towards
the foreign Calvinists for the asylum afforded them in the reign
of Mary, producing "a great laxity of practice in our Church"
"in the Article of Orders." (P. 45.)  "In short," he observes,
after noticing a few cases of this kind, " sympathy with the foreign
Calvinists, whom so many of the bishops and higher dignitaries
in the age of Elizabeth at once loved as their benefactors and
reverenced as their teachers, continued to influence both doctrine
and practice in the English Church during that whole generation."
(P. 46.) And these are the very men, let us observe, by whom
our Formularies-the Articles as they now stand, and the PrayerBook except a few alterations not affecting the doctrine in question
-were drawn up. And the only two persons whom the Bishop
has ventured to claim as witnessing in his favor, during the
whole of Queen Elizabeth's reign, are Hooker and Bishop Bilson.
How far the former of these is a supporter of his Lordship's
views, may be judged from the passages I have formerly quoted
from him on this subject.*  But let us see how the Bishop endeavors to make good his ground in claiming his support. HIe first
criticizes and condemns Hooker's doctrine, " that the whole
Church visible is the true original subject of all power;" and also
the remark which flows from it, namely, that by the imposition of
the bishop's hands " the Church giveth power of Order both unto
presbyters and deacons;" which the Bishop sees to be clearly
opposed to his statement as to what is required for lawful ordination. On this I offer no remark, as it is not any part of my task
to defend Hooker against the Bishop of Exeter. But he proceeds
to fix upon a remark of Hooker, that ordinations must ordinarily
be by bishops, except in the case of an extraordinary commission
by God, or "when the exigence of necessity doth constrain to
leave the usual ways of the Church-when the Church must
needs have some ordained, and neither hath nor can have possibly
a bishop to ordain." (Pp. 46, 47.) And he argues that, as this
necessity cannot now be pleaded for the Foreign Reformed
Churches, "Hooker must be cited as a very strong authority
against the Orders of the Foreign Protestants, whose case we are
considering." (P. 49.)
Now on this argument from " necessity" I have already offered
some remarks,t and shown that the term, as used by our early
divines in this matter, was not intended to denote such a necessity as the Bishop here supposes, that is, that there should be no
bishops in the world who would give them ordination, but only
one arising from a failure of orthodox bishops in the Church in
* See Doctr. of Ch. of Engl. on Non-Ep. Ord. pp. 20, 21.
t Reply to Archdeacon Cliurton and Chancellor Harington, p. 26.




33
which such ordinations took place. But in truth the Bishop himself has saved me all farther trouble by refuting himself; for he
has been at pains to show, that in Hooker's own time the Foreign
Protestant Churches might easily have obtained Episcopal Orders.
(P. 49.) Consequently, as they did not do so, and yet, nevertheless, Hooker held* that their Orders (instancing in Beza's, which
had less in their favor than some others) were valid, he "must be
cited as a very strong authority," to use the Bishop's own words,
in favor of the Orders of the Foreign Protestants, whose case we
are considering.
The reply to the extracts from Bishop Bilson is, that he is
speaking of the ordinary state of things, in which, as established
by the custom of the Church, bishops only might ordain. But
that he did not mean to tie the Church to bishops, is evident
from what he says in another work; that, "to bishops speaking
the word of God, princes as well as others must yield obedience;
but if bishops pass their commission and speak besides the word
of God, what they list, both prince and people may despise
them."t
To the extracts from Hooker and Bishop Bilson, the only other
testimonies which his Lordship has added in favor of his views,
from the Reformation to the present day, are two from Bishops
Sanderson and Pearson.
To set before the reader the views of the former, he quotes a
passage in which the following sentence occurs: "A man might
therefore justly wonder how it should come to pass that the Episcopal power, in that which is peculiar to bishops above other their
brethren in the ministry, viz., the ordaining of priests and deacons,
and the managing of the keys, cannot be said to be of God, but it
must be forthwith condemned to be highly derogatory to the regal
power," &c. (P. 51.)  And then, adds the Bishop of Exeter,
"having stated various ways in which divino jure may be understood, he thus gives his own view, in a Postscript:' My opinion
is, that Episcopal government is not to be derived merely from
Apostolic practice or institution; but that it is originally founded
in the Person and Office of the Messiah our Lord Jesus Christ,
who, being sent by His Heavenly Father to be the great Apostle,
Bishop, and Pastor of His Church, &c.... did afterwards, before
His ascension into Heaven, send and empower His holy Apostles,
giving them the Holy Ghost, as His Father had before sent Him
to execute the same Apostolical, Episcopal, and Pastoral office for
the ordering and governing of His Church even unto the end of
the world.  This I take to be so clear from  those and other
texts,' &c." (Pp. 51, 52.)
And hence his Lordship draws the conclusion, that Bishop San* Eccl. Pol. vii. 14.
t True Difference between Christian Subjection and Unchristian Rebellion. Oxf. 1585,
4to. pp. 261, 262.
8




34
derson " thus asserted the exclusive power of bishops to ordain
divino jure." (P. 52.)
Now if the Bishop of Exeter had been put on his trial for holding such a doctrine as is here maintained, it would have been quite
fair for him to have referred to these words of Bishop Sanderson
in his defence. But when he is arraigning his Metropolitan and
others for error and heresy because they do not take such a view,
it is anything but fair to refer to Sanderson as he has done.
For, in the first place, Bishop Sanderson points out two different
senses of the phrase jus divinum, observing:"Sometimes it importeth a Divine precept (which is indeed theprimaryand
most proper signification) when it appeareth by some clear express and
peremptory command of God in his Word, to be the will of God that the
thing so commanded should be perpetually and universally observed. Of
which sort, setting aside the Articles of the Creed, and the moral duties of
the law (which are not much pertinent to the present inquiry), there are, as
I take it, very few things that can be said to be of Divine positive right under
the New Testament. The preaching of the Gospel and administration of the
Sacraments are two; which, when I have named, Ithink I have named all. But
there is a secondary and more extended signification of that term, which is
also of frequent use among divines. In which sense such things as, having
no express command in the Word, yet are found to have authority and warrant from the institution, example, and approbation either of Christ himself
or his Apostles; and have (in regard of the importance and usefulness of
the things themselves) been held, by the consentient judgment of all the
Churches of Christ in the primitive and succeeding ages, needful to be continued; such things I say are (though not so properly as the former, yet)
usually and interpretative said to be of Divine right. Of which sort I take the
observation of the Lord's day, the ordering the keys, the distinction of presbyters and deacons, and some other things (not all perhaps of equal consequence) to be. Unto Jus Divinum in that former acception, is required a
Divine precept; in this latter, it sufficeth thereunto that a thing be of Apostolical institution or practice. Which ambiguity is the more to be heeded,
for that the observation thereof is of great use for the avoiding of sundry
mistakes, that through the ignorance or neglect thereof daily happen to the
engaging of men in endless disputes, and entangling their consciences in
unnecessary scruples."
And having thus pointed out these two senses of the term Jus
Divinumn, he proceeds to show in what manner the phrase is to be
applied in the matter of Episcopacy. And he says:"Now that the government of the Churches of Christ by bishops is of
Divine right in that first and stricter sense, is an opinion at least of great
PROBABILITY, and such as may more easily and upon better grounds be
defended than confuted.... Yet because it is both inexpedient to maintain a
dispute where it needs not, and needless to contend for more, where less will
serve the turn; I find that our divines that have travailed most in this.argument, where they purposely treat of it, do rather choose to stand to the
tenure of Episcopacy ex Apostolica designatione, than to hold a contest upon
the title of Jus Divinum, no necessity requiring the same to be done. They
therefore that so speak of this government as established by Divine right,
are not all of them necessarily so to be understood, as if they meant it in
that first and stricter one. Sufficient it is for the justification of the Church
of England in the constitution and government thereof, that it is (as certainly
it is) of Divine right in the latter and larger signification: that is to say,
of Apostolical institution and approbation; exercised by the Apostles themselves, and by other persons in their times, appointed and enabled thereunto
by them, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the
cum1nission they had received from him."




35
So that all he ventures to say in favor of Episcopacy being
jure divino in the strict sense of the phrase-which alone would
make it of absolute necessity-is that it appears to him to be "an
opinion at least of great PROBABILITY;" and he admits, that our
divines for the most part only contend for the apostolical institution of Episcopacy.
He then remarks, that this latter view is "a part of the established doctrine of the Church of England," (in which I entirely
agree with him,) and that it "hath been constantly and uniformly
maintained by our best writers, and by all the sober, orderly, and
orthodox sons of this Church.   (Episcop. not prejud. to Reg.
Power, Lond. 1673, Sec. II. ~~ 3-6.)
The latter is a somewhat large assertion, but no doubt true of a
great majority of such divines. But then, as I have already abundantly shown,* those among them who held this view maintained
also the validity under some circumstances of Presbyterian Ordinations.
And now, with respect to the passage quoted by the Bishop
of Exeter from the " Postcript" to this work, I shall merely take
the liberty of giving the reader the previous context. Bishop
Sanderson says:"Whereas in my answer to the former of the two objections in the foregoing Treatise, I have not anywhere made any clear discovery what my own
particular judgment is concerning the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy in the
stricter sense, either in the affirmative or negative; and for want of so doing,
may perhaps be censured by some to have walked but haltingly, or at leastwise with more caution and mincing than became me to do in a business of
that nature; I do hereby declare: 1. That to avoid the starting of more questions than needs must, I then thought it fitter (and am of the same opinion
still) to decline that question, than to determine it either way; such determination being clearly of no moment at all to my purpose, and for the solving of
that objection. 2. That nevertheless (LEAVING OTHER MEN TO THE LIBERTY OF
THEIR OWN JUDGMENTS) my opinion is, that Episcopal government is," &c.
(as follows in the Bishop of Exeter's extract.)
Now if the Bishop of Exeter will follow Bishop Sanderson's
course in " leaving other men to the liberty of their own judgments"
and not denounce as heretics and unfaithful to the doctrine of
their Church, those who take the lower of the two views mentioned
by Sanderson, I for one will leave him to follow Sanderson, without molestation, in taking the higher view. But let him not think
to avail himself of the authority of Sanderson in his assault upon
his Metropolitan and seven-tenths at least of the clergy, by quoting scraps from him which only show half his mind.
And I must add, with respect to Bishop Sanderson's own doctrine, that it does not seem to have prevented his recognizing the
Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches as true Churches of Christ, and
therefore their ministers as true ministers of Christ.  For in his
brief Discourse concerning the Church, he has a chapter entitled,
"Concerning Protestant Churches;" and he defines them as "those
* See the authorities quoted in my former Tract, The Doctrine of the Church of
England on Non-Episcopal Ordinations.




