/i^i/ZSZ^
V^/X.A
WORKS
ON
THEOLOGICAL SUBJECTS
BY
E. C. HARINGTON, M.A.,
CHANCELLOR AND CANON KESIDENTIART OF THE CATHEDRAL
CHURCH OF EXETER.
IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. I.
LONDON :
F. & J. RIVINGTON, WATERLOO PLACE.
EXETER : W. CLIFFORD.
CONTENTS.
VOL. I.
Two Ordination Sermons, preached in the Cathedral
Church of S. Peter, Exeter, and published at the
request of the Lord Bishop of Exeter, with copious
Notes. Second Edition.
"The Succession of Bishops in the Church of England
Unbroken." Second Edition.
"The Reformers of the Anglican Church, and Mr.
Macaulay's History of England," with an Appendix.
Second Edition.
" The Purity of the Church of England, and the Cor-
ruptions of the Church of Rome," a Sermon preached
in the Cathedral Church of S. Peter, Exeter, November
5th, 1852.
" Rome's Pretensions Tested," a Sermon preached in the
Cathedral Church of S. Peter, Exeter, November 5th,
1855, with copious illustrative Notes.
" Pope Pius IV., and the Book of Common Prayer."
"The Bull of Pope Pius IX., and the Ancient British
Church."
206GS70
APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION,
AND THE NECESSITY OF
4
EPISCOPAL ORDINATION,
AS HELD BY THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH,
AND
MAINTAINED BY THE REFORMERS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
BEING
TWO SERMONS
PREACHED IN THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF ST. PETER, EXETER,
AT TWO CONSECUTIVE ORDINATIONS,
HELD BY THE RIGHT REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE, IN 1845,
AND PUBLISHED AT HIS LORDSHIP'S REQUEST.
WITH COPIOUS
ElluBtratibe
SECOND EDITION, WITH LARGE ADDITIONS.
BY E. C. HARINGTON, M. A.
PREBENDARY OF EXETEE, AND INCUMBENT OF ST. DAVID,
AUTHOR OF THE " ANTIQOITT, &C., OF THE RITE OF CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES,'
" THE SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND UNBROKEN," &C.
" Inde cnim SCHISMATA el II^F.RESES dbortee sunt et oriuntur, dum EPISCOPUS, qui units
est, et Ecclesia- prcecst, superba quorundam prcusumptione conlemnitur, ft Itomo dignatione
Dei lioitoratus, indif/ntis b ttominibiisjinJicatui: . . . Sciredebes EPISCOPUM in Eccli'sin
esse, et Ecdtsiai in EPISCOPO ; et ei qui cum EPISCOPO non sini, in ECCLESIA. non es$e."
C'upriani ipisl. CO.
LONDON : F. & J. RIYINGTON.
OXFORD: j. H. PARKER. CAMBRIDGE : MACMILLAN & co.
EXETEK : K. J. WALLIS, AND \V. SPREAT.
1847.
TO THE BIGHT HEV. THE
LORD BISHOP OF EXETER,
Sermons,
PUBLISHED AT HIS LORDSHIP'S REQUEST,
ARE,
WITH EVERY FEELING BUE TO HIS LORDSHIP,
AND TO HIS SACRED OFFICE,
RESPECTFULLY AND GRATEFULLY INSCRIBED,
BY
THE AUTHOR.
PREFACE.
" IF it be objected against me, that throughout the
following pages I have rather collected than com-
posed ; and that, instead of offering any thing of
my own, I have gathered from others what might be
most serviceable to the cause I have espoused, I
readily confess it ; and I am not ashamed to ac-
knowledge myself furnished with my arguments
from the writings of men (such as Hooker, and
Barrow, and Leslie, and Hammond, and Taylor,
and Beveridge, &c. &c.) whose names and per-
formances are sufficient to do honour to any pages,
and to whom I refer all that shall be found good in
those now submitted to the public."
The Excellency and Beauty of the Church of England.
PREFACE
TO THE
SECOND EDITION.
The favorable reception of the first Edition of these
Sermons, and the approbation bestowed upon the
weight of evidence adduced from our best Divines,
in support of the Author's statements, have induced
him to add very largely to the authorities previously
advanced in defence of Episcopacy. He believes
that there is not one position of any moment which
is not confirmed by ample testimony from some
one or more of the great Luminaries of the Church.
The additional quotations from Bilson, Dodwell,
Durel, Sage, Hickes, Downame, and the Author of
Episcopal Government Instituted by Christ, will be
found worthy of a very careful perusal. The Author
cannot hope, in the language of one of his reviewers,
that " to the younger Clergy just entering on their
sacred office, these Sermons and Notes will be found
invaluable ;" but he trusts that he may without
arrogance entertain the belief, to quote another
Reviewer, that "the references to the yreat Divines
and Champions of our Church are so numerous, that,
on this account alone, the Pamphlet must prove of
great value to any one who desires to study the
arguments by which the Constitution of the Church
is defended."
St. David, Exeter, Jany. 1847.
SERMON I.
ST. MATT, xxviii. 16. 1820.
" Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain
where Jesus had appointed them. And Jesus came and spake
unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in
earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost :
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you : and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world."
WHEN our blessed Lord had finished the great work
of man's redemption, and had fully instructed the
Apostles concerning the nature of that work in
which they were to be engaged, the method they
were to observe in carrying out that work, and
whatsoever else is contained in that general expres-
sion of " the things pertaining to the kingdom of
God," the Apostles having received the w r onderful
effusion of the Holy Spirit, for which our Saviour
had commanded them to " tarry in Jerusalem," im-
mediately " went forth, and preached every where,
8 SERMON I.
the Lord working with them, and confirming the
word with signs following."
In examining the early histoiy of the Church, we
perceive that certain ordinances were appointed of a
permanent character, viz. Baptism, the Lord's Sup-
per, public prayer, and preaching in the congregation,
with others of a less general nature; and we learn that,
from the earliest period, there have always been
certain Officers 1 in the Church whose business it has
i " As the Lord, under the Law, and from the first founding of
that Church, did set apart a peculiar order and function of men for
the service of the sanctuary, so did He, under the Gospel, a peculiar
order and function for the ministry of the gospel ; and this no more
to be usurped upon, than that. Now as, under the law, there were
several sorts of men within that function, as high-priests, chief-priests,
ordinary priests, and Levites, but all paled in with that peculiarity,
that no other might meddle with their function ; so likewise, at the
first rising of the gospel, there were Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets,
1'astors, Teachers, according to the necessity of those present times,
but all hedged in with a distinctive ministerial calling, that none other
might, nor may, break in upon. All the titles and names, that
ministers are called by throiighout the New Testament, are such as
denote peculiarity and distinctiveness of order, as, " wise men and
scribes." Now,* the Jews knew not, nor ever had heard, of " wise
men and scribes" but the learned of their nation, distinguished from
others by peculiarity of order and ordination ; and if they understood
not Christ in such a sense, viz., men of a distinct order, they un-
derstood these titles, " wise men and scribes," in a sense that they had
never known nor heard of before. Ministers in the New Testament
are called "Elders," "Bishops," "Angels of the Churches," "Pastors,"
* " Nam apud Judseos Sapientes et Scribae doctos, ab aliis segregates,
seu peculiarem hominum ordinem, ^n^tria separatum, semper denotant ;
neque enim uspiam reperire est, apud Hebrseos, olim dictos Sapientes et
Scrtf/as alio sensu." Leusd.
SI;I;.MON I.
been to administer these several ordinances. Scrip-
ture and antiquity declare, beyond a doubt, that there
ever were in the primitive Church ETT/O-XOTTO*, bishops 2 ,
7r/><rj3uTpoi, priests or elders, 3 and Jiaxovoj, deacons. 4
Thus the Church of Jerusalem had elders. (Acts
xv. 2, &c. and xvi. 4.) St. Paul and St. Barnabas
"ordained elders in every Church." (Acts xiv. 23.)
The Church of Philippi had bishops. (Phil. i. 1.)
The Churches of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia,
and Bithynia, had elders. (1 Pet. i. 1, and v. 1,)
The Churches of the twelve tribes which were scat-
" Teachers ;" now all these were synagogue-terms, and every one of
them denoted peculiarity of order, as might be shewed abundantly
from their synagogue-antiquities. The Jews knew no " Elders," but
men, by their order and function, distinguished from other men.
A " Bishop" translates the word " chazan ;" " an angel of the con-
gregation" translates the title "sheliach tsibbor ;" a "pastor" trans-
lates the word " parnas ;" and a " teacher" translates the " divinity
reader." Now these terms had never been known by any to signify
otherwise than men of a peculiar function and distinct order."
Lightfoot's Harmony of the New Testament, sect. 27.
2 See Bingham's Antiquities, vol. i. pp. 51. 180. Maurice's Defence
of Diocesan Episcopacy. Maurice's Vindication of the Primitive Church.
Thorndike's Primitive Government of Churches and Review of the
same. Seller's Remarks on the Slate of the Church of the First Century.
