and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these orders of ministers in CHRIST's Church-BISHOPS, PRIESTS, and DEACONS. Which offices were evermore had in such reverend estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as were requisite for the same; and also by public prayer, with imposition of hands, were approved and admitted thereto by lawful authority." The "lawful authority" here meant, is, of course, the authority prescribed by the Ordinal, that is, the Bishop. We learn, therefore, from the foregoing, what were the opinions of the framers of our Liturgy, that is, of the Reformers of the English Church, AS REFORMERS, concerning The Church, and its ministry, and also what is the opinion of the Church itself. They were as follows:*-

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; that by the ordinance of CHRIST, no man may take upon himself the office of public preaching, or ministering the sacraments, before he is lawfully called and sent to do the same; that by the same ordinance, the ministry, by which the word is to be preached and the sacraments administered, is made to consist of three distinct orders, called Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; that these three orders, so divinely constituted, have existed in the Church of CHRIST from the time of the Apostles; that by the same authority by which these three orders exist, power and authority to call and send men to preach the word and administer the sacraments, is vested in the Bishop alone.

But notwithstanding the certainty of this conclusion, there are some who still persist in urging other reasons, to prove the very things we have so clearly disproved. The principal of these we shall mention. Thus it is said:

PRACTICE OF THE ENGLISH REFORMERS.

395

1. That "Dr. Bancroft, chaplain to Archbishop Whitgift, [first] divided off the Bishops from the body of the Presbyters, and advanced them into a superior order by divine right, in a sermon at St. Paul's Cross, January 1, 1588." Those who know what the Book of Common Prayer teaches, know this can not be true; but all may not know, that in the sermon referred to, there is not one word on the subject.*

2. That "those who had been ordained in foreign Churches, in the reign of Mary, were admitted in Elizabeth's reign to their ministerial offices and charges, and to legalize this, an act of Parliament was passed the 13th Elizabeth, allowing of ordination of Presbyters without a Bishop." No such act was ever passed by the British Parliament. The act referred to, is entitled, An Act to reform CERTAIN DISORDERS touching the ministers of the Church. The first section enacts, that every minister under the degree of Bishop, who had received ordination or consecration by any other form than that prescribed by the Ordinal of Edward VI. should, in a certain limited time, subscribe to the articles of religion, confessions, &c. &c., prescribed by law, and in default thereof, should be deprived. One of the things they were thus required to sign, was the Preface to the Ordinal. The second section of the same act declares, that any minister who teaches or preaches any thing contrary to those articles, shall be deprived, and there is not, in the whole chapter, one word about, or one allusion to ordination by Presbyters.

3. "That Archbishop Grindal commissioned a Presbyterian minister to preach in his Diocese." This case of itself proves, that the English Church did not allow his orders, for if it had, there would have been no need of a commission. Further, for this very act and other irregularities, the Archbishop was suspended.‡

* Const. Hist. Eng. vol. I. p. 504. Stat. 13 Eliz. c. 12. pp. 546, 547.

Strype, Life Grind.

4. "That ministers from abroad, who had received only Presbyterian ordination, were received in their ecclesiastical character by the Reformers, without re-ordination." These lists usually include the names of "Calvin, Knox, Fagius, Bucer, Tremellius, Peter Martyr, John A Lasco," &c. each of these separately.

Of

Of CALVIN. And (1) he never visited England, and, therefore, could not have been admitted to their pulpits; and (2) he never was in Priest's orders,* and, therefore, could not have been acknowledged as a minister of Christ.

KNOX was Episcopally ordained in the Romish Church, before becoming a reformer,t and was, therefore, upon the same footing with the rest of the reformers.

FAGIUS. Of Fagius, little is known, as he died very soon after he arrived in England.‡

BUCER was a Dominican Friar, and Episcopally ordained, before joining the reformers.§

TREMELLIUS, an Italian Monk, was Episcopally ordained a Priest, before becoming a reformer.||

PETER MARTYR had been Episcopally ordained in the Romish Church, before becoming a reformer.¶

JOHN ALASCO had never received Episcopal ordination, and was never received into Episcopal pulpits. But Edward and Cranmer, desirous of patronizing eminent reformers, though they did not adopt Episcopacy, issued a commission authorizing A Lasco and four other foreigners, to preach to their countrymen, in certain chapels erected for the purpose.