36
visible particular churches, which, having by an external separation
freed themselves from the tyranny and idolatry of Popery, have
more or less reformed the doctrine and worship from Popish corruptions, and restored them more or less to the ancient and
primitive purity;" and he adds, as instances, " the Church of England, the Church of Denmark, the Church of Saxony," &c. (Disc.
cone. the Church, Lond. 1688. 4to. pp. 19, 20.)
Whatever, therefore, might be Bishop Sanderson's view, he certainly found some way of reconciling it with the notion that the
Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches were true Churches of Christ,
and therefore their ministers true ministers of Christ.
The Bishop next claims the authority of Pearson in his favor.
And he quotes first from some "Theological Determinations,"*
designed to be part of a work entitled, Summa Theologiwe ex
Sententia Doctoris in Ecelesia Anglicana tradita; and which, the
Bishop tells us, "is, therefore, his deliberate expression of what he
deemed the doctrine of our Church on the subjects treated therein."
I must submit that the words of the title are by no means so exclusive, and imply no more than doctrine which may be lawfully maintained in the Church of England. These " Determinations" are in
number three, and entitled: " I. Ordo Episcopalis est Apostolicus.
II. Ordinandi potestas solis competit Episcopis. III. Ordinatio
Anglicana complet totam Essentiam externae Vocationis ad Ministerium."
Now it is quite possible, that Pearson, like Sanderson, may have
taken the highest view of the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy; and I
am not concerned to disprove it; but I hardly think that the "Determinations" to which the Bishop here refers us will prove it.
And for this reason; that they lay down the general rule, and do not
touch the question, whether there are or are not any exceptional
cases. And we may find quite as strong passages as occur in
these "Determinations," in authors who nevertheless, in other
parts of their writings, have distinctly admitted the validity, under
some circumstances, of Presbyterian Ordinations; as, for instance,
Archdeacon Mason.
The Bishop's remaining citation is from a Letter of Bishop
Pearson against the allowance of "promiscuous Ordinations" in
the Church of England.t  The matter, therefore, against which the
Letter is directed, is very different from that now under discussion.
For it would no doubt be very undesirable to allow such Ordinations in one and the same Church, while yet Non-Episcopal Ordinations might be valid in other Churches.
But his Lordship will say: "Read what he says."   Let us do
so; and first let us take his Lordship's citation, which is this:" That the order of the ministry is necessary to the continuation of the
Gospel according to the promises of Christ, as it was to the first plantation
of it according to His institution, is a doctrine indubitable. That this ministry is derived by a succession and constant propagation, and that the unity
* Minor Theological Works of Bishop Pearson. Oxf. 1844, vol. i. p. 271, et seq.
t Minor Theological Works, vol. ii. p. 231.




37
and peace of the Church of Christ are to be conserved by a due and legitimate ordination, no man who considereth the practice of the Apostles and
Ecclesiastical history can ever doubt." "However, in the peculiar and happy
condition of our Church, these promiscuous ordinations, if at all allowed by
it, are most destructive to that which is the safety and honor of it. We
have the greatest felicity which could happen to a Reformation, as being
regular and authoritative," &c. &c.-the Bishop extending his quotation
much farther.
But here I paused in reading, for it was impossible not to see that
something was omitted where the inverted commas indicated a break
in the quotation, very germane to the question under discussion.
It was tolerably clear, by the words, "However, in the peculiar
and happy condition of our Church," &c., that some concession had
been made representing Churches not in so "peculiar and happy
a condition."  And accordingly I found there the following
passage:" This way of Ordination, having continued so many ages one
and the same, could never be considerably altered without some
great commotions and dissensions in the Church, and the manifest
breach of union and communion in that body; whomsoever we judge
guilty of the breach of that union; which is not necessary now to
dispute.  And as the first introduction of different ordinations
caused a standing and settled opposition, precluding all ways of
reconciliation; so they cannot be brought into any one Church,
but they must make such a division and disparity in the administrations, as will amount to no less than a schism." And then follows the remark contrasting with what is here alluded to, the "peculiar and happy condition of our Church," and the "felicity" of
our Reformation " as being regular and authoritative."
Now this allusion to the Foreign Protestant Churches is not that
of one who entirely disowns them as Churches, but rather of one
who considered it as their misfortune that their reformation was
not regular, and held that the guilt of the consequent " breach of
union and communion" might not rest with them. This remark,
which is the only one in the whole Letter directly affecting the
point in question, the Bishop has omitted in his extracts, though
he has cited almost the whole of the rest of the Letter.
His Lordship adds, that he has cited these testimonies as occurring, " not in obiter dicta, but in works written on the very subject
of Orders," and consequently worth more than " a whole Catena
of writers, however eminent, who are treating the matter either
incidentally and aliud agentes, or under collateral influences, such
as a desire to make out as good a case as they can for Foreign Protestants among whom they were living;" and he adds: " This last
remark specially applies to the strongest testimony on that side
with which I am acquainted, Dr. Cosins's [Cosin's] letter to Mr.
Cordel at Blois, dated Paris, Feb. 7, 1650." (P. 56.)
But, in the first place, this is no reply to such testimonies as
have been brought from Saravia, from Archbishop Whitgift, from
Dean Field, from Archdeacon Mason. And secondly, whatever
truth there is in the general proposition, that a testimony derived




38
from a work written expressly on the subject is of more value than
an obiter dictum respecting it in a work on a subject, this observation does not apply to the case in hand; for what we want to know
is the opinion of our divines, not on the general question of the
Scriptural and Apostolical form of government for the Church, but
on certain exceptional cases, and whether under some circumstances that form of government may not be lawfully departed
from. And we see in the case of Archdeacon Mason, that a work
may be published on the general subject, from which the views of
the author on exceptional cases cannot be judged, but, on the contrary, greatly misapprehended.*
To attempt to get rid of the testimony of Bishop Cosin, given
in his able and elaborate letter written expressly on the point under
discussion, is, of course, not worth one word in the way of refutation.  It simply shows the utterly impervious character of the
mind that indited it to anything that it does not wish to receive.
What follows is still more extraordinary.  For the Bishop
adds:"Yet even he refers the question [i. e. of "communicating with them of
the French Church"] ultimately to the decision of our own Church; which
decision, solemnly given by Convocation in 1661, and afterwards confirmed
by the Act of Uniformity, was, we know, against the concession here made;
yet it had the full assent, concurrence, and earnest co-operation of Cosins
[Cosin]t himself." (P. 56.)
Now, with all due respect, I beg to say, first, that Dr. Cosin did
not refer the question to the decision of our own Church, for he
merely stated his "protestation "   not to recede in anywise from
the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England," which
renders his testimony all the stronger; and he added, that there
was "no prohibition of our Church against it;" and secondly, as
the reader probably well knows, there was no subsequent decision
of Convocation in 1661, or of the Act of Uniformity, "against the
concession here made." And I suspect his Lordship himself would
be very sorry to be prosecutor in a suit against one who had chosen,
when abroad, to communicate with the Non-Episcopal Churches of
the Continent.
And thus, when we contrast the real value of his Lordship's
statements with the magisterial and imperious tone in which they
are delivered, we seek in vain for any justification of his Lordship's
high pretensions.
So ends the Bishop's attempt to support his doctrine from the
writings of our divines. And whatever may be the opinion of the
reader as to the views of his Lordship's referees, I must again
remind him, that I do not pretend to show that none of our divines
ever held the doctrine of the exclusive lawfulness of Episcopal
Ordination.  This I am not concerned to prove, and do not profess
to do so. And if the Bishop likes to maintain such a view without
* See Doctrine, &c., pp. 37, 38; and Reply to Churton and Harington, p. 31.
t It is somewhat remarkable that the very name of this learned Bishop seems unknown
to his Lordship.




39
arraigning as heretics and unfaithful sons of our Church those
who hold a contrary opinion, let him do so. Our Church has not
forbidden the view, though she clearly has not sanctioned it in her
Formularies; and her 23d Article implies a contrary doctrine.
But when the Bishop takes the ground he does, he is bound to
show, when treating of the testimonies of our divines on the subject, that there is not that testimony in favor of the opposite view
in their writings that raises a good argument for it from that
source. And therefore what he had more especially to do was,
not to adduce two or three supposed testimonies in favor of his
own view from those writings; but to show that the host of testimonies cited for the opposite view were incorrectly cited, and that
there was in fact no weighty evidence of that kind to be adduced
in its behalf. But, instead of this, he has passed them by, with the
exception of Hooker and Cosin, in profound silence; though they
were brought under his eye in the very Tract he here criticizes.
And very remarkable it is, that while his Lordship has thought it
worth while to spend several pages upon my few remarks on the
Formularies of the time of Henry VIII. and the Scholastic divines
-which were introduced as but indirectly bearing on the real
question at issue-he has passed over without the slightest notice
all but two of the direct testimonies I have cited, showing both the
doctrine and practice of the greatest divines of our Church from
the Reformation to the present day.
Before I conclude, I shall call the reader's attention to a brief
recapitulation of the authorities which the Bishop has thus passed
by. But, previous to doing so, there is one more point to be
noticed in the Bishop's Letter.  His Lordship has, with much
reason. conceived it necessary to offer some remarks, before he
closed his argument, on the 55th Canon; which had, of course,
been quoted as entirely opposed to the doctrine he is attempting
to establish. That Canon, passed in 1603, orders the clergy to
pray for "the Church of Scotland;" while it is an undeniable
fact, that the Church of Scotland had then no bishops, in the
proper sense of the word, and therefore of course none but Presbyterian Orders at the best. The consequence is obvious, namely,
that our Church did not then consider Episcopal Orders necessary
under all circumstances to constitute a valid ministry.
The particulars of the case of the Church of Scotland at this
period I have so fully stated in a recent publication,* that I do
not here repeat them.
To the overthrow of this obvious and necessary conclusion, his
Lordship has devoted six pages. With what success may easily
be foreseen.
He commences with the following very remarkable observation:"What was the exact position of the Presbyterian government in Scotland
* Reply to Archdeacon Churton and Chancellor Harington.




40
according to law in 1603, I confess myself unable to ascertain without more of
labor than the point itself would seem to be worth. The ecclesiastical history
of that country at that period is so full of intricacy as to baffle ordinary
research. I think it very likely that the English Convocation in 1603 was
itself scarcely better informed on this point than we are," &c. (P. 57.)
With this amount of information on the subject, his Lordship
thinks himself justified in dogmatically determining-after quoting
some passionate exclamations of James I. against Presbyterianism,
and such like fruitless evidence —hat the notion that the Kirk of
Scotland, as it then existed (and which was the only visible Church
of Scotland in existence), "should be'the very Church of Scotland' designated by the Canon as the object of our prayers, is too
gross for an ordinary understanding to digest. (P. 58.)
Whether this mode of settling the matter by one who confesses
his ignorance of the data upon which any sound conclusion must be
grounded, will be satisfactory to his Lordship's adherents, I know
not. But certainly with any others it must be utterly worthless.
The Bishop perhaps thinks so himself, for he adds some arguments on the subject; and the first is this:"That the Church which is really intended in the Canon,"
says the Bishop, "must be in communion with that which thus
recognizes it in her prayers to be a Church, I need not say."
(Pp. 58, 59.)
So that the Church of England, according to the Bishop, recognizes no Christian community to be a Church but those that are
in communion with her!     When, therefore, we pray for the
Catholic Church, we mean the Church of England and that portion of the Christian world that is in communion with her!
And then follows another still more remarkable specimen of his
Lordship's mode of reasoning, addressed to the " soberer portion"
of those who differ from him in this matter. His Lordship commences with a formal proof that the "realm of Scotland" is included in the terms used in the 1st, 36th, and 55th Canons to
describe the countries over which King James ruled, which might
have been readily granted. But in those Canons the king is
described (to quote the words of the last) as " supreme governor
in these his realms, over all persons, in all causes ecclesiastical as
well as temporal."  Now  for the consequence.   " Therefore,"
writes his Lordship, "Mr. Macaulay, and all who may have
availed themselves of the ingenious suggestion, that the'Church
of Scotland was in 1603, as now, Presbyterian,' must be prepared
to accept, as a corollary, that the Queen's Majesty is supreme in all
causes ecclesiastical or spiritual within the limits of the' Holy Kirk."'
So that because the Church of England chose to recognize King
James, in 1063, as supreme governor in all causes ecclesiastical
throughout his dominions; therefore, if the Church of Scotland
(which did not do so) was then, as now, Presbyterian, the Queen
is now de facto supreme in all causes ecclesiastical in the present
Scotch Presbyterian Church. To state such an argument is to
refute it.




