true churches, and their ministers true ministers, and so of their administrations. This was so common with them, that I do not think a dissenting vote can be found, from the first reformation, till about the preparation for the Spanish match, or a little before." He then gives a long list of authors in proof.1 A catena patrum of the English fathers and divines, who have opposed the exclusive form of this doctrine, which we denominate prelacy, though they believed in episcopacy, more or less firmly, as a fact, but not as of fundamental importance, or of exclusive divine right; might easily be made out, and not 1) Lond. 1659, ch. v. page 178. This subject is thus presented by the Rev. J. Cumming, of the Scottish Church, Covent Garden, in his Apology for the Church of Scotland, (Lond. 1837, pp. 14, 15.) "In earlier times, the two churches recognized each other by ostensible acts. Such was the respect for Scottish orders among the bishops and reformers of the English Church at the reformation, and for a century afterwards, that nothing was more common than for a minister of the Scottish, or other reformed churches, to receive a license from the bishop of the diocese to exercise all the duties of a presbyter, under the superintendence of the ordinary. Strype remarks, in his Annals, 'that the ordination of foreign reformed churches was made valid, and those who had no other orders were made of like capacity with others to enjoy any place of ministry in England. Whittingham, dean of Durham, was objected to by Sandys, archbishop of York, whose orders were from the church of Rome, but a commission, consisting of several dignitaries, decided that his orders were good, and stated by the mouth of their president, "They could not in conscience agree to deprive him, or allow of the popish massing priests in our ministry, and to disallow of ministers made in a reformed church.'" Bancroft, archbp. of Canterbury, consecrated presbyters, ordained according to the forms of presbytery, to the offices of bishops, when James I. introduced an order of diocesan bishops into Scotland, and Burnet states, that presbyterial orders were almost universally recognized. To this day, there is nothing in the rubric or articles of the Church of England, to prevent a bishop from giving his license to a presbyterial clergyman to preach in the pulpits of his diocese." "A striking illustration of the views entertained of presbyterial orders in the reign of James I. is found in the following fact: A Dr. DeLaune was presented to a living in the diocese of Norwich. The bishop (Overal) naturally asked him where he obtained his orders; he replied, from the presbytery of Leyden. The bishop refused to reordain, in these words: 'Re-ordination we must not admit, no more than re-baptization; but in case you find it doubtful whether you be a priest capable to receive a benefice among us or no, I will do the same office for you, if you desire it, that I should do for one that doubts of his baptism, according to the rule in the Book of Common Prayer, 'If thou beest not already,' &c. ; yet, for my own part, if you will venture the orders that you have, I will give you institution.' Birch's Life of Tillotson, p. 184. That this doctrine of high-church prelacy received its first currency in modern times, from the sermon of Dr. Bancroft, in 1589, is evident from the fact, that the only contrary evidence offered by Mr. Soames, is the assumed position of Archbishop Whitgift, (Elizab. Rel. Hist. p. 381.) But as we have shown already, and will again, Whitgift stands upon the very opposite doctrine. See Neal, vol. i. p. 434, and Price's Hist. Nonconf. vol. i. p. 377. like that delusive catalogue framed by the Oxford writers, and which is altogether beside the purpose.1 It may not, however, be out of place to add here a few more of the many testimonies, against this uncharitable doctrine, from some of the most eminent divines of the English church, with which our reading has supplied us.2 The Rev. J. E. Riddle, the author of several approved works, in his recent and valuable Compend of Ecclesiastical Chronology, thus speaks of the English church.3 "Well may we recognize our happiness in being members of a christian community, which teaches from the Bible, and not from tradition,-which proclaims apostolical truth, instead of boasting of apostolical succession,—which builds upon the sure word of God, instead of appealing to the forgeries and impostures of human fraud, or to the speculations of human imbecility and error, and which is bound, by its own fundamental principles, to maintain the language of courtesy and respect, and to hold out the right hand of christian fellowship, towards all