Dodwclli Dissertaliones Cyprianica:. A View of the Election of
Bixhops in the Primitive Church, by a Presbyter of the Church of
Scotland. Downame's Defence, (Bocks, 3rd. 4th.} Brokesby's
History of the Government of the Primitive Church. Sclater's Original
> Draught of the Primitive Church. The Divine Right of Episcopacy
asserted, by a Presbyter of the Church of England ; especially ch. 5 9.
3 Bingham, vol. i. pp. 251 275.
* Bingham, vol. i. pp. 2!>7, 309.
10 SERMON I.
tered abroad had elders. 5 (James v. 14.) Titus was
left in Crete to ordain elders 6 in every city, as
St. Paul had appointed him. 7 (Titus i. 5.) Again,
5 See Potter on Church Government, pp. 106 122, and Sclater's
Original Draught of the Primitive Church, ch. 4. pp. 165 236.
6 Bishop Pearson proves from St. Clement of Alexandria, Ter-
tullian, and Origen, that in their judgment the Apostle speaks of
Presbyters properly so called ; as doth also Theodoret, by this argu-
ment, that the Apostle requires Presbyters, in the plural, to be
ordained in every city, whereas there was to be only one single bishop
in a city. See also Bingham's Antiquities, vol. i. book ii. c. 13.
1 " I come now to demonstrate the distinction between Presbyters
and Deacons, which is altogether as clear and apparent as that between
Bishop and Presbyter. St. Ignatius (ad Trail: ad Philadel: ad
Magnes : ad Smyrn :) does not only place the Deacons as the third
order of the Church, but declares that they must obey the Presbyters.
And accordingly at their institution at first, in the Acts, their office
is assigned to distribute the charity of the Church, in subjection to
the Apostles or Bishops, with the Elders or Presbyters. Tertullian
is very express to the same purpose, and measures the obedience of
Deacons to Presbyters, by the obedience of Presbyters to Bishops.
The Presbyters were by a positive Canon to exclude the Deacons
from their assemblies and Colleges (Condi. Nic. c. 18). Epiphanius,
in opposition to the first inventor of Church parity, names two orders
as distinct, Presbyter and Deacon (con. Aeri. L. 3. Hcer. 75) and St.
Jerome says (ad Evag.) that Deacons were to Presbyters, as Levites
were to Priests ; and in another place (adv. Jovi.J that Deacon is not
only a distinct name, but a distinct office. St. Chrysostom assigns
five talents or powers to the Presbyter and two to the Deacon (Horn.
23, 25 c. Mat.) Remarkable is that other saying of St. Jerome, that
the Presbyters are inferior in gain to the Deacons, but superior in
Priesthood (ad Nepot.) Origen assures us, (24 Tract, in Mat. c. 23)
that in the way of ascent, Deacons are the first order of the Church,
and Presbyters the second. ' All men in Holy Orders,' (says the
Canon, Con. Laod. c. 24.) 'from Presbyter to Deacon' 'The Church
is divided into Bishop, Priest, and Deacon,' says Ignatius (ad Srnyr.).
Lastly, both St. Jerome and the Nicene Fathers (ad Evag. Condi.
SERMON I. 11
St. Clement, bishop of Rome, who lived and wrote
in the Apostles' times, and conversed freely with
them 8 , and observed their methods of practice,
assures us of the Apostles in general, that they
constituted Bishops wheresoever they made converts.
This testimony is so full, express, and clear, and
proceeds from so unexceptionable a witness, who
wrote from his own personal knowledge, that were
both Scripture and all other writings 9 silent as to this
particular, St. Clement's bare affirmation would be
sufficient demonstration. But further; the Apostles
made St. Simeon bishop of Jerusalem, after the
martyrdom of St. James 1 ; St. Clement bishop of
Rome ; St. Ignatius bishop of Antioch ; and St.
Poly carp bishop of Smyrna. 2 And St. Clement of
Nic. c. 18.) declare, that the Deacons had no power to administer the
Eucharist as the Presbyters had, and that the servant of tables and
widows could by no means plead the same power with him, who
consecrated the holy sacramental elements." Oldisworth's Timothy
and Philatheus, vol. iii. page 45.
8 The person mentioned by St. Paul, (Philip, iv. 3,) as some sup-
pose.
9 The reader may refer to Archbishop Potter on Church Govern-
ment, pp. 139 197, for other testimonies in favour of the episcopal
succession. The archbishop says, " I hope that it has now appeared
from the Scriptures and the chief writers of the first four centuries,
that as our Lord was sent by God the Father to established a Church
in the world, so the Apostles were authorized by our Lord to enlarge
and govern the Church after His ascension, and that they derived the
same authority to their successors the bishops."
1 See The Divine Right of Episcopacy asserted, ch. 6.
2 "It was shown in the last chapter, that James was appointed the
fixed Apostle and bishop of Jerusalem, before the rest of the Apostles
12 SERMON I.
Alexandria, who examined these points with great
diligence, and learnt from those who had been
taught by the Apostles St. Peter, St. James, St.
John, and St. Paul, assures us that when St. John
was released from Patmos, he went to Ephesus, and
constituted bishops and clergy in the neighbouring
churches ; and so says Tertullian. St. Ignatius
also, who not only was made a bishop by the Apos-
tles, but continued in that office many years during
their lifetime, and was martyred but a little while
after St. John's death, takes occasion in his epistles
to mention Onesimus bishop of Ephesus, Damas
bishop of Magnesia, and Poly carp bishop of Smyrna ;
he speaks also of the bishops of Philadelphia, and
of bishops and elders of different churches, and
declares that there "is no Church without them."
Irenseus also, and Tertullian, speak of 3 bishops
constituted by the Apostles in all the Churches
left it. It must here be added, that after the death of James, the
surviving Apostles, disciples, and kinsmen of our Lord, assembled
together at Jerusalem, and ordained Simeon, the son of Cleophas,
mentioned in St. John's Gospel (xix. 25), to be his successor. Simeon
presided in the Church till the time of Trajan, as we learn from
Hegesippus, who was a diligent searcher into the practice of the
Apostles and their disciples, and lived in the next age after them.
(Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. iii. c. xi. xxiii ) And after Simeon there
succeeded thirteen bishops of the Jewish race before the first excision
of the Jews by Adrian, whose names Eusebius has inserted into his
history from the Ancient Monuments of the Church." (Euseb. Eccles.
Hist. lib. iv. c. 5.) Archbishop Potter, ch. iv. p. 140.
3 See Archbishop Potter on Church Government, chap. iv. pp. 139
197.
SERMON I. 13
which they planted. 4 Of the appointment of deacons
we have the account in the sixth chapter of Acts ;
< " That the Apostles were Bishops of several and distinct Churches,
there is no reason to doubt, if we believe antiquity. St. James was
the first Bishop of Jerusalem, (St. Jer. de Scrip. 2. Christ. Horn.
3 in Act. Apost. Euseb. Lib. iii. c. 5.); St. Peter of Antioch, after-
wards of Rome, (Jer. de Scrip. Ecc. in Pet. Epipha. con. Hares.
Lib. i. Hccr. '27}. St. Peter calls the Apostleship a Bishoprick (Acts
i.}, St. Cyprian says expressly that the Apostles were Bishops (Lib.
\\\. Epis. 9}, and St. Ambrose is full to the same purpose (Amb. in
Ephes. c. 4.). And as the Apostles were Bishops themselves, so 'tis as
evident that they ordained others to the same function. Thus Timothy
was ordained Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul (Euseb. Lib. iii. c. 4.
Jer. de Scrip. Ecc. Ambros. Prof at. 1 Tim. Chrys. in ad Phil. 1.
Epiphan. Hceres. 75.), and Titus of Crete (Euseb. iii and iv. Ambros.
Prcef. in Tit. Theodoret apud Oecum. Free, in Tit.}, Poly carp of
Smyrna by St. John (Jer. de Scrip. 32), and Clemens of Rome by St.
Peter (Tertul. de Prcescr 32. Euseb. iii.-xiv. Jer. de Scrip. 15.),
Evodius of Antioch, by the same Apostle (Tgnat. Epis. ad Antioch}, and
Ananius of Alexandria by the Evangelist St. Marh (Euseb. Lib. ii. c.
24.). I mention these instances the rather, because 'tis positively said
of k each of them, not only that they were Bishops of such Churches,
but that they were ordained thereto by the Apostles. It is not much
to the purpose to enquire the time when this was done, and yet even
that is set down minutely by several writers, and said to be imme-
diately after our Saviour's passion and ascent. (Euseb. Lib. ii c. 1, Lib.
iii. c. 5. Hiero. de Scrip. 2.) And in general we are told, that all the
first Bishops were consecrated, ordained, or made Bishops by the
Apostles, (Tertul. de Proes. 32. Euseb. Lib. iii. Hiero. de Scrip. 2.
Ambros. 2 ad Gala.}; and as the institution of Bishops by the Apostles,
so their succession is attested by as good witnesses. Eusebius (Lib.