41
I need hardly observe, that the acknowledgment of the Church
of England of her own doctrine on the subject (and the Canon of
course is nothing more) affords no proof of the estate or views of
other communions in the King's dominions. And certainly it
could not make a communion Episcopal that had no true bishops
belonging to it. In fact, it does not touch the question, whether
the Church of Scotland was Presbyterian or Episcopal; for it might
have been the latter, and yet not have recognized the Royal Supremacy as our Canons do, as is the case with the present Episcopal
Church in Scotland. And the existence of this Church in Scotland, and even of the present Romish hierarchy in England, does
not make it necessary for us to make the slightest alteration in
the Canons.
The Bishop is, in fact, refuted by his own statements. For he
contends that our Church is now in communion with the Episcopal
Church existing in Scotland, which he calls the " Catholic and
Apostolic Church of Scotland." Whether we are or not, I shall
not now dispute; but, by his own showing, our acknowledgment of
the Royal Supremacy does not prevent our recognizing as " the
Catholic and Apostolic Church of Scotland" a Church that does
not thus acknowledge it.
But, adds his Lordship (p. 61): Do not accuse me of being so
uncharitable as to exclude such communities from the benefit of my
prayers. I will pray for them as much as you please, but not
as "a Branch of the Church of Christ." " To.pray for it [the
Scotch Presbyterian "community"] as such, would be in truth to
pray for the destruction of our own Church, for it is the avowed
principle of that Presbyterian body to labor to that end." (P. 61.)
"I will pray for them  among'our enemies, persecutors, and
slanderers, and that it may please God to turn their hearts;' but I
will not pray for them AS A RELIGIOUS BODY-still less as a
Church-least of all as the Church of Scotland," &c. (P. 62.)
And is it really so hard a task to his Lordship's Christian charity
to recognize as a Church, or even as a religious body, those who are
attacking our form of church government and endeavoring to
propagate their own?-so impossible a matter to own as a Christian brother one who thinks us in error on such a point, and perhaps in the warmth of his feelings gives us some very hard names?
I will only say, that I trust there are many among us who do not
sympathize with his Lordship in such feelings.
But of one thing the Bishop of Exeter will allow me to remind
him; namely, that if such are his views, then d fortiori the Romish
" community" must not be recognized in our prayers as " a Branch
of the Church of Christ;" a consequence which, I suspect, his
Lordship has forgotten.
In connection with this subject the Bishop finds it convenient
to mention what, in the part where he ought to have specially
taken it into account, he altogether passed over in silence; namely,
that at the Restoration, in 1661, " this important addition was
made" in the Preface to the Ordinal: "or hath had formerly




42
Episcopal consecration or ordination," (p. 63,) which he calls a
" decision of our Church" on "the indispensable necessity of
Episcopal ordination; but which, I need not remind the reader,
applies only to our own Church.
And finally he observes, that "the persons designated for
bishops" in Scotland, "though they struggled hard to assert the
reality of their Presbyterian Orders, were required, as an indispensable condition before their consecration, to be first ordained
deacons and priests, because they were'mere laymen;' and this
notwithstanding the precedent of 1610, when James's bishops elect
were consecrated at once," (p. 64:) which is quite true, but which
the following account of the matter by Bishop Burnet, the familiar
friend of Leighton, who was one of them, will show to be quite
insufficient for the Bishop's purpose:" When the time fixed for the consecration of the bishops of Scotland came
on, the English bishops finding that Sharp and Leighton had not Episcopal
ordination, as priests and deacons, the other two having been ordained by
bishops before the wars, they stood upon it, that they must be ordained, first
deacons and then priests. Sharp was very uneasy at this, and remembered
them of what had happened when King James had set up Episcopacy. Bishop
Andrews moved at that time the ordaining them, as was now proposed; but
that was overruled by King James, who thought it went too far towards the
unchurching of all those who had no bishops among them. But the late war,
and the disputes during that time, had raised these controversies higher, and
brought men to stricter notions, and to maintain them with more fierceness.
The English bishops did also say, that by the late Act of Uniformity that
matter was more positively settled than it had been before; so that they could
not legally consecrate any but those who were, according to that constitution,
made first priests and deacons. They also made this difference between the
present time and King James's: for then the Scots were only in an imperfect
state, HAVING NEVER HAD BISHOPS AMONG THEM SINCE THE REFORMATION  so in
such a state of things, in which they had been under a real necessity, IT WAS
REASONABLE TO ALLOW OF THEIR ORDERS, how defective soever; but that of late
they had been in a state of schism, had revolted from their bishops, and had
thrown off that order: so that Orders given in such a wilful opposition to the
whole constitution of the primitive Church was a thing of another nature."
(Burnet's Hist. of his Own Times, i. 139, 140.)
From this passage two important conclusions follow: first, that
these bishops fully recognized the fact, that the validity of the
Orders of those consecrated in 1610 was admitted by the bishops
who consecrated them; and secondly, that these bishops held that
there avas good ground for so doing. I commend this to Chancellor IHarington's consideration.
To the remarks on the Address of " the Devon and Cornwall
Church of England Protestant Association" and the Archbishop's
Answer (pp. 64, 65), I shall merely say, that no such conclusion
follows from the Archbishop's answer as the Bishop has deduced
from it; namely, that the Archbishop has made " Orders depend
on the soundness or unsoundness of the doctrines held by the
persons whose Orders are in question." This is so obvious to any
impartial reader, that I shall not waste words upon it.  And with
this charge his very characteristic attack upon the Archbishop for




43
an "ultra-Protestantism" " closely allied to Popery," falls to the
ground.
The Bishop is very anxious that His Grace should enter into
a discussion with him as to what is "the authority necessary to
confer Holy Orders." (Pp. 65, 66.) I suppose His Grace, if he
thought any reply necessary, would refer his Lordship to the Articles of our Church, where he will find an answer to his question.
To his Lordship's inquiry, what the ministers of the Foreign
Non-Episcopal Churches are to be considered, as he fears they
may be "an order unknown to Scripture," I think his anxiety on
that head may be at once relieved, by informing him, that they are
evidently intended to correspond with the presbyters of whom we
read in the Acts of the Apostles.
The Bishop here repeats the inference from the words in the
Preface to the Ordinal, to which I have already replied.* But he
adds, that "even if, for any special reasons of a local or temporary
kind," in the case of foreigners a "prohibition of' Bishops, Priests,
or Deacons,' to execute any of the said [i. e. ministerial] functions
within our Church be in any way justifiable, yet the absolute
refusal to recognize them as ministers in the Church of Christ,
would be an act so grossly schismatical, that no man of Catholic
principles would know how to justify his continuing to communicate in the Church which is guilty of it."  (P. 67.) I reply,
perhaps it would; and I am glad to know, that our own Church
does nothing of the kind, but, on the contrary, has clearly in her
Articles extended the limits of a valid ministry beyond that which
is constituted precisely according to her own rules, and by an
overwhelming majority of her divines for a long period after
the Reformation has directly recognized the validity of the Orders
of various Non-Episcopal Churches. But it seems to me, that a
worse case than that of a Church refusing to recognize such persons
as " ministers in the Church of Christ," is that of one who, while
bearing office in a Church that does not refuse such recognition,
not only refuses, but reviles his Metropolitan for taking a different
course-not only "himself refuses to receive the brethren, but
forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the Church."
Thus ends his Lordship's argument drawn from the Formularies and divines of our Church on the subject before us; the
remainder of the pamphlet being devoted to remarks upon the
present state of the Protestant Continental Churches, and the
individuals who recently came over to this country from them.
I shall here, therefore, take the opportunity of briefly recapitulating the authorities I have before adduced on this subject, making
some occasional additions to them as I proceed.
Thus-not to notice the period of Edward VI., for which I
have already given sufficient testimoniest —we have for the reign
of Elizabeth, when our Articles and Formularies were settled as
* See p. 15 above.         t See p. 31 above.




44
they now (with few exceptions) stand, Dr. Alley, bishop of Exeter,
in 1560, Dr. Pilkington, bishop of Durham in 1563, and the
learned Dr. Whitaker, Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge,
at the close of the century —all testifying to the parity of bishops
and presbyters as to their order, and the superiority of bishops in
respect of office being only due to human appointment;* we have
Bishop Jewel taking similar ground, and, moreover, testifying
strongly to the necessity of bishops to constitute a Church;t we have
Archbishop Whitgift distinctly maintaining that a presbyter and
bishop are one "quoad mninisterium," and that the Scriptures do
not "set down any one certain form and kind of government of
the Church to be perpetual for all times, persons, and places, without alteration;" and that he does not " condemn any churches "
where the Presbyterian form of church government "is lawfully
and without danger received:"t we have Hooker testifying, as
already stated:~ we have the High-Churchman Saravia expressly
affirming the validity of the Orders of the Foreign Non-Episcopal
Churches, and their right to act independently of other churches
in the matter of Orders:11 and Archbishop Whitgift assured Beza
that " the purpose of Dr. Saravia to assert degrees among the
ministers of the Gospel was wholly undertaken without the injury
or prejudice of any particular Church:"~ we have Bishop Bridges
saying, in 1587, that the form of Ecclesiastical government may be
varied, and that " we ought neither to condemn, nor speak, nor think
evil of other good churches that use another Ecclesiastical government than we do:"** we have Bishop Cooper, one of the leading
defenders of our Church against the Puritans, asserting in 1589
that "one form of church government is not necessary in all times
and places of the Church;" and that he " doubted not," that " all
those Churches in which the Gospel in those days, after great
darkness, was first renewed, and the learned men whom God sent
to instruct them," had "been directed by the Spirit of God to retain this liberty, that in external government and other outward
orders, they might choose such as they thought in wisdom and godliness to be most convenient for the state of their country and disposition of the people:"tt and we have the learned Dean of the
Arches, Dr. Cosin, in 1584, laying it down, in express defence of
the Foreign Reformed Churches, that it " cannot be proved, that
any set and exact particular form " of church polity "is recommended unto us by the word of God."T
This was the ground they took against the Puritans, who insisted upon the exclusive divine right of the Presbyterian form of
church government. And instead of meeting this by a counterclaim of a similar kind, as the Bishop of Exeter would do, they
* See Doct. ofCh. ofEngl. &c. pp. 17, 18,20.
t lb. p. 18.                          t lb. pp. 19, 20.
~ See pp. 32, 33 above, and ib. pp. 20, 21.  11 lb. pp. 21, 22.
~T Strype's Whitgift, p. 405.         ** Doctrine, &c. p. 22.
it Doctrine, &c. pp. 23, 24.
f4 Ib. p. 24. I must refer the reader to my former Tract for the full citation of these
passages, from which alone he can see their real force.




