poneretur in schismatis factum est remedium. That one afterwards was chosen, to be set over the rest, it was done to be a remedy against schism.1 To this opinion of S. Hierome, subscribeth Bishop Jewel in the place before quoted, and another most reverend prelate of our church in these words," &c.2 1) Ep. Ad Evag. 2) We will here add some other authorities. Dr. Willet, in his great work against "Papistrie," says, (Syn. Pap., p. 266,) "As for the names and offices of sub-deacons. readers, exorcists, acolythi, doorkeepers, we have no such warrant out of the scripture, to make them orders of the church: and therefore we condemn them. All necessary orders for the edifying and building of the church the scripture hath prescribed. (Eph. iv., 11.) There are all officers set down needful for the doctrine, instruction and edifying of the church. (Fulk. Eph. iv., § 4.) Wherefore away with these popish orders invented by men. But as for other offices and services, which shall be thought meet for the affairs and business of the church, they may be retained and kept, but not as new orders of the ministry." Hooker* acknowledges that these controverted points, belong to the outward things of the church and not to its being. (Eccl. Pol. B. 3, § 1. vol. 1, p. 194.) That there were different forms in the apostle's days. (Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 36, 37.) And that the evidence of scripture on the subject of episcopacy is doubtful. (Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 30, 33.) And while it is asserted in the book of Common Prayer, that these orders are clear to all who diligently read holy scripture. Hooker shews that this whole subject is entirely beyond the reach of ordinary men. (Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 26, 27.) He makes it out that no form of church government is taught in scripture. (Eccl. Pol. B. 3. § 2, vol. 1, pp. 207, 212, and B. 3, § 11.) That various forms may be equally consonant to it. (Eccl. Pol. B. 3, § 2, vol. 1, p. 208. And that this is not among the things essential at all. (Ibid., B. 3, § 2, vol. 1, pp. 208, 210, 212.) *"Perhaps there is no work," says Bishop White, in allusion to the Ecclesiastical Polity, "which from the circumstances connected with it, has so good pretensions to be considered as evidence of the opinions of the leading churchmen of the period." Lect. on the Catechism, Philad., 1813, p. 426. Bishop Warburton thus speaks of Hooker (Controv. Tracts, p. 467, as quoted in Meth. Quart. Rev., 1841, p. 78:) "The great Hooker was not only against, but laid down principles that have entirely subverted all pretences to a divine unalterable right in any form of church government whatever. Yet strange to say, his work was so unavoidable a confutation of puritanical principles, which, by the way, claimed their presbytery as of divine right, that the churchmen took advantage of the success of their champion, and now began to claim a divine right for episcopacy on the strength of that very book that subverted all pretences to every species of divine right whatsoever.' Thus says Dr. Hammond :* (Pow. of Keys, in Pref. Oxford Tracts, vol. 3, p. 144:) "Who were the apostles' successors in that power, which concerned the governing their churches which they planted? and first, I answer, that it being a matter of fact, or story, later than the scripture can universally reach to, it cannot be fully satisfied or answered from thence; but will, in the full latitude, through the universal church in these times, be made clear from the recent evidences that we have, viz., from the consent of the Greek and Latin fathers, who generally resolve that bishops are those successors.' Bishop Heber also teaches, that Jeremy Taylor erred in this respect, and that the claims of prelacy are not to be based on the arguments from scripture, (see Taylor's Work's, Heber's ed. and Life, vol. 1, pp. 181. 183. and 186.) but on "apostolical tradition" which is, says he, "the strong, and if I may be allowed the expression, the impregnable ground of the episcopal scheme.' "It happens, however," he further says, (Serm. in Engl., No. 12, p. 250. Am. Ed.), "to be in our power to show, if not an explicit direction of Christ for the form of church government and the *"Hammond's name alone, were there no other, binds us to the English church," &c. Oxf. Tr., vol. 3, p. 3. our Rushworth informs us, that in his day, (he wrote in the year 1618,) "prelacy was almost universally held, by the prelates themselves, to be a human ordinance, which may therefore be altered or abolished, in cases of necessity, without wronging any man's conscience."1 Thus, in the famous debate with the parliament divines, in 1648, King Charles allowed, that bishops, as "successors of the apostles in all things not extraordinary, such as teaching, and governing,-are not mentioned, as a distinct order, in the New Testament;" while, on the other hand, these divines were of opinion, "that human testimony on both sides ought to be discharged, and the point in debate be determined only by scripture-and since your majesty," say they, "cannot produce any record from scripture, warranting the division of the office of teaching and governing into two hands, we must look upon it as an invention of men, to get power into their hands."2 "His majesty in reply," relies, as he says, "on the numerous testimonies of ancient and modern writers, for the scripture original of bishops;" while he modestly insists at the same time, that "testimonies from those fathers, even of an equal number, to the contrary, are of no value whatever." manner of appointing our spiritual guides, yet a PRECEDENT so clear, and a pattern so definite, as can leave little doubt of the INTENTIONS of our divine master, or of the manner in which those intentions were fulfilled by his immediate and inspired disciples.' Bishop Tomline (see Elem. of Theol., vol. ii., pp. 376, 401, and 427,) declares, that "as it has not pleased our Almighty Father to prescribe any particular form of civil government for the security of temporal comforts to his rational creatures, so neither has he prescribed any particular form of ecclesiastical polity as absolutely necessary to the attainment of eternal happiness, &c. The gospel only lays down general principles, and leaves the application of them to men as free agents. Faith and good works are the only things indispensably required for salvation." And again: "Neither Christ nor his apostles prescribed any particular form of ordaining ministers, to be observed in succeeding ages; but they left this, with other things of a similar nature, to be regulated by the church." See also Paley's Works, vol. 6, p. 91. 