POTTER Pastoral Letter c to the Clergy of the Diocese of BX 5837 P6 PASTORAL LETTER RT. REV. H. POTTER, D.D, D.C.L, THE REPLIES The Rev. S. H. TYNG-, D.T)., K- H. CjAJSniGIliD, I3.D., COTTON SIVLITU, 33.U K D.ID. JOHN A. GRAY & <;RKKX, PIMNTKHS, ic, o," in such a sense as to abolish our constitution and written law, and lodge all power in the irresponsible will of the Bishop. In the hands of our present Diocesan, it might never be injudiciously exercised, but the principle involved in it is the essence of despot- ism. The document itself is thus, not only unauthorized by any law of our Church, but in it, the Bishop virtually assumes to exercise judicial and other powers, which our standards of discipline do nor confer upon him, while it avowedly confesses to a plain disre- gard of the most obvious directions of our Canons on the part of its author. 6 Let us now turn to the Pastoral itself. Its title-page, and the signature at the end of the letter, are singular, and, in their rela- tions, highly significant. I should have been disposed to regard them as elliptical, and put in their apparently general and vague form for the sake of brevity, were it not for their peculiar and striking harmony with the doctrine of the Letter itself, with the manner in which terms are employed throughout the document, and with the extravagant and exclusive claims of the narrow party it represents. It is addressed : " To the Clergy of the Diocese of New- York." Who are they ? " The Diocese of New-York " has certain terri- torial boundaries. " The Clergy " within its limits are here desig- nated. Are Presbyterian and other Protestant clergymen in- cluded ? Or if their recognition, as clergymen, is out of the ques- tion, is the letter addressed to the Romish clergy ? There is nothing on the title-page to forbid this interpretation, or to indi- cate that it was designed for any particular branch of the house- hold of faith. When we examine it more closely, to learn from whom it emanates, our information is no more exact in regard to its authorship, than in respect to the parties for whom it was writ- ten. We are simply told that it is " from the Bishop." We are still in the dark. Several persons in the Diocese of New- York claim to be Bishops. We supposed there was one who claimed to be " the Bishop," but he is accustomed to prefix to his signa- ture " f," as his distinguishing mark. What Bishop has issued this letter ? As it is addressed " To the Clergy of the Diocese of New- York," the inference is natural that the author of the letter is " the Bishop " of the Diocese of New- York. We turn to the signature, and there learn that his title is " Bishop of New- York." This, if possible, is broader and less definite than the title-page. The name, to those who are well instructed in ecclesiastical mat- ters, discloses a circumstance, which one ignorant of the facts would be puzzled to infer from the titles used, that he who as- sumes to be the " Bishop of New-York," is only " the Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of New- York." This is his proper legal title. From the name of the author, we conclude that the Pastoral " To the Clergy of the Diocese of New- York " is meant for the clergy of that particular branch of the Church over which he canonically presides, and that it should have been addressed : " To the Clergy of the Protestant Episco- pal Church in the Diocese of New- York." This is by no means mere verbal or captious criticism. We should be disposed to re- gard this singular omission to designate his own clergy in the ad- dress, and to indicate properly his own office in the signature, as an oversight, if the same exclusive and inclusive assumptions did not characterize the entire paper. The obstinate pertinacity, or the uniformity and the blindness with which this is done are remark- able. It certainly has the merit of consistency with itself, if not with the standards of worship and discipline from which it makes quotations. There is, throughout the letter, a systematic refusal to apply the word Church to any non-Episcopal denomination of Christians, while the Protestant Episcopal Church is called " the Church." In the Prayer-Book and the Canons it is always desig- nated as " this Church," or the full legal title is given. In the letter before us, the words " this Church " are employed nine times in the Canons that are cited, and twice in the preface to the ordinal which is quoted in full. The'' term " the Church " is not found in either, and yet the Bishop persistently uses the term " the Church," repeating it thirty-four times in immediate connec- tion with these citations, to signify that which our standards with equal persistency call " this Church." It is hardly conceivable that this should be undesigned. Take the following illustration. Immediately after quoting from the Prayer-Book " To the intent that these orders may be continued, and reverently used and es- teemed in this Church, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in this Church," etc. the letter says : "Then the Church proceeds, according to that declaration, to enact, in her very first Canon, that, ' in this Church, there fthall always be three orders in the ministry.' " Our Church is espe- cially favored, on this hypothesis, in having the Church to legislate for her. It would hardly be respectful to the Bishop to suppose that he believed the terms synonymous and interchangeable. He must know that a part of a thing is not the whole of it, and that the language of our standards plainly proves that the Protestant Episcopal Church does not claim to be the Church, but a Church one of the many churches of Christendom, which, in the ag- gregate, constitute the Church visible. Any schoolboy knows that the distinction between the term used by the Bishop and that employed by our Church is plain and broad ; and all who are well informed in regard to the recent Ox- ford controversy, know that it is not only important but funda- mental. There is nothing new in all this. This misuse and per- version of titles and terms, is characteristic of that party, which scrupulously ignores and denies the orders and church status of all 8 Christian bodies, except such as have an episcopally constituted and derived ministry. It pervades the literature of this school. The Prayer-Book calls them churches, they say dissenters or the sects, or, "non-Epis- copal bodies ;" the Prayer-Book says table, they say altar ; the Prayer-Book says this Church, they say the Church ; the law says, "the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of New- York;" our Diocesan writes, " Bishop of New- York." Words are things. They are used in the Pastoral Letter with discrimination and care. I have not given undue importance to that which might appear, to a superficial observer, a tuning matter. These " non-Episcopal bodies " may hold the faith in every essential point of doctrine ; the graces and fruits of the Spirit may be clearly and powerfully illustrated in the lives of their members ; their ministry may be eminent for its holiness, and its success in the conversion ef sin- ners, and in the edification of the Christian ; they may preach " the pure word of God " and minister " the sacraments according to Christ's ordinance in all those things which of necessity are requisite to the same," but, because they lack a certain ecclesiasti- cal pedigree, of which their own standards say nothing a pedi- gree running through all the darkness, corruptions, and idolatries of the middle ages, through the convulsions and decay of the Ro- man Empire, back to the Apostles they are not entitled to be called a Church, they have no claim to the promises of the Gos- pel, and no interest in the covenant of grace. On the other hand, an " episcopal body," may " err in their living, manner of ceremonies, and in matters of faith ; vainly in- vent doctrines repugnant to the Word of God," introduce " idol- atries, superstitions, blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits," and yet find a full atonement for all, in the fact that its ministry is, or claims to be, in a certain line of outward succession. Its covenant with life and peace is unbroken, because, forsooth, pa- ganized priests who teach these heresies, and outrage the adorable Trinity by their idolatries, their monstrous usurpations of Divine prerogatives, and their prohibited oblations, claim to be lineally descended from the Apostles. This is the logic of the Pastoral Letter. It is painful, and to me a sore humiliation, to find the chosen head of our Church, whom I have always respected and loved, not only identifying himself with the views of such a party, but seeking to force their apparent indorsement upon all his clergy. We shall find the preceding observations fully sustained by a careful examination of the statements and inferences of the Letter, 9 and by a comparison of them with the language of our standards and the history of our Church. Before proceeding to this exami- nation, the introductory observations of the Pastoral call for a passing remark. Although the letter is issued on the hypothesis that its strictures are applicable to " but few among a large num- ber of our clergymen in the Diocese," I suspect that if their his- tory was known, " many " would be found wanting when weighed in such a balance, and " but few " discovered who would precisely fit the Procrustean bed here provided for them. However this may be, there are, doubtless, "a few clergymen in the Diocese who are conscious to themselves that there has been something in their official proceedings which may have had some influence in suggesting these present observations," although they are not able to perceive " their propriety, and even necessity." As these few men are not only Christian gentlemen, some of them of long experience and wide reputation, but also personal friends of the Bishop, who were instrumental in placing him in his present po- sition, and have stood firmly in his defence when others caballed and intrigued to oppose him, it certainly would have been singu- lar, to say the least, if he had failed in " personal kindness and manifestation of personal respect and regard toward them." Any thing less than this, toward any of his clergy, would have been unbecoming his high position and sacred relations. The fact that " his administration of the Diocese had not been marked by any disposition, on his part, to impose needless re- straints upon the official conduct of the clergy, or to interfere in any way, without necessity, with their freedom of action," height- ened, each year, their regard for and confidence in him as a ruler, and their respect and affection for him as a Christian man. It is because he here " steps forth in an unusual " and uncanonical way, not only to make a striking exception to this wise rule which he has observed for a decade of years, but to set forth " the disci- pline of Christ as the Lord hath " not " commanded," and as this Church has not " received the same," that many " yield with re- luctance to the sense of duty which impels them," for the first time, to take a position antagonistic to their Diocesan. " Upon a candid and serious review of their obligations and duties," they are unable to " change their view of what is right for them to do as Ministers of this Church." They are as honestly desirous as any can be to " throw the influence of their judgment and example upon the side of order and unity in their own fold," but they can not consent, for the sake of securing a constrained outward uni- 10 formity, to sacrifice what they regard as vital principles, and put a yoke upon themselves and their brethren which our Church has never imposed, which they never assumed, and which few would be willing or able to bear. The Pastoral Letter proceeds, after the introduction thus re- ferred to, to present " some of the principles and laws of the (our ?) Church ;" citing, first, the declaration subscribed before ordina- tion : 1. "I do believe the Holy Scriptures to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation : and I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrines and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States." The Letter next quotes from the ordination service the folio wins:: O 2. " Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to min- ister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God ; so that you may teach the people committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same ?" Answer. " I will do so, by the help of the Lord." It would seem almost incredible, that, without inquiry, author- ity, or proof, a Bishop would publicly and officially charge a num- ber of his clergy with a disregard and violation of these solemn engagements and vows. This is the natural inference of the pub- lic. While there is no hint elsewhere, in the Letter, that this was not designed, there is much to confirm this inference. 