45
protested against such a notion as totally unwarranted by Holy
Scripture.
And for their practical treatment of the ministers of the Foreign
Non-Episcopal Churches, we find Archbishops Parker, Grindal,
and Sandys, Bishops Jewel, Parkhurst, Cox, Horn (to mention no
others), writing to the ministers of those Churches as acknowledged
and valued ministers of the Church of Christ;* and Archbishop
Whitgift writing to Beza as " his most dear brother in Christ," and
superscribing his letter to "his most dear brother and collea7gue in
Christ, and faithful pastor of the Genevan Church."t
And against all these testimonies, the only shadow of an opposite
testimony that can be brought for this period is that from Bishop
Bilson, which I have already considered.t
Then, for the practice of our Church we have various testimonies, showing that, by at least the great majority of our bishops,
persons having only Presbyterian Orders were admitted to the
cure of souls in our Church, until the period of the Restoration,
without any fresh ordination.~ I have before mentioned the case
of Morrison, who had only Scotch Presbyterian Orders, but was
licensed by Archbishop Grindal to minister the word and sacraments throughout the Province of Canterbury without any fresh
ordination; and have given the testimonies of Bishop Cosin (who,
having been librarian to Overall, and chaplain to Neyle, is a most
unexceptionable witness), and of Bishop Fleetwood, showing that
it was not the custom of our bishops, previous to the Restoration,
to reordain those who had only Presbyterian Orders, when they
admitted them to cures in this country.ll
The same testimony is borne by Bishop Burnet, who says:"Another point was fixed by the Act of Uniformity, which was more at
large formerly: those who came to Englandfrom the Foreign Churches had
not been required to be ordained among ius: but now all, that had not Episcopal ordination, were made incapable of holding any Ecclesiastical benefice."
(Hist. of his Own Times, vol. i. p. 183.)
And even Mr. Keble confesses that, "nearly up to the time
when Hooker wrote, numbers had been admitted to the ministry
of the Church in England, with no better than Presbyterian Ordination: and it appears by Travers's Supplication to the Council,
that such was the construction not uncommonly put upon the
Statute of the 13th of Elizabeth, permitting those who had received Orders in any other form than that of the English ServiceBook, on giving certain securities, to exercise their calling in
England." (Pref. to Hooker, p. lxxvi.)
Even since the Restoration, the ministrations of those who had
only Presbyterian Orders were for a long course of years, up to
nearly the present time, habitually used by the Society for the
Propagation of the Gospel, which is under the special direction of
the Bench of Bishops.~
* See Zurich Letters, published by Parker Society, passim.
X Strype's Whitgift, 406, 408; or Ox. ed. ii. 159, 173.
t See p. 33, above.                 6 See Doctrine, &c. p. 29.
II See Doctrine, &c. pp. 29, 30.    I lb. p. 31.




46
And I will now add another case, that has lately been under
my notice, that of Dr. De Laune, which is given in Dr. Birch's
Life of Archbishop Tillotson, from a letter of Bishop Cosin, a witness of the case, in the following terms:"Dr. De Laune, who translated the English Liturgy into French, being
collated to a living, and coming to the Bishop, then at Norwich, with his
presentation, his Lordship asked him where he had his Orders. HIe answered,
that he was ordained by the Presbytery at Leyden. The Bishop upon this
advised him to take the opinion of counsel, whether by the laws of England
he was capable of a benefice without being ordained by a bishop. The doctor
replied, that he thought his Lordship would be unwilling to reordain him, if
his counsel should say, that he was not otherwise capable of the living by law.
The Bishop rejoined:'Reordination we must not admit, no more than a
rebaptization; but in case you find it doubtful whether you be a priest capable
to receive a benefice among us, or no, I will do the same office for you, if you
desire it, that I should do for one who doubts of his baptism, when all things
belonging essentially unto it have not been duly observed in the administration of it, according to the rule in the Book of Common Prayer, If thou beest
not already, &c. YET FOR MINE OWN PART, IF YOU WILL ADVENTURE THE
ORDERS TIAT YOU HAVE, I WILL ADMIT YOUR PRESENTATION, AND GIVE YOU
INSTITUTION INTO THE LIVING HOWSOEVER.  But the title, which this presentation had from the patron, proving not good, there were no farther proceedings in it; yet AFTERWARDS DR. DE LAUNE WAS ADMITTED INTO ANOTHER
BENEFICE WITIOUT ANY NEW ORDINATION." (Birch's Life of Archbishop Tillotson, 2d ed. 1753, pp. 170, 171.)
And the only one of our early divines, of any weight, whom I
can find to have denied the legality of the practice, and that only
on account of " the laws of the realm," is Archbishop Whitgift.
And that the statute and not the ecclesiastical law was the difficulty, where any was felt, we learn from a passage in Bishop Hall,
who expressly tells us, in a work published in 1641:"The sticking at the admission of our brethren returning from Reformed
Churches, was NOT IN CASE OF ORDINATION, but of Institution: THEY HAD
BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED MINISTERS OF CHRIST, WITHOUT ANY OTHER HANDS LAID
UPON THEM; but, according to the laws of our land, they were not perhaps
capable of Institution to a benefice, unless they were so qualified as the
Statutes of this realm do require. And, secondly, I know those, more than one,
that by virtue only of that ordination which they have brought with them from
other Refbrmed churches, have enjoyed spiritual promotions and livings, WITHOUT
ANY EXCEPTION AGAINST THE LAWFULNESS OF THEIR CALLING." (Bishop Hall's
Defence of the Humble Remonstrance, Sect. 14, Works, ed. Pratt, vol. 9, pp.
690, 691.)
Now this practice of our Church from the Reformation to the
Restoration, is the strongest possible proof that at least there was
nothing in our Church's Formularies against the validity of such
Orders, but on the contrary enough in its favor to justify such a
course.   And if so, a fortiori, our Church admitted their validity
for ministering in their own communions. And it cannot be pretended, that while the Articles of our Church remained the same,
any alteration was made in her doctrine on this subject by the
mere introduction, at the Restoration, of the regulation requiring
Episcopal Orders for those who ministered in our Church.
In considering the views of our divines subsequent to the reign
of Elizabeth, we shall no doubt find some discrepancy of opinion
among them on this subject.   But still, we have an overwhelming




47
majority in favor of the same view of the matter that prevailed
before.  It has been with some reason supposed that one of the
first, if not the very first, to question the validity of the Orders
of the Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches, was Laud. Certainly so
early as 1604 he maintained this ground in the Divinity School at
Oxford.   When proceeding in that year to his degree of B.D.,
"his Supposition, when he answered in the Divinity Schools for his
degree, concerning the efficacy of Baptism, was taken verbatim out
of Bellarmine; and he then maintained, there could be no true
Church without diocesan bishops, for which Dr. Holland, then
Doctor of the Chair [Regius Professor of Divinity], openly reprehended him in the Schools for a seditious person, who would unchurch the Reformed Protestant Churches beyond seas, and now
sow division between us and them, who were brethren, by this
novel Popish position."  (Prynne's Life of Laud, p. 2.)  And this
is confirmed by Heylin himself, who says: "for which last [i. e.
his position as to the necessity of bishops] he was shrewdly rattled
by Dr. Holland above mentioned, as one that did endeavor to cast
a bone of discord betwixt the Church of England and the Reformed
Churches beyond the seas."   (Heylin's Life of Laud, sub a. 1604.)
It is not a little remarkable, that the Popish doctrine of Baptism, and the indispensable necessity of the Episcopate to the
existence of a true Church-the two doctrines for which the
Bishop of Exeter has been so vehemently contending against his
Metropolitan-should be the two principles with which Laud began
his career. And I think we may derive instruction from the way
in which an impartial investigator of our history at this period,
our able historian Mr. Hallam, speaks of the reintroduction of
the latter principle into our Church by Laud and his party:"The system," he says, "pursued by Bancroft and his imitators, Bishops
Neyle and Laud, with the approbation of the king, far opposed to the healing
counsels of Burleigh and Bacon, was just such as low-born and little-minded
men, raised to power by fortune's caprice, are ever found to pursue. They
studiously aggravated every difference, and irritated every wound.... They
began by preaching the divine right, as it is called, or absolute indispensability,
of Episcopacy; a doctrine of which thefirst traces, as Iapprehend, arefound (about
the end of Elizabeth's reign. They insisted on the necessity of Episcopal succession regularly derived from the Apostles. They drew an inference from
this tenet, that ordinations by presbyters were in all cases null. And as this
affected all the Reformed Churches in Europe, except their own, the Lutherans
not having preserved the succession of their bishops, while the Calvinists
had altogether abolished that order, they began to speak of them, not as brethren of the same faith, united in the same cause, and distinguished only by
differences little more material than those of political commonwealths (WHICH
BAD BEEN THE LANGUAGE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND EVER SINCE THE REFORMATION), but as aliens to whom they were not at all related, and schismatics with
whom they held no communion; nay, as wanting the very essence of a Christian society. This again brought them nearer, by irresistible consequence, to
the disciples of Rome, whom, with becoming charity, but against the received
creed of the Puritans, and perhaps against their own Articles, they all acknowledged to be a part of the Catholic Church, while they were withholding that appellation, expressly or by inference, from Heidelberg and Geneva."
(Hallanm's Constit. Hist. vol. i. pp. 389, 390, 4th ed.)
Mr. IIallam's opinion of the first introduction of this notion at




48
the end of Elizabeth's reign, is taken from the passage of Lord
Bacon, which I before quoted on this subject;* in which he speaks
of " some indiscreet persons" having been so "bold" as to pronounce those " ordained in foreign parts" to be " no lawful ministers."
And I have already shown that the more eminent of those who
leaned to this new school, such as Bishop Andrews and Archbishop
Bramhall, were far from condemning the Foreign Non-Episcopal
communities as wanting in the essentials of a Church, or the Ordbrs
of their ministers as absolutely invalid.t
In the same place, I have added copious testimonies of the views
of Archbishops Bancroft, Usher, Sancroft, Wake, Seeker, and
Howley, Bishops Hall, Davenant, Morton, George Downham, Cosin,
and Tomline, Lord Bacon, Dean Field, and Sherlock, Archdeacon
Mason, Drs. Crakanthorpe, Willet, and Claget, all showing their
cordial recognition of the Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches as
true Branches of the Church of Christ, and of their ministers as
true ministers of that Church.t
And to this list it would be easy to add largely; but it is obvious, that the consentient testimony of such names represents a
weight of evidence in favor of such a point much greater than
the mere number would indicate; and therefore any addition seems
to be unnecessary.
Nevertheless, a few more shall be given here.
To the passage formerly quoted from Bishop Hall, the following may well be added:" The imputation pretended to be cast by this tenet [the Divine right of
Episcopacy] upon all the Reformed Churches which want this government,
I endeavored so to satisfy, that I might justly decline the envy which is
intended to be thereby raised against us; for which cause, I professed that
we do' love and honor those our Sister-Churches, as the dear Spouse of Christ;'
and give zealous testimonies of my well-wishing to them. Your uncharitableness offers to choke me with those scandalous censures and disgraceful terms,
which some of ours have let fall upon those churches, and their eminent professors; which, I confess, it is more easy to be sorry for, than, on some hands,
to excuse. The error of a few may not be imputed to all. My just defence
is that no such consequent can be drawn from our opinion; forasmuch as the
Divine or Apostolical right, which we hold, goes not so high as if there were
an express command, that, upon an absolute necessity, there must be either
an Episcopacy or no Church; but so far only, that it both may and ought
to be. How fain would you here find me in a contradiction! While I onewhere, reckon Episcopacy amongst matters essential to the Church; anotlherwhere
deny it to be of the essence thereof! Wherein you willingly hide your eyes, that
you may not see the distinction that I make expressly betwixt the Being and the
Well-being of a Church; affirming, that'those Churches, to whom this power
and faculty is denied, lose nothing of the true essence of a Ch/urch, though
they miss something of the glory and perfection.' No, brethren, it is enough
for some of your friends, to hold their Discipline altogether essential to the very
being of a Church; we dare not be so zealous." (Bp. Hall's Def. of lHumble
Remonstrance, Sec. 14. Works, vol. ix. p. 690.)
We here see, that he throws back upon the Puritans the exclusive
* See Doctrine, &c. p. 31.
t See Doctrine, &c. pp. 32, 33, where passages from Bishop Andrews and Archbishop
Bramhall are given, fully proving this.      t lb. pp. 34, 44.