7 ca. 31), and other writers (Socrates Lib. i. cap. 5. Lib. iii. cap. 15.
Lib. iv. cap. 20. Theod. Lib. i. cap. 3, 7- August. Epis. 165. Optat.
contra Parmenianum Lib. ii.} give us a list of 54 Bishops successively
in the see of Jerusalem, of 38 in the see of Rome, of 28 in the see of
Antioch, and of 24 in the see of Alexandria ; and they assure us that
some of these succcessions ran so far as the eleventh or twelfth
Bishop even in the Apostles' time. Nor are these instances all ; for
14 SERMON I.
for though they are not in that place called by that
name, yet it appears from the nature of the office
assigned them, and from the consent of all anti-
quity, that they were deacons. And St. Paul gives
Timothy directions for the choice of deacons, as
well-known officers, (1 Tim. iii. 8 12.) and he
particularly salutes the deacons. (Phil. i. 1 5.)
Clement of Rome also, who lived in the time
of the Apostles, speaks of deacons in the Christian
Church, and assures us that they were made
by the Apostles, and that wheresoever the Apos-
tles planted Churches they made deacons. St.
Ignatius also, who was contemporary with the
Apostles, speaks of deacons in the Churches in his
Irencsus tells us {Lib. iii. c. 3.) that it would be too long to enumerate
all other Churches, but yet that it was easy to be done. Besides
Timothy and Titus, who are scriptural Bishops, there are others that
afterwards were made Bishops (Euseb. Lib. iii. c. 4. Orig. Lib. x.
cap. 16. Epis. ad. Rom. Ambrose in Prescript. ~) and continued the
succession, whose names are recorded in Scripture, and their merits
highly applauded by the Apostles, as Linus, Clemens, Dionysius, Caius,
Archippus, Onesimus, and Polycarp. Ttrtullian reckoned Corinth,
Philippi, Thessalonica, andEphesus to be Apostolical sees, by succession,
in his time. In St. Cyprian's days, who was Bishop of Carthage,
(Euseb. Lib. vii. Cap. 5 et alib.') there are, besides that see, the
Churches of Casarea, Laodicea and Tyre. And in the subscriptions
at the Council of Nice, we have the names of the seven several Bishops
of the Asiatic Churches mentioned in the Revelations. Now if all this
be true, then there is no doubt but that the Bishops so succeed-
ing had an Apostolical right, and if the Apostles too were Bishops,
consequently a Divine ; which right is expressly asserted in the Bishops
of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, by one of the Antients. (Greg.
Lib. vi. Epis. 37.) Oldisworth's Timothy and Philatheus, vol. iii.
page 38.
SERMON I. 15
time, adding, that "they are not ministers of meats
and drinks, but of the Church of God," and says,
that there "is no Church without them." The
deacons 5 also are as constantly and manifestly dis-
tinguished from other Christians to whom that title
did not appertain, and as plainly described to be
well-known officers of the Church, 6 as the bishops
5 See Bingham's Antiquities, vol. i. pp. 279 308.
6 See Hickes on the Christian Priesthood, pp. 3338. " That
Deacons arejnot Laymen but Preachers, (says the Author of Episcopal
Government instituted by Christ,} and a third order of Church Gover-
nors it is evident, Acts vi. for as soon as there was any need of men of
that office, (that was when the number of the Disciples was multiplied,)
they were chosen and elected by the Apostles, yea, they were elected
too before the Apostles went out of Jerusalem and separated them-
selves to preach the Gospel to all nations ; for they behoved to be
helpers of the Apostles, and to assist them in the work of Ministry,
to have a care of the poor under them, and to baptize new converts at
their command ; that so the Apostles might give themselves to prayer
and the ministry of the word, Acts vi. 4. The truth of this may be
seen Acts x. 48, where the Apostle Peter gives commandment (no
question to the Deacons) to baptize Cornelius and those who were
with him ; so we may see 1 Cor. i. that the Apostle Paul attributes
the care of baptism to others than the Apostles, when he saith that
he was not sent to baptize, it being chiefly the charge of the Deacons,
but to preach the Gospel ; not that he might not baptize, for we see
the contrary in the words, but because the Apostles gave themselves
chiefly to prayer and the ministry of the word, and committed the
care of baptism to the Deacons, and the administration of the sacra-
ment of the Supper to the Evangelists, called hereafter Elders, as may
be gathered out of 1 Cor. x. 11.
We see also Col. i. 1. a manifest distinction between Bishops
and Deacons ; for the Apostle writes to them as their chief Bishop
and Overseer ; for as yet the Apostle reserved the chief care of that
Church to himself, although some think that Epaphroditus was chief
Bishop of that place ; howsoever we see two orders here of Churchmen,
1() SERMON I.
and presbyters themselves. Now it appears from
antiquity, that those ecclesiastical officers whose
business it was to administer the several ordinances
of the Church, and the deacons also whether they
were empowered 7 to administer any of those ordi-
nances or not were usually called the clergy, and
thereby distinguished 8 from the laity or people, 9 viz.
those other Christians, who, though forming a com-
ponent part of the Church, were not appointed to,
and therefore could not rightly administer, the offices
of the Church 1 . The reason of this distinction and
and I hope none will deny but the Apostle was in order and degree
above them ; we see them also made mention of in the Epistles of
Paul to Timothy and Titus, over whom Timothy and Titus are
placed as their chief Governors ; so that it is more than evident that
Christ and the Apostles continued three orders of Church Governors
under the Gospel." Episcopal Government instituted by Christ, and
confirmed by clear evidence of Scripture, and invincible reason, p. 6.
7 See Bingham, vol. i. pp. 279308.
8 See Bingham, vol. i. p. 42. And Saravia's Treatise on the Chris-
tian Priesthood, ch. vii.
9 Hickes on the Dignity of the Episcopal Order, p. 222 226.
1 " The distinction between the Clergy and Laity is so very notorious
among the Antients, that I need not much insist on that. St.
Chrysostorris Comment upon the story of Uzzah, and the famous
contest between St. Ambrose and the Emperor Theodosius, are full
to this purpose. Ignatius declares the same at large (ad Mag. Smyr.
Philadel. Antioch.) ; Tertullian debars the Laity from consecrating the
Sacrament, and says that the distinction between them and the Clergy
is as old as the Church itself (De Cor. Mil. It. de Exhort, ad Casti.).
In another place {Condi. Hispal. ii. ca. 9.) the laity are debarred the
assemblies and consultations of the Clergy in matters Ecclesiastical.
Tertullian declares it to be the custom of hereticks {De Pr&scrip.) to
make the same persons Presbyters to-day and laymen to-morrow.
SERMON I. 17
appellation is not a question of much importance.
That xXypof, from whence the word Clergy is de-
rived, 2 signifies a lot, I need hardly observe ; and
whether the clergy are so called because they are
God's portion of people, being set apart to minister
in holy things, or because God is their portion, they
subsisting upon those offerings in the primitive times
which were made to God by the Church, or whether
the name arose from choosing ecclesiastical officers
by lot, which was customary among Jews and Gen-
tiles, and as St. Matthias was chosen to the
apostleship though that custom, as Bingham tells
us, never generally prevailed amongst Christians
whatever, I say, might have been the reason for the
distinctive appellation, suffice it that the name was
given to those ecclesiastics of whom I have been
speaking. It is agreed on all hands that this name
can be traced as far back as the third century,
though an earlier date is questioned. It matters
little, perhaps, as to the antiquity of a word, but I
would observe, that St. Clement of Alexandria tells
Optatus (De Schism. Donist.) defines laymen to be those who have
no dignity in the Church. And St. Chrysostom (Horn. 53, 25 cap.
Mat.) reckons the laity to have one talent or power less than the
Deacons. Lastly, it was determined at Alexandria (Eiiseb. Lib. 6
c. 20.) that for laymen to teach in the Church, was insufferable and
contrary to all order." Oldisworth's Timothy and Philatheus, vol. 3,
p. 46.
2 See Macri Hierolexicon, verb. " Clcricm" Brokesby's Life of
Dodwell, p. 92 , and the Theses Theologica of Le Blanc, De membris
EccksicB militantis. Cap. Pri.
B
18 SERMON I.
us that St. John, after his release from Patmos,
received men into the number of the clergy ; so
that the word " clergy" was known as referring to
the officers in the Church in the second century.
Nay, even St. Clement 3 of Rome, who lived in the
first century, speaks of laymen as distinct from those
who served at the altar ; his words are these
" Seeing then that these things are manifest to us
Christians, it will behove us to take care that we do
all things in order, whatsoever our Lord has com-
manded us. And particularly that we perform our
oblations and services to God at their appointed sea-
sons ; for these He has commanded to be done, not
rashly and disorderly, but at certain times and hours.
And therefore He has ordained by His supreme will
and authority, both where and by what persons they
are to be performed. 4 They, therefore, who make
3 Ep. i. cap. 40.
4 "Episcopal Government instituted by Christ. The first argument.