3. Then follows : " Let us now see what are the Doctrines, Dis- cipline, and Worship of this Church." One would naturally expect a learned divine to turn first to the Creeds and Articles in quest of the doctrines, to the Rubrics and Canons for the Discipline, and to the various Offices of devo- tion for the Worship of our Church. There are points of contact and relationship, it is true, in which these sources of authority are sometimes intermingled and conjoined. The Creeds and Articles, in a general way cover and embrace all the principles that are more particularly evolved and illustrated in the Offices, Rubrics, and Canons. The Offices incidentally teach' doctrines, and the Rubrics and Canons in the same way, often confirm or illustrate the principles that are set forth in the Articles, Creeds, and Offices. But to ascertain and settle definitely the Doctrines of our Church, we go first to the Creeds and Articles. For this purpose, their statements are supreme. These, however, are entirely overlooked 11 by the Bishop, who is in quest of our Doctrine in regard to what constitutes the visible Church, and also ministerial authority in that body. The principles involved in the answer to these inquir- ies are obviously all that he is here contending for. This is plainly seen in his distinction between the Presbyterian and the Greek churches, and his treatment of each. He has a theory in regard to both these questions, which makes a certain outward organization " the Church," and a ministry episcopally constituted and derived, its only lawful ministry. He here sets it forth, both positively in regard to our own and the Greek Church, and negatively in re- gard to " non-episcopal bodies," and claims that our Worship and ^Discipline were designed to teach this exclusive theory, for con- fessedly it is not found in the Creeds or Articles. The Apostles' Creed sets forth, as an article of faith, " the holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints," and the Nicene Creed, " one Catholic and Apostolic Church ;" but, as non-Episco- palians believe them as unreservedly as we do, and as the Bishop is in search of points of difference between us, which will " erect an effectual barrier between " us and them, he naturally passes this by, as containing nothing to his purpose. He treats the Ar- ticles in the same way, doubtless for the same reason, although they have formally set forth our doctrines on this subject, in the same language, for three hundred years. The Nineteenth Article defines " the visible Church " in these words : " The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacra- ments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. " As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Home hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith." (How unlike some of our modern definitions !) No natural and honest interpretation can find a feature in it which is wanting in any of the orthodox non-Episcopal churches. They accept it as their description of the visible Church, and no one denies their full conformity to all the definition requires. It emanated from, and was designed to represent no narrow sectarian views. It is as Catholic as the Creeds, as liberal as the spirit of the New Testament. What is the plain, natural, grammatical sense of this language ? We search in vain for the slightest allusion to Episcopacy, or any 12 particular form of outward government. Standing by itself, no human ingenuity could pervert or torture it into an indorsement of the exclusive validity of Episcopal orders ; much less could it be compelled, by any possible construction, to teach such a doc- trine. Even if it were as historically true, as it is historically false, that the framers of this Article held this narrow theory, in the way of private opinion ; no honest and unprejudiced mind can fail to perceive that they did not venture to set it forth as the doctrine of the Church of England. That must present a defini- tion which is scriptural, comprehensive, and catholic. The Article, accordingly, is as faithful a description of most of the orthodox " non-Episcopal bodies," as it is of own Church. Every part and parcel of the definition applies to them as well as to us. Nothing is more " evident " to any one acquainted with the history of the Reformation and the views of the Reformers, than that their individual opinions were as liberal as the standards they established. If any deny this, it is worse than useless ; it is a foolish waste of time to argue with them. They would deny any historical fact which did not happen to suit their purpose. The language of the Article teaches, what its framers believed, what they acted upon, and what they designed to impose upon the conscience of every man who, " with all the solemnities of an oath," promises " so to minister the doctrine of Christ as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same." Wherever a minister of this Church finds a society of Christian people, acknowledging Christ as their common Lord, professing the true faith, officered by a ministry which they recognize, and incorporated under the due administration of the sacraments, there he is bound, by his ordination vows, to recognize a true Church. These " non-episcopal bodies " believe in the creeds, and even in the doctrines taught in the Thirty-nine Articles, as honestly and firmly as they are held by our own people and clergy. They have a ministry which preaches what we must admit to be the true faith, if we hold it ourselves ; and also which is compe- tent to the due administration of the sacraments, unless we deny that many of our bishops and clergy, and a large portion of our laity, have ever been baptized. Next to preaching the Gospel, baptism is the highest official and ministerial act known to the visible Church. It is administered once for all. It was enjoined upon his Apostles by our Lord as an essential and distinguishing part of their ministerial work ; it is laid down repeatedly as of universal and perpetual obligation; it constitutes its recipients 13 members of the visible fold of Christ, and guarantees to them all the privileges and advantages of that relation, whatever they may be. It is nowhere declared in Scripture or in our standards, that it can be administered by any but a lawful minister of the visible Church. It lies at the very foundation of the visibility of the Church. The ministerial authority which is valid for the admin- istration of this ordinance, is certainly as valid for that of the Lord's Supper, which is a memorial service that is often repeated, and, compared with the former, is much less prominent in the New Testament, which nowhere prescribes the presence of a lawful ministry in its celebration. There might, with good reason, be doubts, in some minds, and they have existed in many, whether according to this Article, the Eastern Church and that of Rome were properly entitled to be called churches ; but it leaves the ministers of the Protestant Episcopal Church no ground for hesitation or option in regard to the church status of those "non-Episcopal bodies," which our Prayer-Book expressly calls churches ; which Hooker speaks of as those " churches which have not the government that is by Bish- ops ; which defect," he adds, " I had much rather lament than ex- agitate." The Twenty-third Article is even more directly to the point before us, although each, by necessary inference, involves the other. This, let it be remembered, authoritatively sets forth what every minister, " with much solemnity," professes to believe and promises to teach, in regard to the very question which un- derlies and is the foundation of the Pastoral Letter. Having ascertained our doctrine in regard to the essential ele- ments of the visible Church, let us see what our Church teaches as necessary to constitute ministerial authority in that body. This is found in her Twenty-third Article, " Of Ministering in the Con- gregation." " It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the sacraments in the congrega- tion, 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." We find here no allusion to a succession in the ministry, and no hint of its episcopal derivation. Comment upon it can hardly make it more obvious than the language as it stands. The truth is as plain on its face, as in contemporaneous history, that this Article is carefully worded so as to acknowledge the validity of the ministry of the Scottish and foreign non-episcopal churches. Archbishop Bancroft has been accused of inventing the exclu> sive theory, to which the frainers of our Articles seem to have been strangers ; but this seems hardly consistent with the fact, that in 1607, Thomas Rogers, his chaplain, published an Exposi- tion of the Articles, with this title : " The Faith, Doctrine, and Religion, etc., expressed in Thirty-nine Articles, etc. ; 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. This was " perused, and by the lawful authority of the Church of England allowed to be public," and all the parishes in the province of the Archbishop were ordered by him to provide it for their use. He finds in this Article the following propositions : " 1. None publicly may preach but such as thereunto are au- thorized. 2. They must not be silent who,' by office, are bound to preach. 3. The sacraments may not be administered in the con- gregation 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 min- isters. 6. Before ministers are to be ordained, they are to be chosen and called." He then shows that all of the foreign reformed non-episcopal Churches maintain the truth of all these propositions in their standards of doctrine and discipline. This not only confirms the natural sense of the Articles, but proves how the authorities of the Church of England regarded them. Bishop Burnet, who stands about midway in the history of the Church of England, be- tween the time of Bancroft and the present, prepared an exposi- tion of the Thirty-nine Articles, which was carefully read and highly approved by three Archbishops, several learned Bishops, and " a great many learned divines of the Church of England," before it was published. This is the only work on the Thirty-nine Articles which is set forth to be studied by candidates for the ministry in the " course of ecclesiastical studies, established by the House of Bishops in the Convention of 1804, in pursuance of a resolution of the pre- ceding General Convention." It has the same authoritative in- dorsement to the present time. Commenting on the Article before us, the right reverend author says : 15 " 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 con- veniently go, where they may worship God purely and in a regu- lar way if, I say, such a body, finding some that have been or- dained, 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 regu- lated constitution, . . . when this grows to a constitution, and when it was begun by the consent of a body, who are sup- posed to have an authority in such an extraordinary case, what- ever some hotter spirits have thought of this since that time, yet ice are very sure, that not only those who penned the Articles, but the body of this Church for above half an age after, did, notwithstand- ing those irregularities, acknowledge the foreign churches, so consti- tuted, to be true churches as to all the essentials of a church, though they had been at first irregularly formed, and continued still to be in an imperfect state. And therefore the general words in which this part of the Article is framed, seemed to have been designed on purpose not to exclude them." (Burnet's Exposition of the Thirty- ' nine Articles, 5th ed. 1746.) In strict accordance with these views, the validity of these non- Episcopal orders was recognized in the Church of England for upward of one hundred years, by allowing those thus ordained to hold livings, to preach, and to administer the sacraments in that Church. Strype, referring to an act passed in the thirteenth year of Elizabeth, 1571, says : "By this, the ordinations of the foreign reformed churches were made valid, and those who had no other orders were made of the same capacity with others to enjoy any place in the ministry, within England, merely on their subscribing the Articles." Bishop Cosin, in his letter to Cordel, writes : " 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 do of late, and can instance in many others 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 in France had been void. Nor did our laws require more of him than to declare his public consent to the religion re- ceived among us, and to subscribe the Articles established." Bishop Burnet writes : " No bishop in Scotland did so much as 16 desire any of the Presbyterians to be reordained." Not a single Archbishop, from Cranmer to the present day, except Laud, and perhaps Potter, has held this exclusive theory ; and the same is demonstrable of the leading divines both of England and this country. The testimony of Cranmer, Parker, Grindal, Jewel, Whittingham, Andrews, Whitgift, Field, Hooker, Bramhall, Dan- evaut, Hall, Usher, Tillotson, Wake, Seeker, and a host of others on both sides of the Atlantic, might be adduced to confirm this statement. All this teaching of the Articles, and this almost unanimous consent of divines, is overlooked by the advocates of the exclusive scheme, while they appeal to the preface to the ordinal, and to one of the Canons, to convict the Articles of teach- ing false doctrine, or to prove that the natural and commonly re- ceived interpretation of them, plainly expressed by words and actions for three hundred years, is erroneous, and a violation of principles " generally deemed sacred." Even granting that the authority of the ordinal and the Canons on questions of doctrine is supreme, I am unable to perceive that such an inference, from these premises, is natural, logical, or necessary ; but as they stand, if I was compelled to admit that they could bear no other con- struction, I should feel bound to reject the doctrine, on the ground, that an inference from a rubrical and canonical direction respect- ing the outward regulation of our particular branch of the house- hold of faith, cannot release one of our clergy from his solemn obligation to believe and teach what he is persuaded is scriptural, and plainly set forth in our standards of doctrine. In matters of doctrine, the offices and canons must be subordinate to the Arti- cles. We shall find that they are, in fact, harmonious ; that the conclusions of the Pastoral Letter are forced and unnatural, and that in no other way can our Worship and Discipline be arrayed in antagonism against our Doctrine. I have, I trust, abundantly proved that the theory of the exclu- sive validity of episcopal orders is not only unsupported by our Articles, but that they plainly contradict it, and also that it was not the doctrine of the Reformers or of the leading English divines. The v Bishop, therefore, very