49
doctrine of the indispensability of one particular form of church
government, and disowns it; and also, that his general testimony
to Episcopacy had been misunderstood and misrepresented, as if
he had intended to deny the Foreign Non-Episcopal Churches to
be true Churches; a fact which may show how easy it is to parade
the appearance of a Catena of testimonies from our divines in
favor of the exclusive doctrine, while, nevertheless, the authors of
those testimonies meant nothing of the kind. I commend this to
Chancellor Harington's consideration.
Again, it is worth our notice, that our learned and esteemed
divine, Dr. Crakanthorp, not only justifies the Foreign NonEpiscopal Churches, as I have before shown, but distinctly admits
that we are in communion with them, and that "in doctrine and
the profession of the orthodox faith there is no difference between
us."  For in the 43d chapter of his Defensio Ecclesiae Anglicane, entitled  "Ecclesiam    Anglicanam   hereticam   esse, quia
communicat cum    Reformatis Ecclesiis ultramarinis, calumniatur
Arch. Spal." &c., he says:"'Ecclesia,' inquis,' Anglicana communionem publice et aperte profitetur
cum Genevensi aliisque ultramarinis Ecclesiis. Etiam et Londini sunt regia
concessione Gallis, Belgis, Italis, apertse Ecclesie. Hae vero omnes Calviniano
veneno infectae. Ipsa quoque Geneva, Puritanorum mater. Ab his Puritanismus in Anglia fovetur et promovetur. Hoe Anglicanam professionem et
ritus abominantur: et tamen Anglicanne Synagogee sorores sunt dilectissimee:'
Quare cum Anglicana cum his haereticis Ecclesiis communionem tencat, erit
et ipsa quoque haeretica. Imo nec Anglicana est, nec ille haereticae; sed tu
homo ex convitiis et mendaciis totus conflatus, et Anglicanae et illis sanctis
Dei Ecclesiis novus Shemi ore inverecundo oblatras.... Nec certe' doctrinam illi aut professionem Anglicanam abominantur.' Calumnia haec tua
est, cujus si pudor tibi ullus inesset, poenituisse te jamdudum oportuisset. In
doctrina et fidei orthodoxce professione discordia inter nos nulla. Hac integra,
in ritibus et disciplina discrimen ferelndum utrique scimus."  (Crakanth.
Defens. Eccles. Angl. contra Arch. Spalat. 1625. 4to. c. 43, p. 253, et seq.)
Among our learned divines Dr. John White, brother of Bishop
Francis White, takes a high place.     In his Way to the True
Church, first published in 1608, he expressly includes the Foreign
Non-Episcopal Churches as forming with the Church of England
the Protestant Church. For in meeting the Romish objection
that "the Protestants' Church is not perfectly one, or uniform in
dogmatical points of faith," he says, " we for our purgation name
the Harmony of Confessions, wherein the particular Churches set
down and name the Articles of their faith; the which Confessions
if the Jesuit can show to jar, as he saith, in dogmatical points of
faith, I am content you believe him in all the rest." (Ed. 1624,
~ 33, p. 75.) And he entirely repudiates the notion that ministerial succession is an essential note of the true Church. He says:" The succession required to make a Church Apostolic must be defined by
the doctrine, and not by the place or persons; that is to say, they must be
reputed the Apostles' successors which believe the Apostles' doctrine, although
they have not this outward succession of pastors visibly following one another
in one place throughout all ages, as the Jesuit saith it is in the Roman
Church." " It is no disadvantage to the Protestants' Churches if, holding the
Apostles' doctrine, they want external succession of place and persons, such
9




50
as the Jesuit boasteth of: because the apostolicness of the Church is not
defined by it, but wheresoever the trite faith contained in the Scriptures is
professed and embraced, there is the whole and full nature of an Apostolic
Church." (lb. ~ 53, p. 210.) " The Jesuit objecteth, that'God hath planted
a Church to endure in all ages, wherein he will have a visible succession of
teachers,' preserved from failing in the true faith; and therefore none are
sent of God but such as come in this'ordinary' manner, called and succeeding'visibly,' and with'peculiar consecration,' which Christ termeth entering
in by the door. The antecedent whereof is false. For though God's ordinance be, that he have a Church, and teachers therein, in all ages, succeeding
one another, and standing in the truth; yet he hath made no law that this
succession shall be'visible,' or with'peculiar consecration,' as the Jesuit
neaneth them."  " Yea, our very adversaries deny not but a man may be a
lawful minister, though a bishop never consecrated him, but a simple priest,
by dispensation; and whereas the common opinion in the Church of Rome is
that a bishop differeth not from a priest in order, but in jurisdiction only,
hence it followeth, unavoidably, that jure divino a simple priest may ordain,
because the power of ordaining belongeth not to jurisdiction but to order, as
they call it. The which point will serve to avoid all that the Jesuit hath
said in this section, though we should say no more." (lb. ~ 58, pp. 229, 230.)
This treatise was defended against the Romanists by his brother
Francis, Bishop of Carlisle, in a work entitled: The Orthodox
Faith and way to the Church explained and justified, in which he
expressly vindicates the position, that " personal succession" is not
an essential note of the Church (2d ed. 1624, p. 49), and that the
Foreign "Protestant Churches" are at unity with the Church of
England in all essential points. (Ib. pp. 124 and 132, 133.)
Another important testimony is that of the learned John Forbes
-son of Bishop Patrick Forbes, and appointed Divinity Professor
at Aberdeen in 1619, and ejected in 1640 on account of his adherence to the cause of Episcopacy and Charles I.-occurring in his
Irenicum, first printed in 1629. And it will be the more esteemed,
I suppose, by those who take the opposite view to that I am now
maintaining, when I mention, that he distinctly advocates the Jus
Divinum of the Episcopal form of church government. One of
the propositions which he lays down, and defends at some length,
is the following:" Ecclesia Orthodoxam tenens fidem, si careat Episcopo, sive Presbyterorum
ordinario preefecto Dioecesano, laborat q.uidem defectu quodam oeconomico:
at non propterea desinit esse vera Ecclesia, neque excidit potestate illa Ecclesiastica, quam habent alive Ecclesie ab Episcopis gubernatce.  Quamvis
optandum et annitendum, ut habeat Episcopum."
And on this proposition he remarks:" Gradus quidem Episcopalis est juris divini; sic tamen ut Ecclesia esse
non desinat, sed esse possit, et sit quandoque vera Ecclesia Christiana, in qua
non reperitur hic gradus.... Non ad esse, sed ad melius esse Ecclesive
necessaria est hsec ceconomia.... Valida est ordinatio quae peragitur per
presbyteros in eis Ecclesiis, in quibus non est Episcopus, aut ubi non est orthodoxus, sed notorius haereticus et lupus: quamvis decentius fieret (si possibile)
per orthodoxum Episcopum et Presbyteros; aut etiam per solos presbyteros,
consentiente et concedente Episcopo.... Habent Presbyteri dejure divino
ordinandi, sicut praedicandi et baptizandi, potestatem; quamvis hsec omnia exsequi debeant sub regimine et inspectione Episcopi, in locis ubi est Episcopus,
sicut dictum est. In aliis autem locis, ubi Ecclesive communi tantAm Presbyterorum consilio administrantur, valida est et efficax ordinatio quve fit per
impositionem manuum solius Presbyterii. Quin et ubi est Episcopus, possunt Presbyteri ordinare, consentiente, licet non simul manus imponente,




51
Episcopo: cui propria de jure divino est sola authoritas et prsefectura Episcopalis..... ordinare autem non possunt [presbyteri] sine particutari
commissione ab Episcopo, vel a Presbyterorum Dicecesano Concilio in locis
ubi non est Episcopus." (J. Forbes, Irenicum, lib. ii. c. xi. Prop. 13, Op.
Amstel. 1703, vol. i. pp. 420-422.)
The Bishop of Exeter has referred to the 19th Article as supporting his views of the necessity of Episcopacy to constitute a
Church.   The following passage of our learned Bingham-the
most deeply versed in ecclesiastical antiquity, perhaps, of any of
our divines-will show how little notion he had that such a view
could be extracted from it. After quoting this Article, and stating
that none of our divines object to it on account of its not mentioning "bishops or their government," he adds:"For in all their disputes with the Papists, they never require more than
these two notes of the Church. They say with Bishop Andrews,'that though
Episcopal government be of Divine institution, yet it is not so absolutely
necessary, as that there can be no Church, nor sacraments, nor salvation
without it. Ie is blind that sees not many Churches flourishing without it;
and he must have a heart as hard as iron, that will deny them salvation.
Something may be wanting, that is of Divine right, in the exterior regimen
of the Church, and yet salvation be obtained therein.' Now this is the case
of the French Church, which Bishop Andrews and his followers allow to have
all the necessary and essential notes of a true Church, though Episcopal government was never settled among them." (French Church's Apol. for Church of
England, bk. 2, c. 2, Works, ix. 40, 41.)
In the debate on Occasional Conformity, in 1702, Dr. Sharp,
Archbishop of York, stated, that " if he were abroad, he would
willingly communicate with the Protestant Churches, where he
should happen to be." (Life of Abp. Sharp, vol. i. p. 377.)
In the debate on the Union with Scotland, in 1707, Dr. Tenison,
Archbishop of Canterbury, said, " he thought the narrow notions
of all Churches had been their ruin, and 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." (Carstares,
759, as quoted by Mr. Hallam, Constit. Hist. 4th ed. ii. 483.)
I will quote but one more testimony out of the vast body of
evidence that might be given from our divines on this subject, and
that shall be from Dr. John Scott, who, though no Low-Churchman, and taking very high views as to the Divine right of Episcopacy and the Episcopal succession, says:"A Church may be debarred of it by unavoidable necessities, in despite of
its power, and against its consent, and under this circumstance I can by no
means think such a Church to be separated from the Church Catholic; it is
indeed an imperfect and defective part of the Catholic Church; and if this
defect of it be any way owing to its own NEGLIGENCE, it is a very great FAULT
in it, as well as an unhappiness. But though this instituted government is
necessary to the perfection of a Church, yet it doth not therefore follow that
it is necessary to the being of it.... Why may we not reasonably supDose, that the Catholic Church will admit presbyters to govern and ordain,
where there are no bishops to be had, since it hath admitted laymen to baptize, where there are neither bishops nor presbyters to be had? since the
latter is as great a deflection from positive institution as the former." ( Christian Life, 5th ed. 1747, vol. iii. pp. 310-313.)
Into his Lordship's remarks, occupying nearly the whole of
the remainder of his pamphlet, upon the present state of the




52
Foreign Protestant Churches, and upon the individual members
of those Churches who recently came over to this country, I shall
not enter, because my object has been to discuss principles, not
their particular application.  To do justice to the subject would
require a much more extended examination of it than his Lordship's
ex parte statements afford, or than would be possible in this place.
I shall merely observe, that, speaking generally, the Public Confessions of those Churches are before the worll; and that however
much many of their members may have departed from their true
meaning, it would be as unjust to renounce all brotherly communion with their sound members, as it would be for them to renounce
all communion with every member of our Church, because of the
Romish views of many of our clergy. And as to any who may have
been forced to separate from those Churches on account of the corruptions prevailing in them, and form a separate body holding an
orthodox confession of faith, such have a still stronger claim upon
us for our sympathy and Christian fellowship.
But I may be permitted to ask his Lordship this question:
Was he, or was he not, a consenting party to the Letter sent in 1835
by the late Archbishop of Canterbury, in the name of himself and his
" BROTHER BISHOPS," to "the 1Moderator of the Company of Pastors
at Geneva," expressing their "high respect for the Protestant
Churches on the Continent," and speaking of the Genevan Reformation as a "noble achievement, which brought light out of
darkness, 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 Almighty God, were the instruments of this happy
deliverance," "an event not less glorious to Geneva than conducive to the success of the Reformation?"
It is scarcely to be supposed, that such a Letter should have
been sent by the late Archbishop in the name of his " brother
bishops" without the knowledge or assent of the Bishop of Exeter.
And certainly incredible, that if he had dissented from it, his dissent should not tave been made known to the public. If, therefore, such a Letter as this was sent with the sanction of the Right
Reverend Prelate, with what face can he now turn round upon the
present Archbishop, and assail him as he has for holding that the
ministers of " the Protestant Churches on the Continent" are true
ministers of Christ?  lie cannot venture to assert that the state of
things in those Churches is worse now than it was then.
May I be permitted also to remind his Lordship, that it is not
so many years since he himself was on a Committee formed for the
purpose of obtaining aid for the Vaudois Pastors. Now if, as his
Lordship here tells us, the administration of the Lord's Supper by
such persons is "a profane mockery," that its effects are obtainable "only" through an Episcopal ministry,* and that persons
* Christ " gave to His Church-celebrating it as he celebrated, but only so-and by
those whom He authorized, but ONLY by them [the meaning of which words the Bishop
has himself told us]-a holy sacrament which should be," &c. (P. 83.)