" That whatsoever degrees of Church Governors, as God established
" under the Law, that Christ and his Apostles continued under the
" Gospel, and that hath governed the Christian Church since the days
" of Christ and his Apostles, they are and must be of Divine Ordina-
" tion.
But God established three degrees of Church Governors under
" the law, Christ and his Apostles continued three degrees under the
" Gospel, and three degrees hath governed the Christian Church since
" the days of Christ and his Apostles.
" And therefore three degrees of Church Governors are and must
" be of Divine Ordination."
"The proposition I will take for granted, for I know no man will
deny it. The assumption I must prove, which hath three branches :
The first is, that God established three degrees under the Law, the
SERMON I. 19
their oblations in the Church at the appointed sea-
son, are happy and accepted, because that, obeying
High Priest, inferior Priests, and Levites ; the High Priest to be in the
first order, inferior Priests in the second, and Levites in the third :
and this I hope will be granted. The second branch of the proposition,
that Christ and his Apostles continued three degrees under the Gospel,
I prove thus: Christ chose Apostles for one order, and Evangelists
for another, called at the first the seventy Disciples, to distinguish them
from the other twelve, who were also called Disciples, as long as
Christ lived, (for they were seldom before Christ's resurrection dis-
tinguished by their proper names,) and Christ filled the room of the
High Priest himself as long as he served in the ministry of the
Gospel : and after his ascension, immediately the Apostles by the
direction of the Spirit made choice of a third order of Churchmen,
whom they called by the name of Deacons, (Acts vi.) ; so that the
Apostles were appointed to be of the first order after Christ's resur-
rection, at which time they were only endued with Apostolical autho-
rity, being before Christ's death in the order and rank of Evangelists,
and the Evangelists inferior to them ; for the twelve were ever distin-
guished from the seventy, both in place and estimation, as any man may
perceive that can read the Scriptures : but when Christ was to ascend
up unto the Father, he made the Apostles chief Governors of the
Church, and put them in his own place, and said to them, " he that
heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me ;" after
which time they were called by the name of Apostles ordinarily, and
the other seventy got the name of Evangelists, and were the second
order of Church Governors, and at all times remembered in the second
place ; howsoever, the twelve Disciples were called Apostles, as chiefly
sent of God, although the other seventy were sent too, as we read
Luke x., yet they were not consecrated with so great solemnity as the
other twelve, nor got not so strict a charge, nor so great authority and
power conferred upon them ; the truth of all this you will find in the
last chapter of St. John's gospel and the first of the Acts ; so that,
since the twelve Disciples are thus advanced, and not the seventy, it
is more than evident, that Christ would have the seventy to be still
inferior to the twelve. And this also appears by the election of
Matthias, who way taken out of the number of the severity, and ad-
n ' !
20 SERMON I.
the commandments of the Lord, they are free from
sin. For the High Priest has his proper services,
vanced to the Apostolical charge ; if the twelve had not been in degree
above the seventy, to what end should this distinction have been
made? No man will say, I hope, that the twelve would have
advanced themselves above the seventy, if Christ himself had made no
difference before ; for Christ, no question, if they had been wrong
would have reproved their arrogance ; but on the contrary, Christ
gives testimony of his approbation of that which they did, by con-
senting to Matthias' election ; yea, it appears that they had a com-
mandment so to do, for Peter saith, Acts i. 22, that one (must) be
ordained to be a witness with us of the resurrection ; the word 8< in
the 21st verse is very emphatical, so that it would seem that it was not
left arbitrary to them, to do it or not to do it, at their pleasure ; but
of necessity it behoved to be done, as being commanded by Christ
their Master.
" Moreover, it is evident by the words of the 25th verse, where the
Apostle makes a clear distinction between Apostles and Evangelists :
' That he may take part (saith he) of this Ministry and Apostleship ;'
now the Apostle could not call it this Ministry, except it had been
distinct from that which Matthias had before; he was one of the
seventy Disciples before, and had power to preach the Gospel of Christ ;
so that it is most sure, if the calling of the twelve had not been par-
ticularly differenced by Christ from the calling of the seventy, the
Apostles would never have put a distinction between the one Ministry
and the other. But the Apostle Peter adds yet a clearer distinction,
and he calls the Ministry whereunto Matthias was advanced Apostle -
ship, 'this Ministry and Apostleship' (saith he;) now the Ministry of
the seventy Disciples was never called Apostleship unto this day, as
all men know.
" Further this distinction appeareth, that the Apostle, with the con-
sent of the rest of the twelve, would have the number made up before
the coming of the Holy Ghost ; for the Holy Ghost did not visibly
descend upon any but upon the twelve ; well, they did always attend
his coming, they could not tell how soon, and therefore they thought
it necessary that Matthias should be elected with all expedition ; so
that any man may conceive, if there had not been a wide difference
SERMON I. 21
and to the Priests their proper place is appointed, and
to the Levites appertain their proper ministries, and
the layman is confined within the precepts of lay-
between the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples, the Apostles
would never have made such haste.
" By the former doctrine we find that our Saviour differenced the
twelve from the seventy, thrice ; in the time of his life once, for by
taking the twelve to be of his Council (as it were) and guard of his
body he made a manifest distinction, Luke vi. 13. Next, after his
resurrection, he put a difference between them, in that he installed
them solemnly in their apostolical charge, which he did not unto the
seventy ; and thirdly, after his ascension, he sent the Holy Ghost
chiefly to the twelve, and caused Him to descend visibly, even to the
view of all the beholders, upon their heads in the likeness of cloven
tongues of fire, which for any thing we read he did not to the
seventy."
In the thirteenth of the Acts, verse 1. we may behold this distinc-
tion with our eyes ; where Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, and
Saul are called Prophets and Teachers, and not Apostles ; for I think
as yet Saul was not joined to the number of Apostles, at least he was
not accounted one : so Paul makes this distinction, when he takes to
himself the honour to plant the Gospel and to lay the foundation,
and makes Apollos a waterer only and a builder upon the foundation,
' Paul plants,' saith he, ' Apollos waters, but God gives the increase,'
1 Cor. ii. 6.
" Moreover, Acts 8, we see a manifest distinction, in Philip the
Evangelist, who converted the Samaritans and baptized them ; but
Peter and John behoved to be sent out of Jerusalem to lay on hands
and confer the Holy Ghost : but my opponent may say that Philip
was a Deacon and one of the seven mentioned, Acts 6. I answer, we
read of Philip the Apostle and of Philip the Deacon, and why not a
third Philip an Evangelist ? read Acts xxi. 8. He that was Deacon
was thereafter advanced to be an Evangelist. Always we gain this
much, that Deacons must preach and administer the Sacrament of
Baptism, and therefore they are not lay-men." Episcopal Government
Instituted by Christ, pp. 1 6.
22 SERMON I.
men, o' Aa tH? oVOpcoTro? rof? Aafxoff
The distinction between clergy and laity being thus
allowed, the question occurs, from whence do the
clergy 6 derive their authority ? I answer, without
5 See Sclater's Draught of the Primitive Church, ch. 6. ' of the Lay-
members' Rights and Privileges in the Church.' " Laici nomen deriva-
tum est a Graeca voce *<>;, quae populum sive plebera significat.
Itaque laici ab ipsis dicuntur quasi plebeii sive populares illi, qui
pertinent ad Ecclesia? plebem, id est, quibus nulla pars functionis
Ecclesiae demandata est, et qui nullo ministerio in Ecclesia funguntur."
Theses Theologies ; De membris ecclesice militantis. Cap. Pri. See
also Hooker, book 5, ch. Ixxvii. sec. 2.
6 "In that they are Christ's ambassadors and His labourers, who
should give them their commission but He whose most inward affairs
they manage ? Is not God alone the Father of spirits ? Are not
souls the purchase of Jesus Christ ? What angel in heaven could
have said to man, as our Lord did unto Peter, ' Feed my sheep
preach baptize do this in remembrance of me. Whose sins ye
retain, they are retained, and their offences in heaven pardoned,
Avhose faults you shall on earth forgive ? ' What think ye ? Are
these terrestrial sounds, or else are they voices uttered out of the
clouds above ? The power of the ministry of God translateth out of
darkness into glory ; it raiseth man from the earth, and bringeth
God himself from heaven ; by blessing visible elements, it maketh
them invisible graces ; it giveth daily the Holy Ghost ; it hath to
dispose of that flesh which was given for the life of the world, and
that blood which was poured out to redeem souls ; when it poureth
malediction upon the heads of the wicked, they perish ; when it
revoketh the same, they revive. O wretched blindness, if we admire
not so great a power : more wretched if we consider it aright, and,
notwithstanding, imagine that any but God can bestow it ! To whom
Christ hath imparted power, both over that mystical body which is
the society of souls, and over that natural which is Himself, for the
knitting of both in one, (a work which antiquity doth call the making
of Christ's body,) the same power is in such not amiss both termed
SERMON I. 23
fear of cavil or refutation, that from the beginning
of Christianity down to the present time, the Clergy
have been authorized to exercise their functions 7
a kind of mark or character, and acknowledged to be indelible.