naturally ignores their statement of doctrine on this question, and flies, first to the preface to the ordinal, in search of a foundation for his scheme, and then to the Canons for its support. I quote all of the preface which bears upon the point before us : " It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been 17 these orders of ministers in Christ's Church Bishops, Priests-, and Deacons. . . . And therefore, to the intent that these orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in this Church, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in this Church, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter following, or hath had Episcopal Consecration or Ordination." The Bishop infers from this language that there can be no church without these three orders, episcopally derived in a certain line of succession. He does not say this in these words, but it is cited as an unanswerable argument, that the exclusive theory is the doctrine of our Church. He might, with nothing but this preface before him, just as naturally have inferred the affirmative as the negative proposition. The truth is, it teaches nothing more in regard to the abstract question of ordination and ministerial authority in the visible Church, than the historical fact, that three orders have always existed in it, and that this circumstance is suf- ficient to warrant their continuance in this particular branch of the visible body of Christ. Suppose we were to find prefixed to the ceremony prescribed for the coronation of the monarch of a particular kingdom, the following statement : It is evident unto all men diligently reading ancient authors and modern history, that from the days of Solo- mon there have been kings, who have ruled among the nations of the earth ; which royal office has evermore been held in such rev- erend estimation, that no man might presume to execute the same unless he were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful au- thority. And therefore, to the intent that this office may be con- tinued and reverently used and esteemed in this realm, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful king in this nation, or suffered to execute any of the functions of royalty in this kingdom, except he first be duly crowned according to the ceremony follow- ing, or has been duly crowned as king in some other monarchy. I am ashamed to ask the question, whether any man of com- mon-sense would regard this as affirming that there can be no lawful government except a monarchy? whether it forbids its king and subjects to recognize nations otherwise governed, as established states, and requires them to regard their officers as pretenders and usurpers ? It is simply monstrous ; and yet this is precisely the logic of those who infer the exclusive dogma from the preface in contemplation. When, we add to this plain as- 18 sumption (for the relation of the premise to the conclusion is not sufficiently intimate to call it an inference) the fact, that no such notion could possibly have been in the minds of those who framed and adopted it, I am utterly unable to understand how an intelli- gent man can regard it as in any way touching the abstract ques- tion, which is definitely determined by the Articles. On its face, in the light of history, reason, and common-sense, it is simply a rule for the government of one particular Church, in regard to a matter of outward order, and a justification of it by precedents. It is nothing more. Some claim that the enactments of Parlia- ment in 1662 are decisive as to the doctrine of the Church of Eng- land. The truth is, " The Act of Uniformity," requiring all ad- mitted to any ecclesiastical promotion or dignity in the Church of England to have had episcopal ordination ; and the addition at the same time to the preface under consideration, of the words, " or hath had episcopal ordination or consecration," proves noth- ing as to this question. It implies, what history records, that up to this time there had been no exclusion from the ministrations of the Church of England of the ministers of the foreign non-epis- copal churches, and that a converted Romish priest was no longer required to be reordained to enter her ministry. The act was one of expediency and self-defence, and was passed " at a time when the benefices of the Church were filled by men attached to the Presbyterian form of church government, and the Episcopal min- isters ejected from them." In the following section of the same Act, there is a distinct recognition of the " non-episcopal bodies " thus excluded as " the foreign reformed churches." No change was made or proposed in the formal declarations of the Articles, because none was desired or intended in regard to the doctrines of the Church. It was a civil act, dictated by state policy. Con- sequently, since that period the Church status of these bodies and the validity of their ministry have been recognized by the Church of England as before, with the exception of the restric- tions imposed by the Act of Uniformity. Outside of the civil jurisdiction of England, "The Church Missionary Society," "The Venerable Society for the Propagation of the Gospel," and " The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge," some of them un- der the direction of the entire Bench of Bishops, and others un- der the sanction of a portion of them, have for more than a hundred years sent missionaries to "teach all nations, preach the Gospel to them, and baptize them," who have had no other than Presbyterian ordination. This, in their estimation, gave full v.v 19 lidity to their ministerial acts, although it did not entitle them to assume the character and sustain the relations of a minister in the Established Church of England. Not only the practice, but the writings of her leading divines show that the Act of Uniformity, and the addition of the concluding sentence to the preface, were not regarded as affecting the doctrinal views of that Church on this question, as they were " formally and authoritatively " set forth in the Article. A catena of testimony to this effect is easily found. Bishop Stillingfleet, in his Irenicum "a book," says Bish- op White, " much talked against, but never answered " main- tains, with Hooker, of the Elizabethan period, that the particular form of church government, however important, is unessential ; that "the episcopal form is not founded upon any unalterable divine right," and points to the fact that the stoutest champions for episcopacy confess " that ordination performed by presbyters in case of necessity is valid." Dean Sherlock uses this language : " 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 com- munions 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 Prof. Principles, etc., reprinted in Gibson's Preserv. vol. iii. pp. 410, 432.) Dr. Claget, in his Notes of the Church, writes : " The Church of England doth not unchurch those parts of Christendom that hold the unity of the faith." Archbishop Wake, in 1719, says: "I bless God that I w r as born and have been bred in an Episcopal Church, which, I am convinced, has been the government established in the Christian Church from the very times of the Apostles. But I should be unwilling to affirm that Avhere the ministry is not episcopal there is no true church, nor any true administration of the sacraments. Very many there are among us who are very zealous for the 20 Episcopacy, and yet they dare not go so far as to annul the ordi- nances of God performed by any other ministry." Archbishop Seeker, in 1764, writes as follows: "The Church of England pretends not indeed to be the Catholic Church, but is undoubtedly a sound, excellent member of it. Christ's Church is the whole number of those who believe in him. . . . Our in- clination is to live in friendship with all the Protestant churches. "NVe 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 .-is we have an opportunity." In one of his sermons he employs this language : " 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 sup- porting such things as these, "became inconsistent with the ends for which it was established, what remedy icas there but to throw it off and form new establishments f If 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.) Bishop Tomline, still later, in his learned exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, in the spirit of Burnet, quoted in a former page, in regard to the same point, says : " I readily acknowledge that there is no precept in the New Testament 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 regu- lations 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 samo in every Christian country ; they may vary with the other vary- ing circumstances of human society, with the extent of a coun- try, the manner of its inhabitants, the nature of its civil govern- ment, and many other peculiarities which might be specified. As it has not pleased our Almighty Father to prescribe any particu- lar form of civil government for the security of temporal com- forts to his rational creatures, so neither has he 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 21 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. xxiii. ; ed. 1799, pp. 396, 398.) Volumes of a similar character could be cited, from English divines, since the addition to the Ordinal, which only affected those who had been already episcopally ordained. It is assuming too much to say, in a total disregard of the Ar- ticles, and of all this history, that in the preface to the Ordinal, " the Church sets forth her principles and her law in regard to the sacred ministry in the most clear, formal, and authoritative way." She does nothing of the kind. It would be difficult to find in the same compass more unfounded assumptions thau this passage con- tarns. The truth is, it is not set forth by " the Church" but by our Church, which never claims to be " the Church" It was not designed to teach the principles and the laics of the Church, but to lay down a rule for the outward government, in a single parti- cular, of OUR CHURCH. It says nothing in regard to the sacred ministry of the Church, it merely states what is required to be- come ministers in OUR CHURCH. It is " clear, formal, and author- itative," for that specific purpose, and for no other. It is a rule of discipline for ourselves, in distinction from other churches, not an enunciation of general principles or of abstract doctrine. We have shown that the Preface to the Ordinal teaches noth- ing, and was not designed to teach any thing, in regard to the abstract question of' the Church or the ministry. It does plainly declare, as the law of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, that those who have not had epis- copal ordination shall not " be accounted, or taken to be lawful ministers " therein, nor " suffered to execute any of the functions of a bishop, priest, or deacon," in this particular denomination. This alone, would seem to imply that ministers of the Greek, Rom- ish, English, Methodist, and Moravian churches, having been episcopally ordained, may lawfully execute these functions in this body. (It is quite an instructive fact, that neither in the Ordinal nor in the Canons is any allusion made to Episcopal succession. It is implied from our law and services that the ministry is to be transmitted on that principle, but nothing more.) If there were no canonical provisions to limit or explain it, this would be_a natural inference. But Canon ii. Title i., if it applies to minis- ters at all, shuts them all out, declaring : " No person shall be 22 permitted to officiate in any congregation of this Church, without first producing the evidence that he is a minister thereof." Ac- cording to the terms of the Ordinal, a vestry might occasionally invite a Methodist, or a clergyman of the Church of England, to " execute the functions " of a priest or deacon in a particular church. According to this rule, thus applied, both are alike ex- cluded until they have complied with the requirements of the Canon ix. Title L, " Of the admission of ministers ordained by bishops not in communion with this Church." With this construction, if there is any doubt as to the kind of ministers that are excluded by the Ordinal, that uncertainty is re- moved by the Canon. Uniting the two, we find that "no person is permitted to officiate in any congregation of this Church, or execute any of the functions of a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon therein, who is not a minister thereof." This language seems plain. "What is its natural, obvious meaning ? The answers will vary with the preconceived views of those who make them. This is natural, if not inevitable. Some would instinctively recoil from a construction which to them would appear to violate the law of Christian courtesy and the spirit of the Gospel, condemn the formally declared principles as Avell as the frequent practice of their own Church, and place a stumbling-block.in their own way, as well as prove offensive to others. They would naturally sup- pose that the most liberal interpretation the language could fairly bear should be given to it. Others, of different temperament and habit, desirous of confirming an exclusive theory which they have adopted, long and fondly cherished, and consistently main- tained, would as naturally limit it to as rigid and stringent a con- struction as the terms will permit. To illustrate this proposition, as well as the Canon, let us take a case in regard to which the mind is unbiassed by any prejudice or self-interest. Let us sup- pose that the act of incorporation, or charter of a particular sem- inary of learning, provides that its officers shall be a President, Professors, and Tutors, and that no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful President, Professor, or Tutor in this insti- tution, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be admitted thereunto by the Board of Trustees ; and, further, that the Trustees and Faculty enact a by-law, declaring that no person shall officiate in any department of this institution unless he is an officer thereof. Would this be regarded, by any unpre- judiced person as prohibiting an officer's invitation of a learned professor of another institution, to be present in his recitation- 23 room on some special occasion, which, in no way interfered with the prescribed routine of duty, and read a lecture to his class on some special subject ? Would this prohibit the loaning of the lecture-room, " at a time when it was not required for the ordi- nary use of" the institution, to an officer of another seminary, for a specific purpose, and the attendance of its officers and stu- dents ? Would it be unlawful under such a rule for an officer, in case of sickness or under any emergency, to invite a suitable per- son, not an officer of the institution, to supply temporarily his place ? Would this be legally and technically " officiating in one of the departments " of the institution ? The answer is apparent. If we apply the common principles of interpretation to this Canon, we must give it a still more liberal construction. It is generally conceded that the section under consideration was originally designed to apply to impostors, and the section following to persons under ecclesiastical discipline. The title of the Canon, " Of persons not ministers officiating," confirms this interpretation. The Canons elsewhere call clergymen of other churches non-Episcopal as well as those ordained by bishops " ministers" As this Canon applies to those who are not ministers, it very properly forbids, not ministers, but " persons" falsely claiming to be ministers of this Church, officiating in any congregation of the same. Again, it has never been considered unlawful for a layman to read the service and a sermon in any of these congregations. Is this " officiating or executing ministerial functions in this Church" ? Obviously not in the sense prohibited by the Canon and the Or- dinal. The idea prevails that this is only lawful when the lay reader has obtained a license to do so from the Bishop, or, where there is no Bishop, from the standing committee of the Diocese. This, however, applies only to candidates for orders, who, as semi- ecclesiastics, are subject to episcopal supervision and canonical rule. Nearly thirty years ago, under an erroneous impression in regard to the law, I applied to Bishop H. U. Onderdonk, of Pennsylvania, for a license to act as lay-reader in a vacant parish in that diocese. His reply was : " You are not a candidate for orders ; I have no authority to grant your request. You are at perfect liberty to read the service in any congregation where you have the opportunity, and also such sermons as you choose." I did as he suggested for some time, to regular congregations of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in duly consecrated edifices, both in that diocese and in New-Jersey. I was not a " minister." 14 I was not even a candidate for orders, acting under a bishop's license. I was simply a " person," who, by the canon, is forbid- den to " officiate." I was not sure that Bishop Doane knew what I had done until, months afterward, he thanked me for the service I had in this way rendered to a parish not three miles from his own residence. I did what is often done. Did I " officiate in any congregation of this Church " ? Did one of these Bishops direct me to break the law, and the other thank me for doing it ? The truth is, the Canon was not originally intended to apply to ministers, and if it now does, according to a large historical intei 1 - pretation, it does not regard the reading of the service and a sermon, in an exceptional case, as " officiating." " To officiate in any congregation," in the sense prohibited, the person must as- sume to act as a minister of this Church, or perform acts which would naturally imply that he sustained that relation. May not a non-Episcopal minister do that which it is lawful for a layman to do ? Where is the law that forbids it, or hints at such a pro- hibition ? Even this, however, in deference, not to canonical prohibition, but to the opposing views and tastes of individuals, seems to have been avoided ; for no charge of such conduct is made in the Letter. The acts complained of as a violation of this Canon are, loaning our churches to associations, or for the use of promiscuous congregations, and " uniting with the ministers of other bodies in the services." This is alleged to be " a gross in- novation, and a flagrant violation of the spirit and intent of our law, and of the principles of our Church, as interpreted by the general practice and the unvarying judgment of the great body of our divines, both English and American." If the Bishop had written, " A violation of the spirit and intent of the Laudean and Hobart party, and of the principles of this school, as interpreted by their practice in England and America," no objection could reasonably have been made to the statement ; but, as it stands, it certainly does not appear to be sustained, either by our standards of doctrine or discipline, or by the history of our Church in this country, or by the practice or views of the divines of the Church of England. My own observations, which extend over nearly half a century, and to various sections of the country, and my information from the former generation, as well as from authentic sources of history, lead my mind to a different conclusion. I cannot, of course, know the full extent of his ignorance in regard to facts in my possession ;' but they certainly do not warrant the language which the Bishop here employs as to " the unvarying 25 judgment of the great body of our divines, both English and American." The " irregularities," so called, condemned by the Pastoral thus far, are not declared to be a violation of the letter, but of the spirit an(Lintent of the law and principles of our Church. I have proved, I trust, that while the acts complained of are in full har- mony with our doctrines and principles, they are not inconsistent with the spirit of our law, which cannot be supposed to conflict with our doctrines and principles, and would not be binding if it did. I need not waste words on the last proposition. The Letter has, however, a charge of a more serious and aggravated nature, inasmuch as it is alleged to be a plain violation of the letter as well as the spirit of the law. After quoting the Canon entitled, " Of persons not ministers officiating," it proceeds : "Having thus provided that none but episcopally ordained clergymen shall minister" (the Canon says " officiate ") " in any of her congregations, this Church next prescribes, with the utmost care and precision, the form of worship to which they are to conform. " In he* Twentieth Canon, (Title I.,) she ordains : ' That every minister shall, before all sermons and lectures, and on all other occasions of public worship, use the Book of Common Prayer, as the same is or maybe established by the authority of the General Convention of this Church ; and in performing such service no other prayers shall be used than those prescribed by the said If the foregoing had not been written under the influence of preconceived views, the pen could hardly have been restrained from adding, at the conclusion of the first paragraph, after " con- form " when officiating in said congregations. It would never have occurred to me that the writer did not mean to imply this, if I had not read in another part of the Letter the following facts set forth as a violation of this Canon-: " Ministers of this Church went to non-Episcopal places of worship and preached, without the due performance of the devotional service enjoined by the law of the Church." This puts a new aspect upon the charge, The Canon has a broad application, while its spirit is narrow. Though I had heard it occasionally from ill-informed non-Episco- palians before, as a proof of our illiberality to which I uniform- ly replied that such a notion was a proof of their ignorance and prejudice it is the first time I ever heard this construction from a minister of our Church. The observation and knowledge of the 26 Bishop can hardly be so limited as to have concealed from him the fact, that a usage, by no means limited, has, with obvious pro- priety and naturalness, interpreted this Canon as applying to the worship which our Church provides and secures to her own con- gregations, and as a law to her ministers in conducting that wor- ship ; but not as assuming to legislate for non-Episcopal bodies in this matter, nor as designed to forbid her ministers to preach, except to such congregations as will adopt and can use this pre- scribed service to edification. According to this view, ministers have felt at liberty to consult their taste and be governed by their views of expediency as- to the use of the Prayer-Book, when officiating " in any congrega- tion " not " of this Church." Such conduct has never been de- clared a violation of the Canon by any proper authority. The Bishop admits this, but argues that because it has not been ar- raigned and censured, we are not to infer that it has " obtained authoritative recognition in the (this ?) Church." It would be well to remember that general usage makes common law, and that if this does not amount to an " authoritative recognition," it is a practice which is so general and of such long duration that it may, at least, be regarded as lawful, until it has obtained an ' authoritative" condemnation. We have, however, one case which may properly claim to be authoritative in regard to the construction of this Canon. A few months since, a specific charge was formally made against the Rev. Dr. Cracraft, of Ohio, upon which he was canonically " pre- sented " to the Standing Committee of that Diocese for examina- tion and trial in these words : " Preaching in a Congregational church, without using the Prayer-Book or vestment." For the credit of our Church, it ought to be stated in this con- nection that, although the practice which is here charged as an offence, punishable by law, is quite common, this is believed to be the only instance in which a man has been canonically arraign- ed for the act ; and also that, in this case, the accusation seems to have been made more for the purpose of annoying and perse- cuting the accused person than with any idea of proving him to be guilty of a legal offence. The charge was confessed in full, without any apology or explanation. The official record of the Court is : " Xot considered a ground of presentment." There is no appeal from this decision. This is a judicial interpretation of the meaning of the Canon, and a judicial promulgation of that decision in Ohio. The same Canon 27 is equally the law in New- York and all over the United States. Can it have various significations meanings that shall be not only diverse but antagonistic ? Can a general law condemn and punish in one diocese what it allows in another ? There is no danger of this in regard to the rule before us. This " authori- tative recognition " of an Episcopal minister's right to preach the Gospel, even to those who do not, or cannot, or will not use the Prayer-Book, occurred some six months since. In justice to Bishop Potter, it ought to be known, however, that the decision was not made public until after his Pastoral Letter was printed. The explanation of the unique Russo-Greek performance at Trin- ity Chapel, and the principles which that explanation involves, as as well as several other particulars presented in this Letter, are marked for a notice ; but as it is not my design to review the Pastoral further than it seems necessary to defend our beloved and venerable Church against its strange and injurious assump- tions, and as this reply has already been extended much beyond my original design, they may pass. I cannot conclude, however, without a brief reference to one feature of this party view, which I am forced to regard as unphi- losophical, unscriptural, and, in a high degree, at variance with the genius of the Gospel. It is that notion which makes a partic- ular outward form of Church government, and a particular mode of transmitting the ministry, of more importance than " the faith" the casket more valuable than the jewel it was made to preserve, and that spirit which, to the great injury of our Church, sets this unscriptural dogma before the world as her doctrine. >' Non tali auzilio, nee defensoribus istis Tempos eget." The Word of God guards the essentials of the faith with a watchful jealousy which it evinces in nothing else. Each member of the Church is to " examine himself continually, whether he be in the faith," and all are to " contend earnestly, striving together for the faith of the Gospel." The chief requirement in regard to the ministry is, that it should be committed to men who are " sound in the faith," The ministry, the sacraments, the visible Church, would have neither meaning nor value without the faith. The supremacy of the faith over all outward things, is seen in all those passages in the New Testament, which describe or define a local Church, (l Cor. 1 : 3, et passim) Ministers of envy and strife preached Christ of contention, for the express purpose of 28 adding affliction to the Apostle's bonds, thus most wickedly and grossly violating all outward order, and yet he rejoices that Christ is preached. Some openly denied his ministerial authority and claims ; but though they rejected the servant, they acknowledged the Master, and in this recognition he found a bond of union which no outward circumstances could sever. The gracious benedictions of the apostles, spurning all outward distinctions, at a time when parties and distractions were rife, were : " Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sin- cerity." Their sentence of excommunication is of the same tenor : " If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema." The