53
not Episcopally ordained "have no other title" to the ministry
"than their own presumption, or the presumption of men like
themselves, who have dared to affect to confer it on them,"
(p. 83,) and that "we see not any promise of a blessing" to such a
ministry (p. 87), then, surely, to be on the Committee of a Society
formed for the purpose of aiding such " profane mockery" and
" presumption," is an act for which it is difficult to account in one
who has such high views of Christian duty.  Certainly the claims
of charity can be no sufficient defence.  The only true charity
would have been, to have warned them of the fatal delusion under
which they were acting, and urged them, at the peril of their salvation and that of their flocks, to receive the imposition of Episcopal
hands; and to have withheld any aid until this was done.
Nay more; I would ask his Lordship, where we can find his indignant protests against the course pursued for so many years by
the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (of which his Lordship is ex-officio a leading governor) of sending out missionaries
not having Episcopal Orders? Such matters usually come before
the public. But I am unable to find that there was any movement, on the part of his Lordship, on the subject.  At any rate it
must have been one of very recent date.
Why, then, may I ask, was all his indignation in this matter
reserved for his present Metropolitan?
There is another point also which his Lordship will, I hope, permit me to bring under his attention.  He has, in various parts of
his present pamphlet, thrown out divers remarks about Calvinism
and Calvinists, as something quite inconsistent with the doctrine
of the Church of England. (See pp. 45, 46, &c.)
Let me remind him of the words in which a divine, whose authority he will respect, once rebuked a celebrated statesman for
speaking slightingly of " Calvinists":" To the peculiar tenets of that denomination of Christians, to which you
appear to allude, I am very far from subscribing; but thus much I will say,
that no man, who knows what they really are, will ever treat them with contempt.
You, Sir, do not appear to have yet risen above THE VULGAREST PREJUDICES on
this subject; else you would have known, that opinions which have commended
themselves to the full and firm conviction of SOME OF THE ABLEST, AS WELL AS
HOLIEST, MEN WHO HAVE EVER ADORNED OUR CH URCH, are not to be thus blown
down by'the whiff and wind' of the smartest piece of rhetoric ever discharged
in your honorable House."
Such were the terms in which the Rev. Dr. Phillpotts addressed
the Right Hon. George Canning in 1825, in his "Letter" to him
on the Roman Catholic Bill of that year. (Pp. 106, 107.) I may
fairly hope, then, that the Bishop of Exeter will remember this
indignant remonstrance of Dr. Phillpotts; and pause to reflect,
before he singles out for his reproaches, or again endeavors, as
he has of late been doing, to drive out of the Church those
whose only crime it is to hold the same views with " SOME OF THE
ABLEST, AS WELL AS HOLIEST, MEN WHO HAVE EVER ADORNED OUR
CHURCH."
There remains but one point more for notice in his Lordship's




54
"Letter;" and that is one which, among all the extraordinary
specimens we have lately had of his Lordship's qualifications for
the high post he has assumed to himself in our Church, is perhaps
entitled to the first place.  It occurs in the last page of his
"Letter."   Unfortunately for his Lordship, a piece of information was brought him which he calls a " particular of very great
moment in this discussion, with which I have only recently become
acquainted," namely, " the form of Ordination used among Calvinists."  And upon this the Bishop thus comments:" Our Church regards the Christian ministry as a commission from God
himself, and confers it in His name. Not so the'Reformed communities, so
far as I can find. In The Discipline of the Reformed Churches of France,''The Form of Ordination' is as follows:' That it may please God to vouchsafe grace unto this Elect Person, a short Prayer shall be conceived to this
purpose: " 0 Lord God, we beseech Thee to endow with the gifts and graces
of thy Holy Spirit this thy servant lawfully chosen according to that Order
established in thy Church, and abundantly to enrich him with all abilities
needful for his acceptable performance of the duties of his office to the glory
of Thy Holy name, the edification of Thy Church, and his own salvation,
whom we now dedicate and consecrate unto Thee by this our ministry."' Compare with this our own Ordinal:'Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and
work of a priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins, &c., in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' I stop not to discuss the causes of this
difference. It is enough to say, that they are ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT; that the
one professes to confer a commission from God in His name, whereas the
other simply' dedicates and consecrates unto God' the person ordained.
THE PLAIN CONSEQUENCE IS, THAT THERE CAN BE NO INJUSTICE IN DENYING
THAT THE LATTER HAS ANY COMMISSION FROM GOD; HIS OWN ORDINATION DOES
NOT PROFESS TO GIVE IT. "
Now it is difficult to know in what terms to speak of such a
passage as this.  Were it not for the tone and position assumed
by the writer, one might be inclined on several grounds to pass it
by with the slightest possible notice, and throw a veil over it. But,
under present circumstances, when his Lordship is misleading a
host of our younger clergy to the borders of Rome, and teaching
them to vilify the authorities of Church and State as ignorant or
incompetent persons for not adopting his views of orthodoxy, it is
absolutely necessary plainly to point attention to such proofs of
the nature of the guidance to which they are submitting; especially
as this "Letter" of his Lordship has received from his party the
highest encomiums as a most able and masterly performance.    Is
there no kind friend whom   his Lordship can consult, before he
thus commits himself in a way that brings reproach upon the
Church as well as himself?
Is his Lordship, then, really ignorant of the notorious fact that
nearly twelve centuries passed over the Church before those words,
"Receive the Holy Ghost," &c., were introduced into the Ordination Service? Does he really need to be informed, what was
the character of the early Ordination Services of the Church, and
that he has actually invalidated the ministry of the whole probably of the early Western Church, and left the ministry of the
Greek Church to this day in a rather dubious position?




55
I shall have a few remarks to make presently on the correctness
of his Lordship's statement as to what is done in the French
Church. But I will first deal with it precisely as it stands.
Now first, as to the use of the formula, " Receive the Holy
Ghost," &c., we have the authority of the learned Morinus, in
his standard treatise on the subject of Ordinations, that it was
unknown in the Church for twelve centuries.    He says:"Dispiciamus an illa postrema manus impositio, cum qua jungitur illa
formula,'Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, quorum remiseritis peccata,' &c., sit
formaliter vera et antiqua Sacerdotii forma, aut pars illius, quam Apostoli et
antiqui nobis tradiderunt..... Tota illa ceremonia, et secundum materiam, et
secundum formam, et secundum circumstantias, MILLE DUCENTIS ANNIS incognitafuit in Ecclesia Dei. Nulli rituales ante hoc tempus illius meminerunt,
licet copiosi sint, et singulos ritus pauci momenti sigillatim describant. Imo
nonnulli sunt eo tempore longe recentiores, et diffusi admodum, qui illam
prsetereunt." (Morin. De Ordin. Pt. 3, Exere. 7, c. 2, ed. 1695, p. 106.)
" Verba illa,'Accipe Spiritum Sanctum,' ab antiquis Latinis usurpata non
fuisse; et consequenter nec Ordinationis Presbyteralis, nec cujusvis alterius,
formam fuisse, praeter argumenta jam allegata, ex omnium ritualium et autorum antiquorum, qui de officiis ecclesiasticis scripserunt, profundo silentio
petita, demonstrant evidenter nonnulla alia qum hic subjicimus." (lb. c. 5,
p. 118.)
The same learned author maintains at large:"Solam manuum impositionem Presbyteratus esse materiam." "IIanc
solam omnis Ecclesia, Latina, Groeca, Barbara, semper agnovit. IIane solam
commemorant omnes antiqui Rituales, Latini, Graeci; omnes antiqui et recentiores Patres, Greci, Latini." (Ib. c. 1. pp. 102, 103.)
And he points to all the old Greek Rituals and Fathers as showing that in the ordination of a Presbyter nothing more was necessary
than imposition of hands and prayer.    He says: —
"Legantur et relegantur prnecedentes Grsecarum Ordinationum axoovuac,
seu rituales; legatur S. Clemens, Sanctus Dionysius, nihil aliud sedula
lectione deprehendes proeter manuum impositionem et orationem quod materise etformae rationem induere possit. Sed consideretur presertim S. Dionysius
qui ritus istos diligenter persequitur, mystice et tropologice multis verbis explicat; versentur et revolvantur ipsius verba, nihil aliud praeter manuum impositionem et orationem, aut si vis addere genuflexionem, tibi occurret, cui
substantiale aliquid possis affingere." (lb. c. 1, p. 104.)
And now let us see, from the words of some of the ancient Ordination Services of the Western Church, what sort of prayers they
were which, at that time, accompanied the imposition of hands.
The Bishop tells us, that the Service of the French Church, though
it has retained the imposition of hands, yet, by only praying for
spiritual gifts, and saying, " whom we now dedicate and consecrate
unto thee by this our ministry," is essentially defective, and the
party so ordained has no commission from God, and so, in his
Lordship's view, is not really ordained at all.
In the great work of Morinus on this subject, written in the
middle of the 17th century, are given some forms of Ordination
from various very ancient Rituals of the Western Church.       The
first is from  a MS. which was then eleven centuries old, which
carries us back to the middle of the sixth century, and appears to
have belonged to the Church of Poictiers.  I need hardly say, that




56
the laying on of hands, and offering up the prayers there given,
form the whole service. And now let us see what the prayers are.
The prayer "ad Presbyteros ordinandos " is this: "Exaudi nos
Deus salutaris noster, et super hunc famulum tuum benedictionem
Spiritus S. et gratiae sacerdotalis effunde virtutem, ut quem tuWe
pietatis suspectibus offerimus consecrandum, perpetua muneris tui
largitate persequaris. Per Dominum." Then follows the prayer
of" Consecration," which, after an opening in general terms, proceeds thus: " Da quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hoc famulo tuo
illo Presbyterii dignitatem: Innova in visceribus ejus Spiritum
sanctitatis," &c. Then comes the "Consummatio Presbyteri,"
which commences with the following exhortation to the people:
" Sit nobis fratres communis oratio, ut his [hic] qui in adjutorium
et utilitatem vestroe salutis eligetur, Presbyteratus benedictionem
divini indulgentia muneris consequatur, et S. Spiritus sacerdotalia
dona privilegio virtutum, ne impar loco deprehendatur obtineat per
suum.* Per." And then follows theprayer of "Benediction:" "Sanctificationum omnium autor, cujus vera consecratio, plena benedictio
est, Tu, Domine, super hunc famulum ill. quem Presbyterii honore
DEDICAMUS, manum tuae benedictionis in eum infunde, ut gravitate
actuum et censura vivendi probet se esse seniorem," &c. &c.
And I may just add, that the prayers at the ordination of a
deacon and the consecration of a bishop are of a similar kind, the
words in the prayer of Consecration for a deacon being, if possible,
a still more exact counterpart of those in the French Service —
" Super hunc famulum tuum qusesumus, Domine, placatus intende,
QUEM TUIS SACRIS SERVITURUM IN OFFICIUM DIACONI SUPPLICITER
DEDICAMUS."   (Morin. 1. c. Pt. 2, pp. 214, 215.)
Here, then, we find nothing beyond a dedication' of the person
to the office, and humble prayer for the gifts of the Spirit to fit him
for the right discharge of its duties. In a word, we have the precise
form of Ordination which the Bishop tells us is essentially defective.
The next Ordinal given by Morinus is from a MS. then nine
hundred years old, where the title to the Ordination Services is
" Ordo qualiter in Romana sedis Apostolicoe Ecclesia Presbyteri,
Diaconi vel Subdiaconi eligendi sunt." And here, again, the
prayers are, as far as our present subject is concerned, exactly of
the same kind, the same words indeed being used:' Quos tue
pietatis aspectibus offerimnus consecrandos" —" super hos famulos
tuos quos Presbyterii honore dedicamus, manum tuse benedictionis
his infunde." (Ib. p. 217.)
The next is from a MS. then eight hundred years old, in which is
given the "Ordo qualiter in Romana Ecclesia Diaconi et Presbyteri
ordinandi sunt;" in which the same prayers are found. (lb. p. 221.)
And these, in short, are followed by Ordination Services from
various other very ancient MSS. belonging originally to different
places in the Western Church, all of the same kind, and most of
them in precisely the same words on the point we are now con* These two words per suum are probably added by a misprint.