* Beza, Life Cal. Spon, Hist. Geneva, L. iii. p. 243, cited in Bayle, Hist. and Crit. Dict. vol. II. p. 264. Leti, Hist. Gen. vol. III. p. 41, in Bayle, ubi. sup. Maimbourg, Hist. Calvinism, p. 64, Ib.

Rob. Scot. vol. I. p. 238. Biog. Univers. vol. XXII. p. 499. Encyc. Am. vol. VII. p. 341.

Bur. Hist. Ref. vol. II. p. 116.

§ Encyc. Am. vol. II. p. 206.

|| Bossuet, Hist. Prot. cit. in Trav. Irish Gent. p. 241, n. Strype, Ann. B.

ii. c. 18, p. 387.

T Encyc. Am. vol. VIII. p. 312.

Bow. Lett, vol. I. p. 204.

NECESSITY OF CHRISTIAN UNITY.

397

Thus much for this charge, which our readers will see by this time, is wholly unfounded. The Episcopal Church never has renounced the divine institution of Episcopacy, nor has she ever acknowledged the orders of any one who had not been Episcopally ordained.

CHAPTER XXX.

UNITY OF THE CHURCH.

WE should not feel that we had discharged our full duty, were we to bring it to a close, without calling attention to a consideration of some practical duties, growing out of this subject. Now it can never be a question of small moment, to the humble follower of the LORD JESUS, "what is that Church which my Saviour hath established? and what is my duty towards it?"

every good For if there

The first of these questions has, we trust, been answered on the preceding pages; the last, which is one of practical religion, it can not be difficult to decide. For if the Apostles of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, acting in his name and by his authority, have established a Church on earth, Christian must desire to belong to that Church. be but one fold and one shepherd, and if this Church, it is clear there can be but one Church. Or if the Church be one body, having many members, performing various offices, having but one head, it is clear there can be but one Church.

fold be the

But we are not left to make out the necessity and importance of this unity, from inference alone. Our Saviour prayed, (John xvii. 20—23,) that "all his disciples might be one, as He and the Father were one." And he gives as a reason for desiring this unity, "that the world might believe that the Father hath

sent him." Here Christian unity is made indispensable to the success of the gospel. Hence, a want of this unity must be one of the greatest hindrances to the conversion of the world. It is only, therefore, while the Church raises its voice "with one accord," while it "continues steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayer," (Acts ii. 42,) that we have a right to expect that the word of God will grow and be multiplied.

The evils of a departure from this unity, are most serious and alarming. Many of these must be apparent to the most casual observer. But some of them are not so apparent, requiring a careful comparison of the present with the past history of the Church. It is thus we learn that since the orthodox portion of the Christian Church, those who believed in the divinity of our Saviour and received the great doctrines of the Gospel, has been divided into sects and parties, Christianity itself has lost ground in the world, at least so far as the number of its followers is concerned. We know this

opinion will sound strange to some, perhaps be questioned by others—that it is opposed to the popular opinion of the day; but notwithstanding, the truth of history compels us to believe, that there are not as many nominal and professed Christians in the world, at the present moment, as there were fourteen centuries ago.

At the first assembling of the disciples, after the ascension, there were but one hundred and twenty. (Acts i. 15.) Subsequently the number amounted to about five hundred. (1 Cor. xv.) About three thousand souls were added on the day of Pentecost, (Acts ii. 41;) among which, were "devout men out of every nation." (Acts ii. 5.) The countries mentioned as being represented, were Egypt and Lybia, in Africa; Rome, and other places in Europe, and numerous countries of Asia. To these countries some account of the miraculous descent of the HOLY GHOST would be carried. Within a short period