early Christians were to judge the claims of the ministry by their " soundness in the faith," while they were expressly forbid- den to receive or welcome any " who preached strange doctrine," whatever outward commission he might bear. Even the great chosen Apostle to the Gentiles writes : " Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, let him be ac- cursed." This is no mere extravagance of language. It is so essential and vital, that he emphasizes it by repeating it immedi- ately, in nearly the identical words. In the Epistles to the Seven Churches they are commended or blamed, not for preserving or neglecting outward order, but for maintaining or neglecting the faith. This is the spirit of the New Testament. Need we won- der at its denunciation of that Diotrephian spirit " which loves to have the preeminence, neither doth it itself \ receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the Church." The manner in which the positions of the Letter are laid down, is also worthy of notice. It seiems to be indigenous with a certain school of theology. The autobiography of the late Professor Turner is replete with valuable facts and instruction on this particular point. On page 97, referring to his sermon preached on the occasion of opening the Theological Seminary at New-Haven, he says: " Bishop Hobart, like all Churchmen of similar views with whom I have ever happened to converse on the subject, assumed that, if episcopacy was of divine origin, it must necessarily be permanent; whereas, this is the very point to be proved. The same principle, assumed by Cartwright and other Puritans, is examined and re- futed by Hooker." Again on pp. 210-211, alluding to the Oxford Tracts, and to " the cant in common use among a certain class of persons," he says : " Thus, as has always been the case in such 29 controversy, the thing to be proved was taken for granted" This, as well as the true spirit of this party, are strikingly exhibited in the seventh chapter of the Memoir, which contains the history of the famous pastoral letter from Bishop Hobart, issued in 1829, and of the controversy it provoked. The same mode of conduct- ing a controversy, and the same spirit, have come down to our times, and are abundantly illustrated in the late Pastoral Letter of our Diocesan. It is perhaps natural that a narrow and exclu- sive spirit should be sustained and encouraged by assumptions, as there is nothing else to support " the mere promptings of senti- ment and self-will." In the letter before us, without any legal inquiry, certain facts are assumed : not only without, but against proof, it is assumed that our worship and discipline teach certain exclusive principles ; in the face of an opposite historical inter- pretation, it is assumed^ that one man's private opinions of the meaning of the Canons, is the law of our Church, although it op- poses and defies all usage, and even judicial decisions. It assumes what has been " the practice of the great body of bishops, clergy, and people ;" and then, upon this, bases the further assumption, that their neglect or refusal to exercise their lawful liberty, legally restrains others from transcending their unbecoming example ; it assumes that conduct, which well-known, honorable, intelligent, and conscientious men honestly regard as strictly within the line of their canonical privileges, and even enjoined by their responsi- bility to God, is " trifling with the truth of God," " a violation of obligations solemnly assumed and of engagements generally deemed sacred." On these and other assumptions, charges are made against a large number, not a ''few," of the clergy, of the gravest character ; charges of which it has been well said : " I do not see how, in respectful terms, you could intensify their solem- nity." All this " severity of judgment" is pronounced, without the palliating hint or admission, that the accused suppose or pre- tend that their acts are justified by the principles, the law, and the practice of their Church. It assumes their deliberate and con- scious criminality, and charges these crimes to " the mere prompt- ings of sentiment and self-will, which disregard the paramount obligations of obedience." Far be it from me to reply to these " railing accusations " with a reviling spirit. I would fain have covered them with the mantle of oblivion ; but the honor and the moral character of a large number of his clergy are publicly as- sailed by th'eir Diocesan, and the doctrines and principles of their Church, as they believe, are misrepresented in connection with 30 this as ault. Self-respect and fidelity to their principles and vows forbid them to be silent. If there had been nothing but a sense of personal injustice to be borne, they might have consented with- out a word, to allow the congregations they serve, and the com- munity in which they are known, to decide upon the propriety of these imputations. If the difference had been a mere matter of opinion as to the construction of our Canon law, it could easily have been adjusted, without opening the fountains whence flow the bitter waters of strife. But the Pastoral Letter goes beyond this. It assails personal character, and in order to do this, it re- pudiates some of the very principles on which the Reformation hinged. The first is obvious on the face of the Letter ; the second is equally plain to any historical student. In brief, it amounts to the following summary : These " considerations touching the law of the Church " are sent 'to all the clergy, though " but few " need them, because the author ''fears " these few have broken the law and disturbed " the peace and good order of the Church ;" because he has frequently been urged to interpose, and especially because he hopes in this way to change the minds and conduct of his clergy, who are vir- tually charged with being lawless, disorderly, and seditious whom, however, he has always treated with kindness, and never interfered with before. The solemn obligations and vows as- sumed, and professions and promises made, in connection with the ordination of these gross offenders, are offensively set forth, as if they were forgotten or unheeded ; and then, purporting to ap- peal to the standards of our Church for her doctrines^ discipline, and worship, the creeds and the articles which formally teach her doctrines on the particular question which underlies and is the sole foundation of the Letter, are entirely ignored, and principles are sought to be derived from our standards of discipline by a construction which is unnecessary, unnatural, and illogical ; prin- ciples which are inconsistent with our technically expressed doc- trine, and with the well-known views and practice of this and the Mother Church for three hundred years ; and this is done, for the purpose of confirming a party scheme of doctrine and discipline which this Church has never received, and under threats of pains and penalties enforcing their outward acknowledgment upon the Church over which the author presides. A few years since the late Archbishop of Canterbury was rude- ly assailed by the Tractarian party, for his emphatic repudiation of the exclusive theory of this Pastoral Letter. The controversy 31 that followed, proved that the exclusive party were few in num- bers, and ignorant of the facts which candid minds confessed set- tled the question in favor of the Primate. Some of this class, among whom was the Chaplain to the famous Bishop of Exeter, discovering that the so-called " Church principles " which they had been taught were not held by the Church of England, seceded to Rome, honestly declaring that the facts and the argument were against the Tractarian party. Many, however, refused to see the facts, or to follow them to their logical conclusions. The language then employed by a learned divine, in regard to these circumstances, is not altogether inappropriate to the present controversy : " Under the 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 abund- antly proved in the Gorham case ; and palm upon our Church views and doctrines which they have gathered by their private judgment from antiquity. 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." I have endeavored to vindicate my Church and many of my brethren from the charges of the Pastoral Letter. So far as I could do so consistently with this end in view, I have sought to divest the discussion of its personal relations, and regard the questions before us abstractly, and on their own merits. If I have betrayed any apparent want of proper respect and regard for my venerable Diocesan in this paper, it has not been by wilful design. 32 Nothing short of the most solemn and imperative sense of duty could have induced me to take up my pen in controversy with my canonical superior, whose official and personal relations to me have uniformly been characterized by the most paternal kindness and by many tokens of confidence and affectionate regard. I am sure he would not willingly teach what he knew to be error, and that he has no love of domination for its own sake. . I have no doubt that he is as honest in the views which he holds as I am in mine. In the language of Chillingworth : " I will take no man's liberty of judgment from him ; neither shall any man take mine from me. I will think no man the worse man, nor the worse Christian, I will love no man the less, for differing in opinion from me. And what measure I mete to others I expect from them again." But I shall % never willingly surrender my Christian liberty and my lawful rights, that an individual may convert a comprehensive and Catholic Church into an engine for enforcing his private opinions, or the views of any party. I yield to no man in sincere and affectionate regard for the Church of my inheritance and my honest choice. She is preemi- nently fitted for any service. I have an abiding confidence in the success of her exalted mission. I could be satisfied nowhere else. She is richly freighted with scriptural truth, and, as I be. lieve, governed according to Apostolic order. It is because I love her scriptural order, her comprehensive and catholic spirit, her liberal policy, her inimitable worship, consecrated by the use of piety for centuries, and above all, her soundness in the faith, that I have here undertaken to defend her from what I believe to be some of the most unjust and injurious charges that could be pre- ferred against any Christian body. In addition to the foregoing objections to the Pastoral Letter, I regret and lament its publica- tion for the following reasons : It encourages busy-bodies to meddle with matters beyond their province. It awakens discord and bitter feelings among brethren. It feeds party spirit and party animosities. It is needlessly offensive to a great majority of our fellow- Christians in this country. It is calculated to repel from us the sympathies of Protestant Christendom. It violates " the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace." It fosters dissension in parishes. It encourages infidelity. 33 It diverts the minds and the activities of the sacred ministry from their great work of preaching the Gospel and edifying the Church, to that of self-defence on the one hand and of party per- secutions on the other. It withdraws the minds of Christians from their spiritual life, and fixes them on outward forms. It weakens the influence, both within and without our fold, and to that extent diminishes the opportunity for usefulness, of our Diocesan. It repels from our body the earnest Christian men and women who are much needed among us, and from our ministry many of those who are burning and shining lights in other communions. It makes us contemptible in the eyes of the world. It confirms our non-Episcopal brethren in their inherited and cherished prejudices against us, and in their misconceptions of our doctrines and principles. It represents oxir Church, which more than any other has a claim to be called the Churchy as narrower than any of the secta around us. It is going backward, instead of forward with the spirit of the age. pea for ait&mp in tjje A LETTER ET. KEY. HOEATIO POTTEB, B.D., D.C.L. REV. JOHN COTTON SMITH, D.D., BECTOR OF THE CHUKCH OF THE ASCENSION, NEW TOEK. "Idcirco legum send sumus, ut liberi esse possimus.' CAMBEIDGE: PRINTED AT THE RIVERSIDE PRESS. 