' Receive the Holy Ghost : whose sins soever ye remit, they are
remitted; whose sins ye retain, they are retained.' Whereas,
therefore, the other Evangelists had set down, that Christ did before
His suffering promise to give His Apostles the keys of the kingdom
of heaven, and being risen from the dead promised moreover, at that
time, a miraculous power of the Holy Ghost, St. John addeth, that
He also invested them, even then, with the power of the Holy Ghost
for castigation and relaxation of sin ; wherein was fully accomplished
that which the promise of the keys did import. Seeing, therefore,
that the same power is now given, why should the same form of words
expressing it be thought foolish ?" Hooker, book v. 77.
" Now, the priviledge of the visible Church of God (for of that we
speak) is to be herein like the ark of Noah, that, for any thing we
know to the contrary, all without it are lost sheep ; yet in this was the
ark of Noah privileged above the Church, that whereas none of them
which were in the one could perish, numbers in the other are cast
away, because to eternal life our profession is not enough." Ibid. 68.
7 " The power of remitting sin is originally in God, and in God
alone ; and in Christ our Saviour, by means of the union of the God-
head and manhood into one person, by virtue whereof, ' the Son of
Man hath power to forgive sins upon earth.'
" This power being thus solely vested in God, He might, without
wrong to any, have retained and kept to Himself, and without means
of word or Sacrament, and without ministers, either Apostles or others,
have exercised immediately by Himself from Heaven.
" But we should then have said of the remission of sins, saith St.
Paul, ' Who shall go up to heaven for it, and fetch it thence ? for
which cause,' saith he, ' the righteousness of faith speaketh thus, Say
not so,' &c.
" Partly this ; but there should be no such difficulty to shake our
faith, as once to imagine to fetch Christ from heaven for the remission
of our sins ; and partly also, because Christ, to whom alone this com-
mission was originally granted, having ordained Himself a body,
24 SERMON I.
by Almighty God, either immediately or mediately.
Now, to elucidate my position, I will suppose
a number of persons sent by the Queen to some
distant colony, possessed with official character, and
empowered to constitute other officers, and thus
to continue a succession of these functionaries in
that colony. In this case, not only those very per-
sons whom the Queen sends, but those also who are
constituted by such as the Queen sent, and those
who shall derive their succession from them in fu-
would work by bodily things, and having taken the nature of a man
upon Him, would honour the nature He had so taken, for these
causes ; that which was His and His alone, He vouchsafed to impart,
and out of His commission to grant a commission, and thereby to
associate them to Himself, (it is His own word by the prophet,) and
to make them ffwigynti that is, co-operatores, workers together with
Him (as the Apostle speaketh) to the work of salvation, both of
themselves and of others. From God then it is derived ; from God
and to men.
" Now if we ask, to what men ? the text is plain. They to whom
Christ said this, remiseritis, were the Apostles.
" In the Apostles (that we may come nearer yet) we find three
capacities, as we may term them. 1. As Christians in general. 2.
As preachers, priests, or ministers, more special. 3. As those twelve
persons whom, in strict propriety of speech, we term the Apostles.
" Some things that Christ spake to them, He spake to them as
representing the whole company of Christians ; as His vigilale.
" Some things to them, not as Christians, but as preachers or
priests ; as His tfe, predicate evangelium, and His hoc facite, which no
man thinketh all Christians may do.
" And some things to themselves personally ; as that He had
appointed them witnesses of His miracles and resurrection, which
cannot be applied but to them, and them in person." Andrewes,
Appendix, p. 90. See also Saravia's Treatise ort the Christian Priest-
hood, ch. 17.
SERMON I. 25
turc, all of them authorized by the Queen. But
they are authorized after different manners. Those
whom the Queen sends at first are authorized im-
mediately by her, for she signs their commissions
herself; but all others are authorized mediately by
her, that is, they are authorized by virtue of that
commission which was at first granted by the Queen.
Thus, in the Church of God, T Christ, as God, has
full power in Himself, and as God-man has received
full power from the Father to constitute officers or
clergy in the Church which is a society of God's
own institution and to enable them to appoint
others, and to continue the succession " even to the
7 " My opinion is, that episcopal government is not to be derived
merely from apostolical practice or institution, but that it is originally
founded in the Person and office of the Messias, our blessed Lord
Jesus Christ ; who being sent by our heavenly Father to be the Great
Apostle, (Heb. iii. 1,) Bishop, and Pastor (1 Pet. ii. 25) of His
Church, and anointed to that office immediately after His baptism by
John, " with power and the Holy Ghost" (Acts x. 37, 38) " descen-
ding" then " upon Him in a bodily shape," (Luke iii. 22,) did after-
wards, before His ascension into heaven, send and empower His holy
Apostles, in like manner as His Father had before sent Him, (John
xx. 21,) to execute the same apostolical, episcopal, and pastoral office,
for the ordering and governing of His Church until His coming
again ; and so the same office to continue in them and their suc-
cessors unto the end of the world, (Matt, xxviii. 18 20.) This I
take to be so clear, from these and other like texts of Scripture, that
if they shall be diligently compared together, both between themselves
and with the following practice of the Churches of Christ, as well
in the Apostles' times as in the purest and primitive times nearest
thereunto, there will be left little cause why any man should doubt
thereof." Sanderson's Divine Right of Episcopacy.
C
26 SERMON I.
end of the world." And if it be convenient that there
should be a subordination of clergy in the Church,
Christ has full power to appoint them, or to enable
the superior clergy to appoint those of an inferior
order. And all the clergy so appointed, either by
Christ Himself, or by those whom He has enabled
to appoint others whether equal or subordinate to
each other do receive authority from God, either
immediately or mediately, to exercise their functions
in the Church ; so that it will of necessity follow,
that from the beginning of Christianity down to the
present time, 8 (for the objection, sometimes ad-
8 Romanist. Can a man be a lawful minister without a lawful
calling ?
" Anglican. Of course not.
" Romanist. If so, I pray tell me how the Anglican Church can
defend her ministry. Surely I may address each of you in Harding's
words to Jewel ; ' What say you, my master ? You bear yourself
as though bishop of Salisbury ; but how will you substantiate your
call ? What is your warrant for ministering in the Word and Sacra-
ments ?' &c. &c. I ask thee, is your call inward or outward ?
"Anglican. Both.
" Romanist. An outward call, to be lawful, must be either imme-
diately from Christ's mouth, as the Apostles were called, or mediately
through the Church.
" Anglican. Well ; we are called by God through the Church ;
for it is He who gives ' pastors and doctors for the perfecting of the
saints.'
''Romanist They who are called by God through the Church,
must derive their warrant and power by lawful succession from Christ
and the Apostles. If you maintain you have proceeded from this
origin, it is your business to prove it clearly to us ; to set forth and
trace your genealogy.
SERMON I. 27
vanced, that the succession was broken 9 in the six-
teenth century, is too weak to require refutation,)
" Anglican, The ministers of the Anglican Church derive their
imposition of hands in a lawful way from lawful bishops, possessed
of a lawful authority, and therefore their call is ordinary.
" Romanist. But whence have those bishops derived their power ?
" Anglican. From God, through the hands of bishops before
them." Mason's Vindicias Ecclesice Anglicance, book i. ch. 2.
9 " We proceed, in the next place, to the constant visibility and
succession of pastors in our Church. And here I make him (Papist)
this fair proposal ; let him, or any one of his party, produce any one
solid argument to demonstrate such a succession of pastors in the
Church of Rome, and I will undertake, by the very same argument, to
prove a like succession in our Church. Indeed, the author of the
letter is concerned, no less than we are, to acknowledge such a suc-
cession of lawful pastors in our Church till the time of the Reforma-
tion ; and if we cannot derive our succession since it is a hard case.
But our records, faithfully kept and preserved, do evidence to all the
world an uninterrupted succession of bishops in our Church, canoni-
cally ordained, derived from such persons, in whom a lawful power
of ordination was seated by the confession of the Papists themselves.
For the story of the ' Nag's Head Ordination' is so putid a fable, so
often and so clearly refuted by the writers of our Church, that the
more learned and ingenuous papists are now ashamed to make use of
it." Bishop Bull, Vindication of the Church of England, .sac. 34.
I would again refer the reader to Mason's Vindicice, where we have
the dialogue between a Romanist and an Anglican continued :
" Orthodox. The ministers of England receive imposition of hands
in a lawful manner, from lawful bishops, endued with lawful authority,
and therefore their calling is ordinary.
" Philodox. But from whence have your bishops themselves this
authority ?
" Orthodox. From God, by the hands of such bishops as went
before them.
" Philodox. But from whence did those derive their succession ?
" Orthodox. Archbishop Cranmer and other heroical spirits, whom
the Lord used as His instruments to reform religion in England, had the
C 8
28 SERMON 1.
the clergy, whether equal or subordinate, were
authorized to exercise their functions by Almighty
God, either mediately or immediately, if it be ap-
parent that Christ did appoint clergy in His Church,
and enable them to constitute others for a perpetual
succession. 1 Now, how stands the fact ? When our
Saviour, after His resurrection, 2 proceeded to the
very self-same ordination and succession as you glory so much in ; and
therefore if those argue that your calling is ordinary, you must con-
fess that theirs likewise was ordinary." Mason's Vindicice book i.
chap. 2.