3) Neal's Puritans, p. 431, and Life of Alexander Henderson. Dr. Pusey would not allow us any greater favor in our investigation of the fathers even could we feel at liberty to receive their testimony as authoritative. In his preface to the Library of the Fathers, and in treating upon their proper use, he says, (Li. of Fath., vol. 1, p. xvii., xviii.) "The end then of this study is not discovery of new truth, for new truth there is none in the gospel; not any criticism of their own church, this were irreverent and ungrateful; not to see with their own eyes, for they will come to see with their own eyes, but not by making this their object; not to compare ancient and modern systems and adopt the one or the other, or amalgamate both, taking of each what seems to them truth; this were to subject the truth of God, and the authority which he has placed over them, to their own private judgment; it is not criticism of any sort, no abstract result of any sort, nor even knowledge in itself, but to understand and appreciate better and realize more thoroughly the estate to which God has called them, as members of that branch of the church catholic, into which they were baptized, and in which, perhaps, they have been or look to be, made his ministers." In like manner, we find in a recent article on the "Use of the Fathers," in a standard high-church periodical, a re-assertion of this principle. "We wish," says the reviewer, "this humble effort might first of all direct the eyes of the churchmen to see where the hidden power of the Church of England lies, that her defenders may not go forth to the contest, with armor that they have not proved, nor rob themselves of those essential graces, which are to them, not the works of comeliness, BUT THE SECRET of their strength." 3 That episcopacy cannot be substantiated from scripture alone, is also the general doctrine of the Oxford divines in their celebrated works. "We do not find the origin of episcopacy exactly recorded," says Mr. Palmer, "but it is probable," he adds. "Every one must allow," say the tractators themselves, that there is next to nothing on the surface of scripture about these (i. e. these church doctrines,) and very little even under the surface, of a satisfactory character."" "If we were to take the several articles of what is called church doctrine," says the author of Ancient Christianity, himself an episcopalian, "in the order and under the perspective in which we find them, WHERE ONLY WE DO FIND THEM AT ALL,— namely, in the extant remains of the early church,—for if we give up these records, we have no other sufficient warrant for paying them any regard . . . . ." "The claims of episcopacy (prelacy) to be of divine institution, and therefore obligatory on the church, must rest, however," as we have proved by the admissions of some of these writers themselves, and as Bishop Onderdonk expressly avows, "fundamentally on the one question-has it the authority of scripture? If it has not, it is not necessarily binding. No argument is worth taking into the account that has not a palpable bearing on the clear and naked topic-the scriptural evidence of episcopacy," i. e. prelacy. And so, in entering upon his treatise on the different degrees of the christian priesthood, Hadrian Saravia says, “I seek not to be believed beyond what is EXPRESSLY declared in the word of God, or may be proved from it by the clear deduction of reason."1 This, then, is the only demand which we prefer. Christianity, whatever it implies, is our choice. The scriptures, whatever they make necessary, are our rule, the truth, as it is herein revealed; the whole truth, as by these oracles it is proclaimed; and nothing beside, beyond, or in superaddition to that truth. Episcopacy proved by scripture-to this we are ready humbly and implicitly to bow ;-while any thing but this, we as resolutely disclaim. The system of the apostles-as distinct, and distinguishable, from the church principles of an after-age-christianity as opposed to pharasaic religionism;the gospel as contrasted with hierarchical traditions;-the decrees of God, in their wide separation from the impositions and burdensome canons of innumerable councils: this is the foundation, without any intervening stratum of human authority, upon which we build. All pharisaism, Judaism, Nicenism, and Romanism, kindred and identified as they are, in all essential principles, we disavow. All such "ecclesiastical pretensions," which lead their authors to the avowal, that "we know nothing from revelation of any grace, any christian ministry, any sacraments, or any salvation, beyond the church," (i. e. of the prelacy)—we must regard as "adding the guilt of outrageous impiety to the sin of schism.” 1) "No fact can be established by reasoning solely; whatever, then, hath been reasoned by the ingenuity and research of men contending for parity, is of no moment until the fact be previously established by proper evidence." Bish. Ravens croft's Vind., p. 38, in Evang. Mag., vol. 9, p. 562. See also p. 31, and pp. 40, 41, 42, to 57. 2) Palmer, vol. ii. p. 431, and 436. 3) Ancient Christianity, vol. i. p. 488. LECTURE IV. THE TRIBUNAL, BY WHICH THIS PRELATICAL DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION MUST BE ADJUDICATED. THE SUBJECT CONCLUded. We now resume the discussion of the prelatical doctrine of apostolical succession. This doctrine is thus defined by Bishop Beveridge: "In the first place, I observe, how much we are all bound to acknowledge the goodness, to praise, magnify, and adore the name of the most high God, in that we were born and bred, and still live in a church, wherein the apostolical line hath, through all ages, been preserved entire, there having been a constant succession of such bishops in it, as were truly and properly successors to the apostles, by virtue of that apostolical imposition of hands, which, being begun by the apostles, hath been continued from one to another, ever since their time, down to ours. By which means, the same spirit which was breathed by our Lord into his apostles is, together with their office, transmitted to their lawful successors, the pastors and governors of our church at this time; and acts, moves, and assists at the administration of the several parts of the apostolical office in our days, as much as ever. From whence it follows that the means of grace which we now enjoy are in themselves as powerful and effectual as they were in the apostles' days," &c." If this doctrine is essential, and the powers assumed by it are necessary to the origination and perpetuation of a true church 1) Serm. on Christ's Presence with his Min. in Wks. vol. ii. 2) "That fountain of supernatural grace which was opened for you when you were consecrated to be an apostle." Keble on Trad'n. p. 10, in ref. to Timothy. |