1865. A PLEA FOR LIBERTY IN THE CHURCH. RIGHT REV. AND DEAR BISHOP : In the Pastoral Letter recently addressed by you to the Clergy of the Protestant Epis- copal Church in the Diocese' of New York, you sum up the irregularities of which you complain under two heads. The first of these is thus stated : " Ministers of this Church are understood to have united with ministers of non-episcopal bodies in holding services in churches in this Diocese." I am conscious that I am one of a number of clergymen of whom this statement is true ; and I understand, moreover, from your own declaration to me, that an act of this kind, which I have performed, in my own church, is regarded by you as a violation of ecclesiastical law. I avail myself, therefore, of the earliest opportunity, and in the only way which now seems open to me, to explain the true character and vindicate the lawfulness of the act to which I have referred. As the question at issue is one merely of interpretation of Church law, and as I do not understand you as intimating that I have consciously violated any rule or principle of the Church, I have no personal feeling whatever about it. I believe that the Pastoral was written under an imperative sense of duty. I believe, too, that the course which you have pursued has been dictated by kindness (though I consider it a mistaken kindness) towards those whose acts have been the subject of complaint, and in order to shield them from the ecclesiastical proceedings which were threatened. The present aspect of our relations, therefore, 4 A Plea for Liberty in the Church. disturbs, in no degree, the feelings which it has been my priv- ilege to entertain towards you, and I do not intend that any word or act of mine shall diminish the kindly sentiments which you have been pleased to cherish towards me. So far from regretting the shape which this matter has assumed, I rejoice that the question has come up in a form which will lead to its thorough discussion and settlement. My claim is, as you would naturally suppose, that I have done nothing, in my official capacity, which is contrary either to the letter or the spirit of our ecclesiastical law, and have acted only in accordance with principles which have either been* recog- nized as legitimate, or have controlled the sentiment and action of the Church. The question is simply as to what the prin- ciples and laws of the Church really are ; and to decide that point and pass judgment upon it, before adjudication upon the facts, and the verdict of a legal tribunal, is, it seems to me, to assume the very things in dispute, and beg the very question at issue. I shall endeavor to state my view of the principles and laws of our Church as bearing upon the act which I have performed. In doing this I shall suggest many considerations which are perfectly familiar to your mind, and I may perhaps, in other respects, seem to depart from what might be deemed strictly suitable in a letter to my Bishop. I beg to assure you, therefore, that it arises simply from the fact that this letter is designed as a vindication of my position to others as well as yourself. Suffer me, in the first place, to state the circumstances under which the act in question was performed. On the evening of Easter Sunday, after the due celebration of Divine service during the day, morning and afternoon, the Rev. Dr. William Adams, a distinguished Presbyterian divine, in compliance with an earnest invitation from me, preached in my church to a large and promiscuous congregation, assembled by public and general notice. I placed the entire services of the evening at his disposal, and in accordance with his wish the service was read by the Rev. Drs. Muhlenberg and Dyer, of the Episcopal Church. It is but justice to Dr. Adams to A Plea for Liberty in the Church. 5 say, that he had no claims to urge in this matter, but at the same time complied most courteously with my request. After the sermon I stated to the congregation that the service was intended as a testimony of fellowship with all believers in the incarnation, atonement, and resurrection of our Lord. On the morning of the same day I stated to my own people, that, in m y judgment, there were very peculiar and unusual circum- stances which rendered such a special service desirable, that I had therefore requested that it might be held, and had offered my own church for the purpose. I have no apology to make for this service, and shall resort to no mere technicalities in its defence, but shall rest it upon what I hold to be, in the light of history and common sense, a fair and candid interpretation of the law and standards of our Church. As this discussion involves the question of the Episcopal Constitution of our Church, it is not right that I should labor under any disadvantage arising from a suspicion that I do not heartily approve of that Constitution. I hold it to be essential to the well-being of the Church. I have no expectation that there will ever be any real or structural union in the Church of Christ, except upon the basis of Apostolic Episcopacy. So far from sympathizing with denominationalism and the sect- spirit among Christians, I have always contended against them, and striven especially that our Church should not descend from her catholic position to that of a denomination or sect. But for the very reason that I do hold this, I would take exactly the stand which; in my opinion, our Church has taken, recognizing the present abnormal state of Christendom, ad- mitting that the various evangelical denominations have the essential characteristics of the Church and the ministry, and thus disarm them of those prejudices which arise from the ex- clusive theory and position. I have perfect confidence in what I understand to be the system of our Church. The more our services are seen, side by side with other services, the better it will be for us. But if, instead of leaving the Church to speak for herself, we hedge her around with walls of exclusiveness, 6 A Plea for Liberty in the Church. and trammel liberty of action, and proscribe freedom of opin- ion, we shall be left far behind in the world's great progress, and become a laughing-stock among Christian people. Claiming then, as I do, to approve, as strongly as yourself, of the principles and laws of the Church, to be as satisfied as yourself with her constitution and usages, to feel as entire confidence as you do in her system, and to be as willing as you are to be bound by her authority, it devolves upon me to justify the act which I have performed. Let me, then, in the first place, refer to the several principles and laws of the Church, which you have adduced as bearing upon this case. In the Ordination Service those who are to be ordained " solemnly engage to conform to the doctrines and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States." Besides this, in the same service the same persons promise to give " faithful diligence always so to minister the doctrine and sacraments and discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same." There is certainly here no point in question. Have I ever denied that I am bound to conform to the doctrines and wor- ship of this Church ? or have I ever failed to " minister the doctrine and sacraments and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded and as this Church," according to ac- cepted systems of interpretation, " hath received the same " ? I cannot but feel that it would be better to omit these consid- erations in dealing with men who are above the suspicion of trifling with their ordination vows. But let us see what are the " doctrines, discipline, and wor- ship of this Church," so far as they have any bearing upon the present case. In Canon 1 it is enacted that " IN THIS CHURCH there shall always be three orders in the ministry, viz., Bishops, Priests, and Deacons." In the sixth section of Canon 5, Title I., as compared with Canon 10, Title I., we have the law of the Church discriminating between those who have been acknowl- edged as ordained ministers in any other denomination of Christians, and those who have been ordained by a Bishop not A Plea for Liberty in the Church. 7 in communion with this Church. Of the former she requires, before they can become ministers of this Church, that they shall be admitted to deacon's orders, at the expiration of not less than six months, and after the examinations in such case provided. The latter may be admitted as deacons or priests in this Church, after due inquiry and examination, a probation of six months, and a declaration of conformity, without reordi- nation. From all which it appears that no one can become a minister of THIS CHURCH without episcopal ordination. A clear distinction is made between ministers of other Churches who have, and those who have not been episcopally ordained, but the distinction relates only to the method by which they shall enter our ministry. It manifestly does not touch the question whether services can ever be lawfully held in our places of worship by those who are not ministers of this Church. But we come now to laws which stand in closer relation to the present case. In the Preface to the Ordinal it is said, " No man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, IN THIS CHURCH, or suffered to execute any of the said func- tions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted there- unto, according to the form hereafter following, or hath had episcopal ordination or consecration." In Canon 11, Title I., it is enacted that " no person shall be permitted to officiate in ANY CONGREGATION OF THIS CHURCH Without first produC- ing the evidence of his being a minister thereof." It has always been my view that the general law of the Church, and this Canon in particular, do not prohibit the hold- ing of special services in our churches, by those who are not ministers of this Church. Knowing, however, that there is a different interpretation of the law prevalent in this Diocese, and unwilling even to seem to do anything in its violation, I have avoided acting upon my own view of its meaning. Your own position and course, my dear Bishop, placed the matter in a different light before me, and led me to pursue a different course of action. I hailed the first indication of the liberal 8 A Plea for Liberty in the Church. and comprehensive construction of the law of the Church, which you seemed to have adopted, with delight, admiration, and gratitude. The usual course of things, in this Diocese, was first interrupted by your sanction of the preaching of the Rev. Dr. Schaff, a German Reformed divine, in the Church of the Holy Communion. Then a German Lutheran, as I have understood, preached with the same sanction in the same place. Some time after this an invitation was extended by you, as has been publicly stated, to all the priests who accom- panied the Russian expedition, to officiate in any of the churches of your Diocese. This was followed by your sanc- tion, in a letter published in the secular and religious papers, of the officiating of a person purporting to be a priest of the Russo-Greek, or of some Oriental Church, in Trinity Chapel of this city. Few facts in the history of the Church, in my brief experience, have given me more joy than these. I re- garded them as high authority for my own views. I felt that the time had come when by outward act we could testify our fellowship with those who, outside of our own fold, are the disciples and ministers of Jesus. All the arrangements were made for such a testimony, when I heard, to my great disap- pointment, that you had recalled your course so far as non- episcopal divines were concerned, and were determined that they should not henceforth be admitted into our places of worship. I called upon you, learned that you could not con- sent to my proposed arrangement, but that you would interpose no episcopal prohibition. You said nothing which altered my view of the law of the Church, and I went away to carry into effect the arrangement which I had already made, and in the manner which I have already described. In view of all the circumstances of the case, am I not war- ranted in taking exception, with all respect, to the course which you have pursued? For, see what it involves. I find you practically carrying out some of my own cherished principles and ideas, and this not only once, but again and again. I find the example which you have set followed repeatedly by others. I avail myself of it to show my fellowship with those, A Plea for Liberty in the Church. 9 outside of our fold, who are working in the cause of our Mas- ter. I learn the change in your own position when it is too late, even if I had been disposed, to recall what I had designed to do, and with your assurance that you interposed no episcopal prohibition, I carry out the plan contemplated ; and ere long I find myself and others, who have only followed your own guidance and example, virtually held up before the Church as violators of its law and as faithless to our ordination vows. But this has a bearing only upon the course which you have pursued: it does not meet the allegation that the act com- plained of is a violation of the law of the Church. That is the point which is now to be considered. The question is, whether the Preface to the Ordinal and Canon 11, Title I., (for these are the only laws which you adduce, except those to which I have already referred,) prohibit the holding of ser- vices in our churches, under any circumstances, by those who are not ministers of this Church, or in case such services may lawfully be held, the participating of our clergy in them. Take first the Preface to the Ordinal. This Preface stands now substantially as it has stood ever since the Reformation. Some changes of expression were introduced into it in 1661, but in its actual requirements it has remained unaltered. A new and exclusive interpretation began to be put upon it at that time by the followers of Archbishop Laud ; and this interpre- tation is the one which we are required to accept, instead of that of the Reformers, by whom the Preface itself was composed. Now I am not willing, for one, to accept any interpretation of this Preface which brings it nearer than its plain, grammatical sense requires, to the spirit and theory of Archbishop Laud. A man who, notwithstanding his admitted piety and devotion, could contemplate the acknowledgment of the supremacy of the Pope by the Church of England, who actually hesitated whether he should accept a cardinal's hat from Rome, and who was executed as a traitor to the liberties of his country, is not the man, in my opinion, whose principles are to determine the interpretation of the standards of our Church. History shows us, conclusively, the interpretation which was 10 A Plea for Liberty in the Church. put upon the Preface to the Ordinal during the century that succeeded the Reformation. There was no exclusion of minis- ters from officiating in churches because they were not episco- pally ordained. The ministers of the Scotch Church, and of the Protestant churches on the Continent, were expressly recognized. Practices involving this recognition were indeed suppressed by the Act of Uniformity of 1662, but the Act of Uniformity, I need not remind you, is not in force in the United States. (Note A.) There are abundant facts, also, to show that no such exclu- sive interpretation is authoritatively put upon the Preface to the Ordinal in England at the present day. It is true that, by act of Parliament, dissenting ministers are disqualified from officiating in the churches of the Establishment; just as in Scotland, by the same authority, episcopal ministers are dis- qualified from officiating in the Kirk. It is, therefore, not a question of episcopacy or non-episcopacy. It is a law of the State, and not the Preface to the Ordinal, which prevents the dissenting clergy from officiating in the Church of England. That this is so, is shown still further by the fact that there is no such exclusion, practically, in the case of foreign non- episcopal divines. In a recent speech by the Bishop of London, he tells us that there is a monthly Presbyterian service held in the crypt of Canterbury Cathedral, and that in the Chapel of St. James there is a German pastor, (non-episcopal, of course,) although the dean of the chapel is a Bishop. In the bill for the union of benefices in the city of London, the Bishop inserted a clause which reserves to the Diocesan the power to grant the use of any churches which might remain standing, under the operation of the act, to any denomination of foreign Protes- tants who might apply for it. In Bishop Gobat's Cathedral at Jerusalem, the Prussian Legation regularly enjoys the privilege of its own worship. And at the time of the Great Exhibition numbers of foreign non-episcopal clergymen officiated in the churches of the Establishment. The objections which have been urged against these proceedings have not been thought of sufficient importance to be regarded. A Plea for Liberty in the Church. 