See also Brown on the Nag's Head Controversy ; Courayer's De-
fence of the English Ordinations, and Defence of the Dissertation ;
Williams' Succession of Protestant Bishops Asserted; Bramhall's
Consecration of Protestant Bishops Vindicated; Leslie's Qualification
requisite to administer the Sacraments ; and Mason's Vindicice Ecclesiae
Anglicance. I have enlarged upon the above point in my Succession
of Bishops in the Church of England Unbroken.
1 See Turner's Rights and Privileges of the Christian Church Vindi-
cated, chap. 5 ; and Bishop Sage's Reasonableness of Toleration, p.
209.
2 "We may observe, that, after our Saviour's resurrection, when
He advanced the eleven to be Apostles, He did it in a most solemn
manner : first breathing on them, and communicating to them the
Holy Ghost ; and then, after He had assured them of His own
authority, He gave them the power of the keys, and authority to
exercise all the holy offices in the Christian Church, and to convey
the same authority to others ; promising that He would be ' alway'
with them and their successors, ' even to the end of the world,' and
ratify and confirm what was done in their name, and agreeable to His
commission. And by virtue of this commission the Apostles ordained
many bishops with their own hands, and did actually leave all Christ-
endom under episcopal government ; for no one Church can be pro-
duced where episcopal government did not take place. The Armenian
and Persian Churches in the East, those of Spain in the West, of
Africa in the South, and of Great Britian in the North, submitted to
SERMON I. 29
regular establishment of his Church upon earth, He
appointed the eleven disciples, whom He had " or-
dained," (John xv. 16.) and " named Apostles"
(Luke vi. 13.) by way of distinction, to meet Him
in a mountain in Galilee, for the purpose of deliver-
ing His commission and directions to them on that
subject. 3 "Then the eleven disciples," we read,
(Matt, xxviii. 16, 20.) "went away into Galilee,
into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth 4 ;
bishops without exception. That bishops, therefore, should succeed
wherever the Gospel did, cannot be accounted for any other way than
that the Gospel and episcopacy came in upon the same Divine title.
And the proof we have of all this is the universal testimony of those
writers upon whose authority we admit the canon of Scripture. And
therefore, those who admit the canon of Scripture upon the testimony
of the Fathers, surely will not reject the very same testimony in the
case of Church government. For certainly, whether bishops were
superior to presbyters was a matter of fact full as notorious as whether
such and such were the writings of the Apostles. Nay, I may say
more notorious, for the superiority of bishops was visible to all ; no
one Christian could be ignorant of it ; and therefore, there could be no
need of a general council to define the form of Church government, as
there was to settle the canon of Scripture." Tracts by a Non-juror.
3 Vide Dr. Richard Mocket's Politia Ecclesia Anglicance, cap. 5,
and Saravia's Treatise on the Christian Priesthood, ch. 3.
4 " ' Go,' He says, ' and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
them,' &c. . . . This commission of our Saviour we may properly
style the charter of the Church ; and mind, I pray, what is con-
tained in it. Our Saviour here declares the extent of His Church,
and of what persons He would have it constituted. It was to extend
throughout all the world, and to be made up of all nations. He here
declares by whom He would have it built and constituted, viz. the
30 SERMON I.
go ye, therefore, and teach (or, make disciples of)
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have com-
manded you ; and lo ! I am with you alway, 5 even
unto the end of the world." It is to be observed,
that at this time our Saviour's disciples exceeded
the number of five hundred. After His resurrection
" He was seen of above five hundred brethren at
Apostles. He here declares upon what grounds He would have it
constituted, or upon what conditions any person was to be received
into it, viz. their becoming the disciples of Jesus Christ, and under-
taking to observe all that He has commanded. He here likewise
declares the form or the method by which persons were to be admitted
into this Church, and that was by being baptized in thejiame of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And lastly, He here
promises the perpetual presence of His Holy Spirit, both to assist the
Apostles and their successors in the building and governing this
Church, and to actuate and enliven all the members of it." Arch-
bishop Sharp's Sermons, vol. vii.
5 " ' I am with you alway, unto the end of the world.' Yes, most
certain it is, present by His Spirit ; or else in bodily presence He
continued not with His Apostles, but during His abode on earth.
And this promise of His spiritual presence was to their successors,
else, why ' to the end of the world ?" The Apostles did not, could
not live so long. But [then, to the successors the promise goes no
farther than ' I am with you always,' which reaches to continual
assistance, but not to Divine and infallible.
" ' The Comforter, the Holy Ghost, shall abide with you for ever.'
Most true again ; for the Holy Ghost did abide with the Apostles,
according to Christ's promise thus made, and shall abide with their
successors for ever, to comfort and preserve them." Laud's Conference
with Fisher, 16. 29. See also Dr. Featley's Sixteen Reasons for Episcopal
Government.
SERMON I. 31
once." (1 Cor. xv. 16.) But our Saviour did not
deliver the commission for administering the sacra-
ments of the Church to His disciples at large, but
only to His Apostles, 6 and to them not by accident,
but it should seem by express design ; in the first
instance, at His last supper : "I appoint unto you
a kingdom," said our Lord to the eleven, (Luke
xxii. 29.) " as my Father hath appointed unto me."
And again, in administering the bread and the cup,
He said, "This do in remembrance of me." (Luke
xxii. 19.) And in the second, when, in consequence
of a particular appointment to meet Him in Galilee,
after his resurrection, He delivered to them His
final commission to " baptize all nations." Now
G " The twelve, not the seventy, were the continual and domestical
hearers of all His sermons, and beholders of all His wonders, as
chosen to witness His doctrine, doings, and sufferings to the world ;
the twelve, and no more, were present when He did institute His last
supper, and they alone heard and had those heavenly prayers and
promises which then He made. To the eleven, apart from the rest,
was given in Mount Olivet the commission to ' teach all nations,'
(Matt. ch. xxviii. 16 19.); and look how God sent His Son, so sent
He them as Apostles, that is, ' Ambassadors 1 from His side ; not only
to preach the truth, and plant the Church throughout the world, but
in His name to command those that believed in all cases of faith and
good manners ; to set an order amongst them in all things needful
for the government, continuance, peace, and unity of the Church ;
sharply to rebuke, and reject from the society of the faithful, such as
resisted or disobeyed ; to commit the Churches to sound and sincere
teachers and overseers ; to stop the mouths of those that taught things
they should not, for filthy lucre sake; and to deliver them to Satan that
persisted in their impieties or blasphemies." Bishop Bilson's Perpetual
Government of Christ's Church, ch. v. Edit. 1610. See also Saravia's
Treatise on the Christian Priesthood, ch iv.
32 SERMON I.
the granting a commission manifestly implies, that
none but those to whom it has been delivered, have
authority to act in that business for which the com-
mission has been granted, otherwise the commission
would be an useless form. 7 Christ, therefore, by
making choice of only eleven out of the whole num-
ber of His disciples, intended, it is presumed, that
the business which He authorized them to do, should
not be performed by every one that might think
proper to take upon himself to execute it. 8 It is to
be remarked further, that the tenor of the commis-
sion delivered to the Apostles seems purposely cal-
culated to provide against, and thereby render
unnecessary, all self -constituted authority in the
7 " Here I cannot choose but apply the complaint of our Saviour,
(John v. 43,) ' If any come in the name of Christ,' that is, by a com-
mission from Him derived down all the way by regular ordination,
' him ye will not receive' ; nay, though he be otherwise a man without
exception, either as to his life and conversation, or as to his gifts and
sufficiency for the ministry, you make this his commission an objection
against him ; for that reason alone you will not accept him. But if
another come ' in his own name,' that is, with no commission but what
he has from himself, his own opinion of his own worthiness, ' giving
out that himself is some great one,' (Acts viii. 9,) him ye will receive,
and follow and admire him ; ' heaping to yourselves teachers, having
itching ears,' as it was prophesied of these most degenerate times, (2
Tim. iv. 3.") Leslie's Works, vol. vii. p. 111.
s See St. Luke vi. 12, 13; St. Mark iii. 13, 14; St. Matt. x. 1 ;
xxviii. 16, 19, 20; St. John xx. 21, 22. This important point the
reader will find particularly made out and insisted on, in Archbishop
Potter's Discourse on Church Government, ch. ii. p. 45, et seq., and ch.
iii. p. 61, et seq; and Saravia's Treatise on the Christian Priesthood,
ch. 18,19.