57
sidering. So that here we see the general form of Ordination that
prevailed for several centuries in the Western Church.
And the nature of these Services is in strict conformity with the
testimony of the early Fathers, both Greek and Latin, as to what
was considered necessary for Ordination, which they represent as
being imposition of hands and prayer.
Thus Theodoret, telling us of the ordination of a hermit performed by the bishop of a neighboring city, who sought him out
for the purpose, says that he entered the place where he was, and
"laid his hand upon him and offered the prayer, and spake much
to him," &c.*
And so Jerome says, that the ordination of the clergy is fulfilled, "not merely by the prayer of the voice over them, but by
the imposition of the hand."t
And, to cite no more, the Apostolical Constitutions (as they are
called) speak only of the imposition of hands and prayer in their
account of the form of ordination for a presbyter; and the prayer
of Consecration there given is merely a supplication to God for
his grace to fit the person ordained for the duties of his office.4
And in the Form given in these Constitutions for the appointment
of a bishop, there is not even imposition of hands; which is, it
should be observed, another testimony for the parity of Order in
bishops and presbyters. After the people and presbyters present
have been asked, whether they are satisfied with the person
elected, and have testified in his favor, one of three bishops
standing near the altar is to offer a prayer to God for a blessing
upon him, some deacons holding the Gospels open upon his head.
After the prayer, one of the bishops is to give him the eucharistic
elements (zrv Gvaiav), and the next morning he is enthroned by the
rest of the bishops, all of them kissing him; and after the reading
of certain portions of Holy Scripture, he gives the blessing, and
preaches to the people, and then follows the Communion Service.
(Constit. Apostol. lib. viii. cc. 4, et seq.)
In fact, his Lordship need not have gone farther than our own
Bingham to have discovered his error; who expressly says, and
quotes sufficient authorities to prove it, that "it is plain, the
ancient Form was only imposition of hands and a Consecrationprayer."   And having given the Consecration-prayer in the
Apostolical Constitutions, he says:"Where we may observe, that it was not then thought necessary to express
all or any of the offices of a presbyter in particular, but only in general to pray
for grace to be given to the priest then ordained, whereby he might be enabled to
perform them. And this, with a solemn imposition of hands, was reckoned a
sufficientform of consecration." (Antiq. bk. 2, c. 19, ] 17.)
The French Service, therefore, is more consonant with the
Forms of the earlier and purer period of the Church than our own.
* T)v XJ7Pxo gtreiXt, Xii T-ry EUXY   0r4sTfAXO -, IXi   Mo. v'P c i   piUTCVY at.  Theodoret.
Philotheus, seu Relig. Hist. c. 19, Op. Hal. 1771, tom. 3, p. 1232.
t Non solum ad imprecationem vocis, sed ad impositionem impletur manus. Hieron.
Comment. in Is. c. 58, v. 10, Op. ed. Vallars. tom. 4, col. 694, 695.
t Constit. Apostol. lib. viii. c. 16.




58
And now let me remind his Lordship of the consequences of the
doctrine he has thus propounded. He has shivered to atoms the
whole doctrine of the Apostolical Succession, for he has left the
whole Western Church without any Orders at all. He has not
left us even my poor "Low Church" notion on the subject. I did
think, we in the Church of England had something more to say
in favor of the regularity of our Orders than other recentlyconstituted Bodies, who have been driven by circumstances to
somewhat irregular courses; heartily as I repudiate the Tractarian doctrine of Apostolical Succession.  But his Lordship has
swept away even this.  He is, upon his own showing, equally
destitute of valid Orders with any of those whom he has so fiercely
attacked in his Letter for "profane mockery" and "presumption;" for his golden chain of legitimate succession, instead of
reaching to the Apostles, runs back only a third of the way. And
what is more, I am afraid there is no Church on earth that can
help him out of his dilemma. For the Greek form of Ordination,
even if it could be proved to have been uninterruptedly used, is
far from coming up to his standard. For the Bishop in the Greek
Church does not do more than recognize God's supposed call of the ordained person to the office of presbyter, and His use of the Ordainer's
ministry for the external consecration of such person to that office.
The Greek Bishop, on laying his hand upon the head of the
person to be ordained a presbyter, says: "The Divine grace,
which healeth that which is weak, and supplieth the wants of that
which is defective, promoteth this most pious deacon to be a presbyter. Let us therefore pray over him, that the grace of the
most Holy Spirit may come upon him." And in the Prayer occur
these words-"to whom Thou hast vouchsafed that he should be
promoted by me." (ov nv0xoaca5 tponpXsc0vic,rap', EoV.)
And the Form for consecrating a Bishop is of a similar kind.
And in the prayer at the Ordination of a deacon, any power or
commission in the Ordainer to communicate grace by the imposition
of his hands is distinctly repudiated, for it is said: " Fill him with
all faith and love, &c., for not by the imposition of my hands, but
by the superintending agency of thy rich mercies (Ev! Eicxoj fv
rovbwv sov olx-ftpCzv) is grace given to those worthy of thee."
I take this from the last edition of the'ApXspatx6ov (printed at
the Patriarchal press at Constantinople in 1820 for the use of the
Greek Bishops), which I obtained direct from Constantinople.
This, no doubt, the Bishop will think much better than such a
Form as that he has referred to, or the old Services of the Western
Church; and as the validity of his own Orders stands self-condemned, he may like to avail himself of the superior privileges of
the Greek Church, to which certainly there can be no objection.
It will be but reasonable.
But before I dismiss this subject, I must add one word as to
the correctness of the Bishop's statement with relation to the
French Church. He complains that the French Church does not
profess to confer a commission from God in his name. Now if his




59
Lordship had looked only to the page previous to that from which
he has quoted, he would have found that Canon 5 directs, that
" the Assembly remonstrating to him [the person to be ordained]
the duty of that office whereunto he is called, shall farther declare
that power which is GIVEN HIM IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST,
to minister both in the Word and Sacraments."*
And farther, it would have been well, if his Lordship had recollected, that the original of the Canon he was quoting was in French,
and therefore that before he made it the subject of such a serious
charge against the whole Reformed French Church, it would have
been wise to have ascertained how it stood in the original.
The words in the original are not " whom we now dedicate and consecrate unto Thee by this our ministry," but, "who is now dedicated
and consecrated by our ministry" (est maintenant dddie et consacrd
par notre minist6re);t which is very similar to the Greek Form.
Such, then, is the character of his Lordship's censure upon the
Form of Ordination in the French Reformed Church.   He is evidently totally unacquainted with the Ordination-Services of the
Primitive Church for many centuries; he assumes the indispensable
necessity of the particular Form that happens to occur in our own
Service, which was not introduced till the 12th century, and
he flings his random reproaches at other Churches in a way that
makes them so recoil upon himself and his own Church as to
deprive both of any valid Orders.
It is, however, it must be confessed, nothing more than what
might be expected as the consequence of that deeply-rooted evil
from which our Church is, and has long been, suffering. Church,
State, and Universities long combined to treat all such knowledge
as of no more value than an old almanac. And the result has
been, as might be expected, the present state of profound, chaotic,
and hopeless confusion in our Church.
But his Lordship has one more charge to bring against the
French Reformed Church.   He says:" In conformity with these different views of the nature of the Christian
ministry, is the view taken of the indelibility of Holy Orders. We regard
them as simply indelible; even degradation, though it disables the party from
exercising any ministry, does not erase the character. Not so the'Reformed'whose Xlth Canon is,' Such as are chosen unto the ministry of the Gospel must
know, that they be in that office for term of life; unless they be discharged
upon good and certain considerations, and that by the Provincial Synod.'"
Now, in the first place, this Canon does not touch the question
of the indelibility of the character imparted by Holy Orders, for
it does not state in what condition the person is who is discharged
from the ministry. And in all Churches there is a power in the
Church to take away the "office" of minister in that Church on
good and sufficient grounds. And if his Lordship means to intimate, that the person thus discharged would so have lost his
Orders in the French Church by this discharge, that if at any
* Quick's Synodicon, vol. i. p. xvii.
t Conformit6 de la Discipline Ecclesiastique des Protestans de France, &c. 1678,
4to. By M. Larroque, whose name is appended to the Dedicatory Epistle.




60
subsequent time he was found fit and competent to fulfil the
duties of the office, he would have to be reordained, the 53d
French Canon shows his mistake; for it enacts, that "ministers
deposed" "for slighter faults, upon confession of them, they may be
restored by the Provincial Synod, but with this condition, to serve in
another Province, and not in their own." (Quick, Synod. i. xxvi.)
And as to the Bishop's statement of the doctrine of our Church
on the subject, I shall merely place by the side of it the following
remarks of our learned Ecclesiastical antiquary Bingham.
"The full import of the phrase, and the adequate notion of reducing a
clergyman to lay-communion, is totally degrading and depriving him of his
Orders; that is, the power and authority of his clerical office and function,
and reducing him to the state and quality and simple condition of a layman....... This supposes a power in the Church, not only of conferring Clerical
Orders at first to men, and promoting them from laymen to be bishops, or
presbyters, or deacons; but also a power of recalling these offices, and divesting
them of all power and authority belonging to them, by degrading clergymen
upon just reasons, and reducing them to the state and quality of laymen
again. This is undoubtedly the true meaning of all those ancient canons and
writers, which speak so often of degrading clergymen for their offences, and
allowing them only to communicate in the quality of laymen. Hereby they
were deprived of their order and office, and power and authority, and even
the name and title of clergymen; and reputed and treated as private Christians, wholly divested of all their former dignity, and clerical powers and privileges, and reduced entirely to the state and condition of laymen."  " The
plain result of this discourse is, that reducing a clergyman to the communion
of laymen was a total deprivation and divesting him of his office and Orders.
So that if he now pretended to act as a minister, his actions were reputed null
and void, and as no other than the actions of a layman. The learned Dr.
Forbes has rightly observed this (Iren. lib. 2. c. 11) in the ancient discipline, and I cannot better express it than in his words:' Ie that is
deposed with a plenary and perfect deposition, cannot now validly exercise
the offices that belong to his order, because he wants his order and the power
of his order. He is now nothing but a mere layman, and in so much a
worse condition than other laymen, because the restitution of such an one to
his office is a much more difficult thing than the promotion of other laymen."'
"It may perhaps be said, there was still an inherent power and authority
in such deposed clerks, and that their deposition did not totally annul their
ordinations: for they still retained the indelible character of their respective
Orders; and therefore they might be ministers still, and their ministerial
actions stand good and authentic, notwithstanding any power and authority
in the Church to depose and degrade them. But as this is NEXT TO A CONTRADICTION IN ITSELF, that a man should be deposed from his order and yet
retain his order still, with all the spiritual power belonging to it; so it implies such a notion of that which is commonly called the indelible character
of ordination, as no ancient writer ever thought of. For the notion that the
ancients had of the indelible character of ordination, was no more than they had
of the indelible character of baptism; that as the outward form of baptism,
washing or immersion in water, though but a transient act, served forever
to distinguish a Christian from a mere heathen or Jew; so as that, though
he apostatized from the Christian faith into Judaism or Gentilism, he should
still retain so much of the Christian character, as, upon his conversion and
return to the faith, not to need a second baptism; in like manner the outward form of ordination, which is imposition of hands designing a man to
any clerical office, though it be but a transient act, was sufficient to distinguish such an one from a mere layman, who never had any such ceremony
of Ordination; so that by this mark or character of his office once received,
though he should afterward forfeit his office and all the power and honor
belonging to it, he would always remain distinguished in some measure from