other churches in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments are duly administered." So, also, in his large work on "Christian Antiquities," in his "Plea for Episcopacy, Charity and Peace," this author remarks, "We may reasonably believe that episcopacy is a divine institution; but we have no right to contend that it is the only system to which that honor is attached." Again, he says,— "Among the questions which may well be left open,-being such as will always receive different answers from different inquiries, is this,-Did they (the apostles) in any way sanction the doctrines commonly connected with the theory of apostolic succession?" He goes on to give many reasons why they probably did not; and then adds- "Whatever may become of apostolic succession as a theory or institute, it is IMPOSSIBLE at ALL events, to PROVE the FACT of SUCH SUCCESSION, OR TO TRACE IT DOWN THE STREAM OF TIME. In this case the fact 1) Of the forty-three extracts given in the Tracts for the Times, No. 74, as testimonies to the doctrine of the apostolical succession, there are not more than a dozen who do really testify to anything like the doctrfiine of the Tracts on that subject. 2) See many of them given in full in Dr. Miller on the Ministry, p. 139, &c. Powell on Ap. Succ. § vii.; Presb. Def. pp. 38-40; Neal's Puritans, vol. iii. pp. 284, 287, 352, 366, 372, and vol. i. pp. 217, 230, 261, 271, 395, 397, 419, 433. See facts in Prot. Dissent. Catech. pp. 27, 29; Bishop Hall's Wks. vol. viii. pp. 50, 51, 53-57; Bishop Davenant, as there referred to, and in Coleman, Christ. Antiq.; Jewell in Powell, p. 79; Brit. Ref. vol. vii. pp. 217-226, and pp. 26-30. 3) Eccles. Chron. Lond. 1840, pref. p. 9. 4) Lond. 1839, pp. 829. 8) Ibid, pp. 70, 71, 72. seems to involve the doctrine; and if the fact be hopelessly obscure, the doctrine is irrecoverably lost." We will now present an extract from the Essays on the Church, by a Layman, which have attracted great notice, and are quoted with approbation, in the London Christian Observer.1 "If our readers have as carefully perused and weighed these passages as their importance deserves, they will not be slow in coming to the author's conclusion, that, the 'via media' then, of the Church of England, is not the via media of the Oxford tracts. The first is a wise and just moderation, holding firm to essentials; offering no compromise to the enemies of Christ; decided to have 'no peace with Rome;' and yet, at the same time that it maintains its own views of church government, distinctly and meekly offering the right hand of fellowship to all other churches 'holding the head,' without requiring them to take the same identical view of those questions of church government, on which the scriptures allow a degree of obscurity to rest." "They talk of the old standard divinity of the church;' but when we come to name the authors, they can think of none but Laud, and Heylin, and Leslie, and Bull! Now we deny that these have the least title to be considered our 'old standard divines.' We want the works of those who founded and built up our church; but they offer us those only who tried their utmost, and partly succeeded in pulling it down!" The London Christian Observer thus speaks:2 "Now our readers know the extreme displeasure of the Oxford tract divines at there being nothing about the 'apostolical succession' in our articles; and that the validity of the orders of foreign protestants has ever been acknowledged by our church, and in the writings of her divines; a few Laudites only excepted. But here we have presented to us a sermon of Cranmer's, with this ambiguous expression, 'apostolical succession,' on its very front. Again, the Oxford tract divines mourn bitterly that there is nothing about 'the altar,' or 'the blessed sacrament of the altar-that incorrigibly popish phrase-in our prayer book; that the alleged 'altar' is studiously called by our reformers, a 'table,' and the alleged 'sacrifice,' a 'supper.' it cannot be denied, that the Church of England did acknowledge the validity of presbyterian ordination; nay, that presbyters were for many years even allowed to minister within its pale, and to enjoy its preferments; nor did any one of our primates, from Cranmer to Howley, Laud only excepted, ever 1) Oct. 1838, p. 650. 'For 2) Nov. 1838, pp. 221, 820, 822, 826. dispute the claim of the protestant churches to be accounted portions of Christ's visible kingdom.' 