SERMON I. 33
Church. " As my Father hath sent me," said Christ,
"so send I you," &c. (John xx. 21.) ; according
to the common import of which words, as well as
the received sense of them in the Catholic Church,
our Saviour is to be understood as if He had said :
" With the same power and authority that my
Father sent me into the world to constitute and
govern my Church, I send you and your successors
for the further advancement of the same Divine
purpose ; and, lo ! my Spirit shall accompany the
regular administration of the office even to the end
of the world. As, therefore, in consequence of the
mission 9 received from my Father, I send you, so,
9 " Our blessed Lord Himself would not take upon Him to minister
in holy things between God and man, till He was particularly and
externally commissioned by God for that purpose. For notwithstand-
ing He was full of the Holy Ghost ; notwithstanding His manhood
was inseparably united to the second Person of the most glorious
Trinity, whereby He was more than sufficient, nay, infinitely gifted
for such a purpose ; and notwithstanding the great necessities and
consequent miseries of all mankind, which were continually wanting
His undertaking to administer for them in things pertaining to God ;
yet He kept Himself in His private station for about thirty years
together, and would not take upon Himself so high an office, till He
received His commission and inauguration thereinto from the hands
of a prophet [John the Baptist] who baptized Him, to fulfil this part
of righteousness and justice, viz. of not taking upon Himself to be
a minister of the new covenant without a special warrant from God,
by the mediation of one who was by Him appointed to convey this
power and authority to Him. And then we find, that God Himself
ordained Him, by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Him in a
visible glory, and by an audible voice from heaven, saying, ' This is
my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,' confirming His great
commission ; and that from thenceforward (and not before) He pro-
D
34 SERMON I.
by virtue of the mission received from me, you have
authority to send others, for the purpose of carrying
on and perpetuating the plan which I have adopted
for the regular administration of the affairs of my
kingdom, even to the end of the world." The
government committed to the Apostles was, there-
fore, of the same nature with that of Christ ; for
thus He declares to them, " I appoint to you a king-
dom, as my Father hath appointed unto me." The
keys of the kingdom of heaven Christ received from
ceeded in the execution of it. From that time He preached and
taught, gave His Apostles order to baptize and preach, wrought
miracles Himself, and gave others power to do so likewise, for the
confirmation of his doctrine, &c.* Now what could be the reason of
our Saviour's thus long desisting from the performances of such
beneficial offices ? Why did not compassion itself, the blessed Jesus,
then personally among them, undertake their speedy rescue ? Doubt-
less it was because He had not received His commission from His
Father. So that if our Lord's example may be allowed in this case to
be conclusive, it is plain that not all the gifts imaginable, nor all the
pressing necessities that may be pleaded, can ever of themselves give
sufficient warrant to minister authoritatively for men, in things per-
taining to God, when those are of such a nature as that a commission
from Him must be obtained by the person who undertakes to ad-
minister ; and that therefore such a person ought to be duly com-
missioned for such administrations." Beauty of the Church of England.
* Morinus has a very beautiful and curious remark to this purpose ;
" The most high God," says he, " came down to Mount Sinai, and conse-
crated Moses ; Moses laid his hands upon Aaron ; Aaron upon his sons ;
his sons successively upon those that followed them until John the Baptist ;
John the Baptist laid his hands upon our Saviour ; our Saviour upon his
Apostles ; his Apostles on the Bishops that succeeded them ; and they ever
since on those who are admitted into holy orders." See Morinus, de Or-
dinationibtis Maronitarum.
SERMON I. 35
God ; by virtue of which grant, He had power to
remit sins on earth. These same keys, with the
power which belonged to them, were delivered by
Christ to His Apostles 1 in these words, " Whose-
soever sins ye remit, they are remitted ; and
whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained,"
(John xx. 23.) " The Father," we read, " committed
all judgment unto the Son." (John v. 22.) And our
Lord promised that, "when the Son of man" "shall
sit on the throne of His glory," the twelve Apostles
should " sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve
tribes of Israel." (Matt. xix. 28.) Hence it is, that
the Apostles are represented as constituting part of
the foundation on which the Christian Church was
built. " The wall of the holy Jerusalem, descending
out of heaven from God," the Spirit describes as
having twelve foundations, and in them " the names
of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb." (Rev. xxi.
10, 14.) And St. Paul told the Ephesians, that
they were "the household of God, built upon the
foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus
' " Christ promised the keys to St. Peter (Matt. xvi. 19). True ; but
so did He to all the rest of the Apostles (Matt, xviii. 18, John xx. 23),
and to their successors as much as to his. ... St. Augustine is plain,
'If this were said only of St. Peter, then the Church hath no power to
do it,' which God forbid ! The keys, therefore, were given to St. Peter
and the rest in a figure of the Church, to whose power, and for whose
use, they were given. But there is not one key in all that bunch,
that can let in St. Peter's successor to a ' more powerful principality'
universal, than the successors of the other Apostles had." Laud's
Conference with Fisher, 25. 15.
D 2
36 SERMON I.
Christ Himself being the chief corner stone." (Eph.
ii. 19, 20.) I repeat, then, that the testimony of
Scripture and antiquity abundantly proves the neces-
sity of a Divine commission,* in order to minister
rightly in the Christian Church.
2 " There is, moreover, required a sacerdotal qualification, that is,
an outward commission, to authorize a man to execute any sacerdotal
or ministerial act of religion ; for ' this honour no man taketh uuto
himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ
glorified not Himself to be made an high priest ; but He that said
unto Him, Thou art my Son Thou art a priest,' &c. (Heb. v. 4 6).
"Accordingly we find that Christ did not take upon Him the
office of a preacher till after that outward commission, given to Him
by a voice from heaven at His baptism ; for it is written (Matt. iv. 7),
' From that time Jesus began to preach ;' then He ' began ;' and He
was then 'about thirty years of age' (Luke iii. 23). Now no man
can doubt of Christ's qualifications before that time, as to holiness,
sufficiency, and all personal endowments. And if all these were not
sufficient to Christ Himself, without an outward commission, what
other man can pretend to it, upon the account of any personal ex-
cellences in himself, without an outward commission ?
"And as Christ was outwardly commissionated by His Father, so did
not He leave it to His disciples, to every one's opinion of his own
sufficiency, to thrust himself into the vineyard, but chose twelve
Apostles by name, and after them seventy others of an inferior order,
whom He sent to preach.
" And as Christ gave outward commissions while He was upon the
earth, so we find that His Apostles did proceed in the same method
after His ascension, (Acts xiv. 23,) ' They ordained them elders in
every Church.'
" But had they who were thus ordained by the Apostles power to
ordain others? Yes. (Tit. i. 5. 1 Tim. v. 22.) 'For this cause left
I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain elders in every city.'
'Lay hands suddenly on no man,' &c. St. Clement, in his first
Epistle to the Corinthians, writing concerning the schism which was
then risen up amongst them, says, par. 44, that 'The Apostles,
SERMON I. 37
We may then next enquire, who may be said to
have this Divine commission ? And here I shall not
hesitate to affirm, that none but those who are or-
dained by such as we now commonly call bishops, 3
foreknowing there would be contests concerning the episcopal name
(or office), did themselves appoint the persons.' And not only so,
lest that might be said to be of force only during their time ; but that
they ' afterwards established an order how, when those whom they
had ordained should die, others, fit and approved men, should succeed
them in their ministry ;' par. 43. that ' they who were entrusted with
this work by God, in Christ, did constitute these officers.' " Leslie's
Works, vol. vii. p. 100, &c. See also Dodwell's Separation of Churches
from Episcopal Government proved SchismaticaL Edit. 1679, ch. 18,
19, 20, &c., and Barwick's Treatise on the Church, part i. ch. 2 3.
3 To the question, " Who were the Apostles' successors in that
power which concerned the governing those Churches which they
had planted ?" Dr. Hammond replies, " I answer, that it being a
matter of fact or story, later than that the Scripture can universally
reach to it, cannot be fully satisfied or answered from thence, any
further than the persons of Timothy or Titus, &c., and the several
angels of the Churches in the Apocalypse, (who are acknowledged
by all the ancients to be single persons that had power over all others
in those Churches,) but will, in the full latitude throughout the
universal Church in those times, be made clear from the next evi-
dences that we have, viz. from the consent of the Greek and Latin
fathers, who generally resolve that bishops are those successors.
This I shall not be so unreasonable as to attempt to prove at large
through the writings of those 'fathers, but content myself with one
or two of the first of them." Of the Power of the Keys, chap. iii.
See also Bishop Bilson's Perpetual Government of Christ's Church,
p. 258, and Lowth on the Subject of Church Power, ch. 4.
I would refer the reader to A Brief Account of Ancient Church
Government, by Abraham Woodhead, of which work Dr. Hickes
remarks "I have taken occasion to mention the Book of antient
Church Government, to invite all true friends, and sons of the Church
of England to read it, especially the younger Clergy, who may
38 SERMON I.
can have any authority 4 to minister in the Christian
Church ; for that the power of ordination is solely
conferred upon that order, 5 can be proved from the
institution of our Saviour, and the constant practice
of the Apostles. That the power of ordination con-
ferred upon the Apostles was of Divine institution, 6
please to take notice, that by others in the title page, the author
principally meant Dr. Stillingfleet in his Irenicum. The chief of
whose arguments against the unalterable Divine Right of Episcopacy
he hath fully answered without naming the learned Author. The
reader indeed will find by some expressions in the book, that the
Author was of the Roman Communion ; but as learned men of that
Church have written most excellently in defence of many articles of
the faith, so hath he written with no less learning, judgment, and
strength of reasoning in defence of the Government of the Catholic
Church." Preface to the Divine Right of Episcopacy asserted, Page 5.