11 It is therefore manifestly not a question in England of episcopacy and non-episcopacy merely. The same power which admits foreign non-episcopal ministers to hold occasional ser- vices would exclude the ministers even of any other episcopal Church, if it should establish itself in Great Britain. It is simply a question between the Establishment and dissent, and nothing could be more absurd than for us, in this country, to imitate the exclusiveness which grows out of the civil relations of the Church of England. It is impossible to arrive at any true conception of this subject without taking into account the Erastian views which, from the time of Cranmer, have pre- vailed to a greater or less degree in that Church. The majority of Englishmen regard dissent as culpable, not so much because it is separation from the episcopal constitution of the Church as because it rejects the ecclesiastical system established by the State. And this accounts for the entire difference in the rela- tions of the Church of England with non-episcopal Churches at home and non-episcopal Churches abroad. And the point to be noticed here is, that these relations with the foreign non- episcopal Churches and the admission of their services into the churches of the Establishment, although exceptional in their character, show conclusively that the opinion that the Preface to the Ordinal has no reference to such special services, is, to say the least, an allowable opinion in the Church of England. The practice of holding meetings and services of various kinds in our churches, in which non-episcopal ministers have participated, to say nothing of the innumerable cases in which they have had for the time the entire control of the service and the building, has prevailed to so great an extent in this country, that I had supposed it was a recognized lib- erty in the Church.* Especially as the House of Bishops has officially declared its opinion that such a use of our churches, under certain circumstances, is lawful,! and no ecclesiastical * Dr. Tyng's Reply to the Pastoral furnishes most conclusive evidence of the exer- cise of this liberty, and the recognition of it, by the most eminent Bishops and cler- gymen of our Church. t " It does not prohibit .... the lending of any church to any respectable congre- gation upon any occasion of emergency." Journal House of Bishops, 1820, p. 58. 12 A Plea for Liberty in the Church. proceedings have ever been instituted against any one for acting in this matter according to that opinion, I had come to regard it as settled that the Preface to the Ordinal was not to be urged against such a practice here, any more than in England ; and that its plain, unmistakable meaning is simply this, that no man shall assume the character of a bishop, priest, or deacon in this Church, and in that character execute any of the " said func- tions," unless he has had episcopal ordination or consecration. The history of the Ordinal, the view which has been held of it, the practice under it, and the opinion of the House of Bishops, all combine to establish the point for which I am contending, that it does not bear upon such a case as the one in question. The only law to which you refer, which now remains to be considered, is Canon 11, Title I. It has already been given. Literally understood, it prohibits any person from officiating in ANY CONGREGATION of this Church, unless he shall first pro- duce evidence that he is a minister thereof. Suffer me here respectfully to remark upon a variation between the language in which you state the alleged irregularity and the language of this Canon, which it is supposed to violate. You speak of " non-episcopal ministers " as if they were the only ones who are excluded from ministering in our congregations. Now the Canon, in the sense in which it excludes any, excludes all who are not ministers of this Church, even if they have been episcopally ordained. Just so far as it excludes Presbyterians or Methodists, it excludes priests of the Roman and Greek communions, and also the clergy of the Church of England until they have complied with certain canonical requisitions ; in short, it excludes all persons, clerical or lay, without excep- tion, who are not ministers of this Church, from officiating in any congregation of this Church. It is sometimes urged, by those who advocate a liberal construction of this Canon, that " officiating " here does not refer to an occasional act, but to a permanent performance of ministerial functions ; but this does not seem to me to be so, for the Canon evidently contemplates the case of a congregation where there is a settled minister, A Plea for Liberty in the Church. 13 and where any one whom it is proposed to have officiate, for the time being, of course, must first produce evidence that he is a minister of this Church. Lay readers (except in the case of candidates for orders, licensed by the Bishop) can be relieved from the operation of this Canon, only on the ground that read- ing the service or a sermon in public is not " officiating." The history of the Canon shows indeed that it was originally de- signed to protect our congregations from impostors, pretending to be ministers of this Church, and that there was no intention to make it exclusive in the sense now attributed to it. It read originally " no strangers," and it required that cases of clerical imposture should be published. It was changed from "strangers" to "persons," to meet the case of those who had been displaced from the ministry, but still claimed to be " min- isters of this Church." This, together with the wording of the Canon, requiring, as it does, the producing of evidence, shows that it is designed wholly for those who falsely pretend to be ministers of this Church. But although this is so, and o " ought to be distinctly understood for the credit of our Church, I am willing to accept the most literal interpretation of the Canon. I hold it accordingly to be my duty, on the Lord's Day, to furnish to my people all the services which the Church has provided for that purpose, and the ministrations in the pul- pit of those who are appointed to minister in this Church. But beyond this, to congregations gathered from our own parishes or those of the various Christian communions, I have the right, it seems clear to me, to furnish in my church what- ever ministrations I may select, and for whatever purposes I may think proper, with nothing but my own sense of propriety and duty, and the necessary influence of public opinion, to qualify my perfect liberty of action. The Canon only im- poses its requisitions upon me in relation to a regularly consti- tuted " congregation of this Church." This view of the Canon, one would suppose, might satisfy all concerned. It corresponds literally to the language of the Canon. It secures to our congregations, in full measure, the services and ministrations of our Church, and having done this, 14 A Plea for Liberty in the Church. it leaves us free to unite in general and promiscuous assemblies with the clergy of other Churches, in testimony of our fellow- ship, or in the interest of some great cause of Christian benevo- lence, or for any other purpose which, in a discreet use of our liberty, may be thought desirable. I wish now to say that the congregation to which Dr. Adams preached, on the occasion we are considering, was not in any sense the congregation of the Ascension. The regular services for the day had been held. The public were invited through the newspapers to be present in the church in the evening. This was done not to evade the law, but to comply with it honestly and fully, both in the letter and the spirit. Since the Canon expressly limits its prohibition to a congregation of this Church, where is the prohibition in regard to a congregation not of this Church ? I am entitled, of course, to avail myself of the opinion of the House of Bishops, already referred to, as to the use of churches by " respectable congregations " on " any occasion of emer- gency." But this opinion is not needed for a case so clear as this ; for manifestly, if it is not a " congregation of this Church," no matter whether it is a "respectable congrega- tion " or not, or whether it is " any occasion of emergency " or not, it is not touched at all by the Canon, and the course of the minister is unfettered by any restriction. It has been objected by some, that such a service does not, after all, answer the purpose of a testimony of fellowship, since it is not in a regular congregation of this Church. I confess that it is not all in this respect which I could desire. But at the same time I think it better, in this as in all matters, to go no further than the letter of the law will allow. Such a ser- vice at least subserves this most important purpose, it shows that our Church is no more exclusive in this respect in regard to non-episcopal ministers, than to episcopal ministers not of our Church. And, at all events, it is at least as satisfactory, as a testimony, as the Greek service in Trinity Chapel, which has your sanction, as a testimony of fellowship with the Russo- Greek Church. A Plea for Liberty in the Church. 15 Some, however, may claim that the admission of a non- episcopal divine into one of our churches might be lawful, under certain circumstances, but that it is rendered unlawful if any of the clergy of this Church participate in the services. But if non-episcopal ministers can be admitted into our churches at all, where is the law which forbids our clergy from perform- ing any service which would be proper under other circum- stances ? If it is lawful for me to grant the use of my church for a special service, and invite Dr. Adams to preach, just as the Rector of Trinity, with your sanction, granted the use of Trinity Chapel, and invited an Oriental priest to officiate ; what law is there to restrain me from being present and performing any service, as a clergyman of the Church, just as a number of our clergy were present in their official capacity at the cele- bration of the Greek service, and participated in it ? Is it the mere uniting with non-episcopal clergymen that is condemned ? But I suppose no one will deny that I might lawfully have Dr. Adams read service for me, and then preach myself. No law is violated, although here is a decided union of services. What law was violated by the two clergymen who read service in my church when Dr. Adams preached? and if they violated no law, how can their act, in uniting in the service, render my act, in granting the use of my church for the purpose, unlawful ? Suffer me to say a word in regard to the expediency of such a service at that time, or, if the opinion of the House of Bishops is thought to be important in this connection, the " emergency " under which I acted. This I shall do with the utmost frank- ness, only premising that since no one else is appointed to judge of the " emergency," it must be done by the minister in charge. The " emergency " did not arise from the want of places of worship on the part of the people there assembled. The preacher, on that occasion, has one of the most capacious and splendid churches in the city. But there are such things as moral emergencies, and in my opinion such an emergency existed at that time. The service of the Russo-Greek Church had just been performed in Trinity Chapel, and repeated in St. John's Chapel. The emergency which justified it was 16 A Plea for Liberty in the Church. not the want of room for the few adherents of the Oriental Churches in this city. They had sufficiently large and con- venient accommodations afforded them by the generosity of Trinity Church in the school-room of St. John's Chapel. The emergency consisted in the opportunity of extending an act of courtesy to the Church of the Russian empire. The feel- ing which prompted the act was admirable. The act itself, in my view, was perfectly lawful. (Note B.) But this act standing alone presented our Church in this community in a false light. It naturally made the impression that the Church has drawn a distinction in regard to such special services, just where she has carefully avoided doing so, that is, between non- episcopal ministers and episcopal ministers not of this Church. It warranted the inference that the Protestant Episcopal Church is more closely affiliated with the Churches of the East than with the non-episcopal Churches of evangelic faith, here at home. This inference, so naturally drawn, and yet so un- just, was exciting, as might be expected, a host of prejudices against our Church. How could it be better met than by a similar act of courtesy, testifying our sympathy with the Chris- tian brethren around us ? And what could be better calculated to display the truly comprehensive and catholic spirit of our Church than two such acts, springing from widely divergent sentiments and tendencies, and yet both lawfully exercised and charitably regarded in the same communion ? Were it not that you regret your own act in consenting that Dr. Schaff should hold a service in one of our churches, and declare that it shall never be repeated, I should suppose it impossible that you could regard it in all cases as unlawful for such a service by a non-episcopal minister to be allowed. But your position renders such a conclusion inevitable, for surely, if there ever was an " emergency," it existed in the case of Dr. Schaff; and if even that will not avail, nothing can ever be considered as warranting such services, and the decision of the House of Bishops covers no cases which can possibly occur. And yet in the same letter in which you regret your consent in this case and admit that you are h'able to censure, A Plea fo? Liberty in the Church. 