'If any of our readers will refer to Bishop Burnet's 'Vindication of the ordinations of the Church of England,' in which it is demonstrated that all the essentials of ordination, according to the practice of the primitive and Greek churches, are still retained in our church; in answer to a paper written by one of the church of Rome to prove the nullity of our orders, and given to a person of quality they will see the exceeding injury which the Oxford-tract extravagant doctrine upon apostolical succession (which is not the true Anglican or scriptural doctrine, but the Romish) is likely to do to our apostolical church, and to the reformation in general; indeed, we may say to our common christianity.' We sincerely believe that upon the non-spiritual principles assumed by the objector, the orders of the Church of England would be invalid.' The same work for February, of this year,1 says: "The prominent opinions which divide our church may be classed under three heads." "There was first, the school of the reformers. This comprised the Cranmers, Ridleys, Latimers, Hoopers, Jewells, and Hookers, of the days of Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth. The divines of this school regarded the word of God as the sole authoritative rule of faith and practice; they considered Rome to be antichrist; and though persuaded that episcopacy is of divine institution, and zealously attached to it, both upon principle and by experience, they yet cordially embraced the lutheran and reformed churches as sisterly communions. Their tenets were clearly set forth in the Thirty-nine Articles, and more largely unfolded in the Homilies; and that which gave special life and efficacy to them, was that fundamental doctrine of grace which Rome repudiated, justification by faith, with which, after the example of St. Paul and St. James, they connected all other scriptural doctrines, with their blessed fruits in the heart and life." "Towards the close of the reign of Elizabeth, and in the beginning of that of James I., there sprang up a new school, widely differing from that of the reformers, and the tenets of which at length acquired the coherence of a system; and under the influence of Archbishop Laud, in the reign of Charles II., became widely prevalent. At the restoration they were resuscitated by the surviving divines of Laud's school; and they were, for the most part, embraced by the non-jurors.' 1) 1841, p. 76. The Hon. and Rev. Baptist Noel, in his Tract on the Unity of the Church, makes this supposition: "Another christian, bearing in his life and character all the marks of a child of God, wishes to determine whether he should join the episcopalian section of the church of Christ, or the presbyterian. He, too, examined scripture, weighed the evidence on both sides, conversed with upright and intelligent men in both communions, and prayed to be directed right. After much deliberation, he became convinced that diocesan episcopacy has no sanction in the word of God, and that the orders and discipline of the presbyterian body are most conformed to the usages of the church in the New Testament; that presbyterian orders are of divine appointment, and that it was the will of Christ that he should be so ordained. With that opinion he became a presbyterian minister. Am I now to separate from his society? How has he sinned? He was obliged to follow what seemed to him the will of Christ. His conclusions were supported by the decisions of several of the protestant churches. The Lutheran, Swiss, French, Dutch, and Scotch churches, the church of the Vaudois, and a large and pious section of the American church were all on his side. While, in favor of episcopacy, besides the church of Rome, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus; and the eastern churches, which are nearly as corrupt, he found only the Church of England, and three or four small sections of the church of Christ elsewhere, who had retained diocesan episcopacy. Under these circumstances am I to separate from him? Not to have examined the scripture doctrine would have been sin. Not to have followed the conviction of duty, to which the examinations would have led him, would have been sin. In fidelity to Christ, he was obliged to act as he did; and if I separate from him, I do it only because he did his duty." Stillingfleet (we mean of course the dean-not the bishop) largely proves, that it was the judgment of the most eminent divines of the reformation that the form of church government depends on the wisdom of the magistrate, and that the form of the church is mutable. He attributes this opinion to Cranmer and other divines in the time of Edward VI., to Whitgift, Bishop Bridges, Dr. Loe, Mr. Hooker, King James, Dr. Sutcliffe, Mr. Hales, and Mr. Chillingworth. He, Dr. Stillingfleet, says, "I doubt not to make it evident, that the main ground 1) Lond. 1838, 25th ed. pp. 11, 12. 3 2) Iren. pt. ii. ch. viii. 3) Iren. pt. ii. ch. vii. |