61
those who never had such an office; and though he should be wholly divested
of his office and power, and reduced to the simple capacity and condition of
a layman, yet so much of the marks and footsteps of his former office would
remain upon him, as that if he should be recalled again to his office, though
he might need a new commission, he would not need this outward character or
ceremony of a new ordination. There is no one [who] has explained or illustrated the sense of the ancients upon this point with more accuracy than the
learned Dr. Forbes: and therefore, for farther confirmation, I shall here
transcribe his words:'There remains (says he) some distinguishing character in a man that is deposed, by which he is distinguished from other
laymen; but to make this distinction, it is not necessary there should be any
form impressed, but a transient act, that is long ago past, is sufficient, viz.,
that he was once a person ordained. The character that remains in a deposed person, is not the character of any present office or power, but only some
footstep or mark of an honor that is past, and of a power that he once had;
by which footstep he is distinguished from other laymen, who never were
ordained; and may, after a sufficient penance performed, if he be found fit,
and the advantage of the Church so require, be restored again without a
new Ordination."' (Antiq. bk. xvii. c. 2, {{ 3-5. Works, vol. 6, pp. 350-354,
ed. 1844.)
It is unnecessary to say, that there is nothing in the Canons of
the French Church opposed to this, and that it leaves the doctrine
which the Bishop seems desirous of inculcating entirely destitute
of foundation.
One word in conclusion. If this matter were a mere theoretical
question, or one of little practical import, I should not have
thought it worth the space I have here devoted to it. But it is
not so.  The circumstances of the times demand more than ever
the cordial intercommunion and mutual good-will of all who hold
the true faith. Romanism is making a last effort to regain her
lost dominion and reassume her empire over the nations of the
earth. Her emissaries are everywhere, especially in the strongholds of Protestantism; spreading around us those corrupt principles by which she hopes to ensnare the unwary, and gradually
draw them into her toils. Infidelity, as ever, is making the best use
of the dissensions prevailing among the followers of Christ to cast
reproach upon the Christian faith. How are these foes to be met?
We have been recently told, and told even from a quarter where
such language is all but incomprehensible-our own Episcopal
Bench-that the latter especially is to be met, and can only be
successfully met, by urging upon our people the "authority of our
Church," and that the Episcopal Church, throughout Christendom,
is so completely the exclusive channel of all Divine grace to men,
that all we can hope for other communions is, that it " may overflow its channels for their benefit."* To show the total opposition
of such sentiments to the principles of our Reformers, would be a
work of supererogation; nor is this the place for it. But I point
attention to these statements as showing how deeply the poison
has entered into the very soul of our Church, and is rankling in
her heart's core.
These are the principles from which Popery took its rise. The substitution of the authority of the Church for the supremacy of Holy
Scripture is the foundation-stone of Popery. Take it away, and
* See the Bishop of Oxford's recent Charge, pp. 38-42, and 81, et seq.




62
the whole system crumbles to atoms. The authority of the Church
is another phrase for the authority of the Apostolically-descended
priesthood. The supremacy of this priesthood involves the committal into their hands of the interpretation of Holy Scripture and
unlimited power over the consciences of mankind. And thus there
arises a vast body of men, endowed since the fourth century with
large possessions, to whose care religion is intrusted, upon whom
mankind are to depend for a knowledge of the faith, and whose
spiritual directions they are to follow at the peril of their salvation.
Worldly-minded and ambitious men crowd into it to partake of its
wealth and honors. Satan's emissaries make their way into its
ranks in order to corrupt the true faith. Will "the grace of the
Apostolical succession" keep such men out? or convert them when
in? Facts prove the contrary. What reason have we to expect
that even the majority of such a priesthood will remain true to
the pure faith of Christ?  None. Much for a contrary expectation. And if they do not, what becomes of the faith of Christ?
It is distorted by perverse interpretations of Holy Writ, overlaid
with errors, and immersed in an ocean of corrupt rites and practices. The power of the priest being the corner-stone on which
the system rests, the main object is to provide for its support.
He becomes, therefore, all in all. He converts the feast of the
commemoration of Christ's sacrifice into a real sacrifice, in which
he is exhibited as possessing a superhuman power of changing the
bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ, and then
offering them up again to the Father as the sinner's advocate. He
claims a power even in the other world, of releasing from the
pains of hell the soul of the sinner. He secures the salvation of
all who will obey his directions. He is not, he will confess, divine;
but divine power has been confided to him.
And how does the world receive all this? The priesthood find
a large proportion of mankind prepared to admit every superstition
and everyperversion of the true faith, everything, in short, but real
religion; the willing captives of a religion adapted to please the
senses of human nature. And when universal dominion is thus
placed in their hands, what reason is there to suppose they will
not grasp it? They might be the envy of a Caesar or an Alexander.
For their prize is unbounded empire over the souls as well as bodies
of mankind. Who can wonder, that a priesthood thus gifted should
swell out into gigantic proportions, and that as its numbers and influence increase, its corruptions of the true faith increase in a proportionate ratio; that its pretensions and its errors go on multiplying with its years, until they reach the climax at which the
measure of their iniquities is filled up, and the Divine forbearance
reaches its limit! It soon becomes far too potent for any earthly
power to cope with; its roots are spread throughout all lands, and
itsboughs extend tothe endsof the earth; it is a vast upas tree, under
whose poisonous influence the world must remain until the hour-and
it is a promised hour-when it " shall be consumed with the spirit
of His mouth, and destroyed with the brightness of His coming."
Such are the natural and necessary effects of setting up the




63
authority of man in the place of that of God, man's teaching in
the room of God's word. And if ever this principle regains its
lost dominion in our Church, her relapse into Popery will speedily
follow. In fact, her allowance of such a principle involves in itself
her self-condemnation; for her doctrines are held by a very small
minority of the apostolically-descended priesthood.
How, then, are we to meet the wiles of Popery, the assaults of
Infidelity? By the united efforts of all who "hold the Head."
They who hold the true faith, and have been admitted by baptism
among the followers of Christ, and are living as such, are undoubtedly members of His body. And ubi tres, ibi ecclesia, licet
laici, said a Father of the second century. " Where two or three
are gathered together in My name," said our blessed Lord, " there
am I in the midst of them to bless them." And those to whom He
s joined are beyond all doubt members of His Church.
True; He who is the God of order, and not of confusion, no
doubt looks with disapprobation upon all unnecessary schisms and
divisions in His Church, and therefore, doubtless, there are communities whom, though we recognize as brethren and as partakers of
the Divine blessing in their labors, we believe to be involved in the
sin of unnecessarily dividing the Christian Church, and whose encouragement of strife and disorder among the followers of Christ
we cannot aid in promoting; and still less give up our own Apostolical rule of government for theirs. But we see with thankfulness the Divine blessing resting upon their labors, we own them
as brethren, and we say to any objector: "Enviest thou for our
sakes? Would God that all the Lord's people were prophets."
Nay, though circumstances necessarily prevent intercommunion
in ministerial offices, there may still be somewhat of united effort
in the cause of God. Nor must it be forgotten, that our Church
may have given, in various ways, too much ground for such secessions from her communion.
To the Protestant Churches of other lands no such objection
attaches. Alas! that the claims of those Churches upon the
countenance and support of the more favored Church of England
have been so little regarded! How different might have been
their present state, if our Church, true to her first principles, had
held fraternal communion with them, counselling them as a friend,
and throwing the shield of British protection over them when in
adversity from the enmity of the bitter foes by which they have
been from the first encompassed. But they have been left almost
without a helping hand from us. And, so far as Europe is concerned, our efforts for the cause of the Reformed faith, which
through the power and influence God has given us might have
been spread throughout the whole Continent, have been confined
to our own little Island; and even there in so imperfect a manner
as to have left a large portion of our population destitute of even
the ordinary means of grace.
What has been the result? Popery and Infidelity are lifting
their heads, and advancing with rapid strides. The cause of the
true Reformed faith on the Continent is at the lowest ebb, and in




64
the last stage of weakness and exhaustion. Popery already seems
to see the reward of its long and persevering and insidious labors
almost within its grasp.
How, then, is this state of things to Jbe met? If we take the
advice of the new school that have risen up ambng us, we are to
wrap ourselves up in the dignity of an Apostolically-descended
Episcopate, and repudiate all intercourse with any but those who
can advance the same claim to the title of a Church. That
is, we are to cast off all the Protestant Bodies that have not
retained our form of church government, as having no part or lot in
the Church of Christ, as Bodies not entitled to our fraternal regard.
Is it too much to hope, that the earnest response of our Church
will be, We have not so learned Christ! that it will rise to the
exigencies of the present crisis, and, casting off the trammels with
which the agents of Popery among us would fain fetter its energies, will make common cause with all the genuine disciples of the
true faith; that no Diotrephes "loving to have the pre-eminence,"
who " doth not himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them
that would, and casteth them out of the Church," will be suffered to
stand in the way of that true Catholic communion which ought to
exist among " all those that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity."  Grave as *ere the charges laid against some of the Seven
Churches of Asia in the Apocalyptic Epistles to them, we'find
them still numbered, with all their imperfections, among the
Churches of Christ. And shall we suppose, that a diversity in the
form of government adopted is a greater sin than a corrupt state
of faith and practice?
Let our Church, then, gird herself to the conflict by rallying
round her all the adherents of the genuine Reformed faith, and
plant her standard with an unwavering hand on the rock of God's
word. Her ancient banner, the undivided supremacy of the Holy
Scriptures, must be again unfurled; and under it the contest
must be waged. It may be too late to do much that might have
been done at former periods. But there is still the opportunity
left to make an effort for the cause of Protestant truth in Europe
against the dangers by which it is encompassed.
Our country has much to answer for in the encouragement,
direct and indirect, given by her to Popery both here and elsewhere. And she is now reaping the fruits of her suicidal policy,
and beginning to feel the pressure of the iron yoke of Papal
tyranny. May she be wise in time; and learn the value of that
Protestant faith to which, under God, she owes so many blessings!
May she exert the influence which God has given her, for the protection of that faith throughout the world! The power that is used
in the cause of God will receive a blessing that will react upon her
own welfare. And above all, may she jealously guard that sacred
deposit of truth committed by God's mercy to her own keeping; and
never suffer the blood-bought inheritance of freedom from spiritual slavery, bequeathed to her by her "noble army of martyrs," to
be snatched from her, either by treachery within, or open aggression
from without.