17 you justify the invitation of the Oriental priest into Trinity Chapel as a testimony of fellowship with the Greek Church. I am of course entitled, in replying to the Pastoral, to avail myself of your expressed view of the law, and to justify my- self upon principles which you yourself have admitted. Now I do not see why this act on my part, now under considera- tion, is not exactly parallel, in a legal point of view, with the invitation given by the rector of Trinity Church, with your sanction, to the Oriental priest to celebrate divine service in Trinity Chapel. It appears from the Pastoral that you dis- criminate between this act and the invitation to Dr. Schaff, and that this act still has your approval. On comparing the two cases under consideration, it is evident that if the Canon prohibits the one, it prohibits the other, for neither Father Agapius nor Dr. Adams is a minister of this Church. The congregation at the Greek service was composed of a few of the members of that communion and a large number of our own people. The congregation at the Ascension was even more promiscuous. At the Greek service several ministers of this Church were present in their vestments, in the place where prayers are usually read, and participated in the ser- vices, even to the repetition of the Nicene Creed without the "filioque." At the Ascension certain ministers of this Church also united in the services. The rector of Trinity Church acted upon what he considered an " emergency." I only claim for myself the same freedom to act, and the same right to judge what constitutes an " emergency," that he has exercised. I will not urge the parallel between the case I am now con- sidering, and your sanction of the invitation given to Dr. . SchafF to hold a service in the Church of the Holy Commun- ion, for you have expressed your regret at the course which in that case you pursued. But am I not warranted in urging that this sanction was either lawful or unlawful ? If it was lawful, the point for which I am contending is established. If it was unlawful, and you were not clearly aware of its unlaw- fulness at the time, it follows that there are at least great obscu- rity and doubtfulness about the law, and that there may be 18 A Plea for Liberty in the Church. perhaps a reasonable difference of opinion as to what consti- tutes its violation. The discrimination which you make between these two cases, and the whole tenor of the Pastoral, lead irresistibly to the conclusion, that it is not the officiating in our churches of those who are not ministers of this Church which you regard as unlawful, but the officiating of non-episcopal ministers. This distinction must rest, necessarily, on the assertion of the inva- lidity of non-episcopal orders, and the unlawfulness of their recognition. Since there is no element of difference between the Greek service and the service at the Ascension, so far as the law is concerned, unless this recognition of non-episcopal orders is one, it follows that, in your opinion, the service at the Ascension would have been a lawful one, had it not in- volved such a recognition. Now, as there is no written law of the Church which has any bearing upon this point, it must be your view that such a recognition is inconsistent with the spirit of the Church. Although this is a very vague charge, I have no wish to evade it, and do not hesitate to claim, with all respect and deference, that the recognition of the validity of non-episcopal orders is in accordance with the spirit, the history, and the standards of our Church. Our Church makes a "fundamental distinction," in her Canons, between laymen and non- episcopal ministers. She calls the latter " ministers," and she puts them upon an en- tirely different footing from laymen in respect to her own orders, prescribing a different process by which they come into the ministry of this Church. Now what constitutes this difference except the ministerial status of such persons ? She reordains them, it is true, but that is because they have never been ordained to minister in the Episcopal Church, just as the Churches of Geneva formerly reordained those who went from one Church to another. In the Preface to the Prayer- Book she calls the various communions in which they minister, " Churches," and this not merely by courtesy, but in a doc- ument setting forth as clearly as possible the character and position of this Church. The compilers of our Liturgy and A Plea for Liberty in the Church. 19 the framers of our Articles held this liberal view most decid- edly. The definitions of the Church and the ministry, in the Thirty-nine Articles, were purposely drawn up so as to include non-episcopal Churches and ministers. And certainly they could not be better adapted for that purpose. Nothing but this supposition, even if there were not the most conclu- sive historical evidence on the subject, can explain the fact, that in the articles of faith of an Episcopal Church, defining the Church and the ministry, there is not the remotest allusion to episcopacy or episcopal ordination. The 19th Article defines the Church : " The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things which are of necessity requisite to the same." * Here is not one word of episcopacy as a note of the Church, and yet am I not solemnly bound to regard and recognize that as a Church which corresponds to this definition ? The 23d Article is en- titled, " Of Ministering in the Congregation " : " It is not It is interesting to notice the agreement of this article with those of the conti- nental churches on the same subject. Qua; (sc. ecclesia) quidem quum solius Dei sit occulis nota, externis tamen oui- jusdam ritibus ab ipso Christo institutis, et verbo Dei velut publica legitimaque dis- ciphna non solum cernitur cognosciturque ; sed ita constituitur, ut in hac sine his nemo nisi singular! Dei privilegio censeatur. Harm. Conf. Sect. x. p. 9. Conf. Helv.' Prior. Art. XIV sed illam docemus vere esse ecclesiam, in qua signa vel notae mveniuntur ecclesiae verse. Imprimis vero verbi Dei legitima vel sincera pnedicatio, &c Simul et participant sacramentis a Christo institutis et ab apostohs traditis. -Ib. p. 6, Conf. Helv. Post. cap. XVII ubi tamen sit (ec- clesia) quam minime contaminata etiamde infra scriptis signis cognosci potest, nimirum ubicunque Christus in concionibus sacris docetur, sancti evangelii doctrina pure pleneque annuntiatur, sacramenta de Christi institutione et mandate, sententia 2t voluntate administrantur, &c. Ib. pp. 10, 11, Conf. Bohem. cap. VIII simul etiam palam affirmamus ubi verbum Dei non recipittir nee ulla est professio obedientiae quae illi debetur, nee ullus sacramentorum usus, ibi proprie loquendo, non posse nos judicare ullam esse ecclesiam. Ib. p. 15, Conf. Gall. Art. XXVIII. Dici- mus igitur ecclesiam visibilem in hac vita coetum esse amplectentium evangelitim isti, et recte utentium sacramentis, &c. Ib. p. 21, Conf. Saxon. Art. XI. Arbi- tramur .... ecclesiam .... in eo esse loco aut gente ubi evangelion Christi sin- center praedicatur, et sacramenta ejus recte, juxta institutionem Christi, admiriis- -Ib. p. 27, Conf. Virtem. Art. XXXII ubicunque sacrosanctum evangehum et sacramenta exercentur, facile inde scire poterit ubi et qui sint chris- tiana ecclesia. Ib. p. 30, Conf. Suev. Art. XV. 20 A Plea for Liberty in the Church. 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 power given unto them in the congregation to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard." There is not one word here as to episcopal ordination, and yet I am solemnly bound by my ordi- nation vows to regard all those as lawful ministers who answer to this description, although I am not to account them to be lawful ministers, in the Episcopal Church, unless they have been episcopally ordained. So far is such a recognition from being inconsistent with the spirit and history of our Church, that we find it constantly in the works of most of those venerable men who have been the glory of the Church of England. Mr. Keble himself admits, in his preface to Hooker, speaking of Jewel, Whitgift, Cooper, and others, (and the list might be indefinitely extended,) that " It is enough with them to show, that the government by arch- bishops and bishops is ancient and allowable ; they never ven- ture to urge its exclusive claim, or to connect the succession with the validity of the holy sacraments." I do not refer to these opinions of our divines as approving them in all cases. Some of them take far too low views of episcopacy. I refer to them only to show that the recognition of the validity of non-episcopal orders has ever been held, to say the least, to be within the circle of lawful opinions in the Church.* In the " Institution of a Christian Man," issued by the bish- ops and clerg yin 1537, we find this language : " The truth is, that in the New Testament there is no mention of any degrees or distinctions in orders, but only of deacons or ministers, and of priests or bishops." The views of Cranmer, on this subject, are so well known that any quotation from his works is unnecessary. In 1563 * For most of the quotations which follow I am indebted to Mr. Wm. Goode's Work Vindication of the Doctrine of tiie Church of England on the Validity of the Ordert of the Scotch and Foreign Non-Epiicopal Churches. A Plea for Liberty in the Church. 21 Dr. Pilkington, Bishop of Durham, says : " 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." * Archbishop Whitgift says : " 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 I find no one certain and perfect kind of government prescribed or commanded in the Scriptures to the Church of Christ. Secondly, 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." f Hooker says : ' There may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination made without a bishop." J Saravia says: " 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 into idolatry, without any violation of the government of the Church, the whole authority of the episcopal govern- ment is devolved upon the pious and orthodox presbyters, so that a presbyter clearly may ordain presbyters." Lord Bacon, though a layman, is an important witness to the preva- lent opinion in his time. He says : " Some indiscreet persons have been bold in open preaching to use dishonorable and de- rogatory 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 minis- ters." || Bishop Andrews says : " Though our government be of divine right, it follows not either that there is no salva- tion, or that a Church cannot stand without it. He must needs be stone-blind that sees not Churches standing without it."^[ Archbishop Bramhall says : " Many Protestant Churches * Confut. of an Addition. Works, ed. Parker Soc. p. 493. t Dff. of Ant. to Adm., 1574, p. 81. t Ecd. Pol. vii. 14. Defens. Tract de dio. Ministr. Ev. gradibut, cfc., ch. ii. p. 32, from the Latin. || Works, by Basil Montagu. London, 1827. Vol. VII. p. 48. If Wordtw. Christ. Instil. Vol. III. p. 239. 22 A Plea for Liberty in the Church. lived under kings and bishops of another communion ; others had particular reasons why they could not continue or intro- duce bishops." " I know that there is great difference 1 be- tween a VALID and a REGULAR ordination." * Archbishop Ban- croft, when it was proposed that certain candidates for the Scotch Episcopate should first be ordained presbyters, as not having been ordained by a bishop, replied : " That thereof there was no necessity, seeing where bishops could not be had, the ordination given by presbyters must be esteemed lawful." f Archbishop Usher says : " I do protest that with like affection, I should receive the blessed sacrament at the hands of the Dutch ministers, if I were in Holland, as I should at the hands of the French ministers, if I were in Cha- rentone." J Bishop Hall says : " Blessed be God, there is no difference in any essential matter betwixt the Church of Eng- land and her sisters of the Reformation." " The only differ- ence 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." Bishop Morton says : " Where the bishops degenerate into wolves, there the pres- byters regain their ancient right of ordaining." || Dean Field says : " 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 ? " ^[ Dean Cosin says : " 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 your- selves, or in regard of declaring your unity in professing the same religion, which you and they do) go otherwhiles to com- municate reverently with them of the French Church." ' Bishop Stillingfleet, in Irenicum, maintains that the stoutest * Works of, ed. Vol. III. pp. 475, 4T6. t Spotiswood's Hist. Church and Slate of Scotland, 4th ed., 1677, folio, p. 514. { Judg. of Archbishop of Armagh,