It is hardly necessary to add that Stillingfleet wrote the Irenicum
when only 24 years of age ; that he subsequently confessed " there are
many things in it, if he were to write again, he would not say ; some
which shew his youth and want of due consideration ; others, which
he yielded too far, in hopes of gaining the Dissenting parties to the
Church of England ;" and that he maintains the Divine Right of
Episcopacy in many of his subsequent works. See Several Con-
ferences between a Romish Priest, a Fanatick Chaplain, p. 148. The
Unreasonableness of Separation, part 3rd., and Ecclesiastical Cases.
Vol. 1. See also Bishop Taylor's Episcopacy Asserted, sects. 4. 6 ;
and Dodwell on Schisin, ch. 9, Edit. 1679.
4 " It was the general received persuasion of the ancient Christian
world," says Hooker, "that Ecclesia est in Episcopo, the outward
being of a Church consisted in the having of a bishop ; insomuch that
they did not account it to be a Church which was not subject unto a
bishop." See Dodwell on Schism ch. 19, Edit. 1679, and Jackson's
Dissertation on Episcopacy.
5 See Leslie, vol. vii. p. 177. See also Bishop Bilson's Perpetual
Government of Chrisfs Church, p. 248.
6 See Bishop Taylor's Episcopacy Asserted, sect. 9 ; and Bishop
Skinner's Primitive Truth and Order Vindicated, ch. 2, pp. 112 342.
SERMON I. 39
I suppose no one will question who reads these
words of our Saviour to them after His resurrection,
" As my Father sent me, so send I you ;" (John
xx. 21.) and, " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto
the end of the world;" (Matt, xxviii. 20.) For
from hence it is evident, 1st, That it was by a
Divine commission that our Saviour 7 ordained His
Apostles. 2ndly, That by virtue of the same com-
mission tbe Apostles were at that time empowered 8
' " This Government was, by immediate substitution, delegated to
the Apostles by Christ Himself, in traditione clavium, in spiratione
Spiritus, in missione in Peniecoste. When Christ promised them the
' keys,' He promised them ' power to bind and loose ;' when He
breathed on them the Holy Ghost, He gave them that actually to
which, by the former promise, they were entitled ; and in the octaves
of the passion, He gave them the same authority which He had
received from His Father, and they were the 'faithful and wise
stewards, whom the Lord made rulers over His household.' But I
shall not labour much upon this. Their founding all the Churches
from east to west, and so by being fathers deriving their authority
from the nature of the thing ,- their appointing rulers in every Church ;
their synodal decrees de suffocate et sanguine, and letters missive to the
Churches of Syria and Cilicia ; their excommunications of Hymeneus
and Alexander, and the incestuous Corinthian ; their commanding
and requiring obedience of their people in all things, as St. Paul did
of his subjects of Corinth, and the Hebrews, by precept apostolical ;
their threatening the pastoral rod ; their calling synods and public
assemblies ; their ordering rites and ceremonies ; composing a symbol
as the tessera of Christianity ; their public reprehension of delinquents ;
and indeed, the whole execution of their apostolate is one continued
argument of their superintendence and superiority of jurisdiction."
Bishop Taylor's Episcopacy asserted, sect. 2.
8 This power, so delegated, was not to expire with their persons ;
for when the great Shepherd had reduced His wandering sheep into
a fold, He would not leave them without 'guides to govern' them,
40 SERMON I.
to ordain others ; and Srdly, That this commission
to ordain was always 9 to continue in the Christian
so long as the wolf might possibly prey upon them, and that is till
the last separation of the sheep from the goats. And this Christ
intimates in that promise, " Ero vobiscum ( Apostolis) usque ad
consummationem seculi" Voliscum, not with your persons, for they
died long ago ; but vobiscum et vestri similibus, with Apostles to the
end of the world. And therefore, that the apostolate might be suc-
cessive and perpetual, Christ gave them a power of ordination, that
by imposing hands on others, they might impart that power which
they received from Christ. For in the Apostles there was something
extraordinary, something ordinary. Whatsoever was extraordinary,
as ' immediate mission, unlimited jurisdiction, and miraculous opera-
tions,' that was not necessary to the perpetual regiment of the Church,
for then the Church should fail when these privileges extraordinary
did cease. It was not, therefore, in extraordinary powers and
privileges that Christ promised His perpetual assistance ; not in
speaking of tongues ; not in doing miracles, whether in materia
censurte, as delivering to Satan ; or in materia misericordiee, as healing
sick people ; or in re natural^ as in resisting the venom of vipers, and
quenching the violence of flames; in these Christ did not promise
perpetual assistance, for then it had been done, and still these signs
should have followed them that believe. But we see they do not.
It follows, then, that in all the ordinary parts of power and office,
Christ did promise to be with them to the end of the world ; and
therefore there must remain a power of giving faculty and capacity
to persons successively, for the execution of that in which Christ
promised perpetual assistance. For since this perpetual assistance
could not be meant of abiding with their persons, who, in a few years,
were to forsake the world, it must needs be understood of their
function, which either it must be succeeded to, or else it was as
temporary as their persons ; but in the extraordinary privileges of
the Apostles they had no successors ; therefore of necessity must be
constituted in the ordinary office of apostolate. Now what is this
ordinary office ? Most certainly since the extraordinary, as is evident,
was only a help for the founding and beginning, the other are such
as are necessary for the perpetuating of a Church. Now in clear
SERMON I. 41
Church, and to remain in such hands l as the Apos-
tles should convey it to. 2 All this, I say, is evi-
evidence of sense, these offices and powers are ' preaching, baptizing,
consecrating, ordaining, and governing.' For these were necessary
for the perpetuating of a Church, unless men could be Christians
that were never christened, nourished up to life without the eucharist,
become priests without calling of God and ordination, have their sins
pardoned without absolution, be members, and parts, and sons of a
Church, whereof there is no coadunation, no authority, no governor.
These the Apostles had without all question ; and whatsoever they
had, they had from Christ ; and these were eternally necessary ; these,
then, were the offices of the apostolate, which Christ promised to
assist for ever, and this is that which we now call the order and
office of Episcopacy." Bishop Taylor's Episcopacy Asserted, sect. 3.
9 "It is clear in Scripture, that the Apostles did some acts of
ministry which were necessary to be done for ever in the Church,
and, therefore, to be committed to their successors." Again, " Im-
position of hands is a duty and office necessary for the perpetuating of
a Church, ne gens sit unius atatis, ' lest it expire in one age.' This
power of imposition of hands for ordination, was fixed upon the
Apostles and apostolic men, and not communicated to the seventy-two
disciples or presbyters ; for the Apostles and apostolic men did so
de facto, and were commanded to do so, and the sevent} r -two never
did so. Therefore this office and ministry of the apostolate is distinct
and superior to that of presbyters ; and the distinction must be so
continued to all ages of the Church ; for the thing was not temporary,
but productive of issue and succession ; and, therefore, as perpetual as
the clergy, as the Church itself."--Bishop Taylor's Episcopacy Asserted,
sect. 7.
1 Bp. Taylor's Episcopacy Asserted, sect. 4.
2 "Here I know it will be said, that I confound Apostles and the
Chief Bishops together, and Evangelists and inferior Bishops ; whereas
Apostles and Evangelists were extraordinary callings, and ceased
with themselves.
Ansicer. Truly this mistake is the cause of all our dissenting, one
from another, in this point ; for if we did hold the callings of Apostles
42 SERMON I.
dent from these words, when duly considered and
compared. And hence this conclusion naturally
and Evangelists, to be appointed by Christ, to continue in the Chris-
tian Church, for the Government thereof, until the end of the world,
as they are indeed, this division that is amongst us had never been.
And, therefore, I will endeavour, by God's grace, to prove, both by
reason and scripture, that these callings are ordinary, and cannot
without high sacrilege be cast out of God's Church. I will shew you,
then, in what respects their calling was ordinary, and perpetually
necessary for the government of the church, and for what respects it
is called extraordinary. It is ordinary and perpetually necessary, in
regard of that power which Christ conferred upon them, to preach
the word and administer the Sacraments, and also in regard of the
power of Absolution and Excommunication, Ordination, and Juris-
diction spiritual, which our Saviour also granted unto them, as all
men confess : and in regard of all those parts of the Episcopal Func-
tion to be continued until the second coming of our Saviour ; and I
think, no man should deny this neither. It is called extraordinary,
for these respects following ; first, because they were extraordinary
persons, not being of the Tribe of Levi, who had only ordinary power
in those days to be instruments of God's public worship, and to serve
at the altar. Next because their gifts were extraordinary ; for Christ,
who was ' anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows,' and
had the spirit in superabundance, He gave his Apostles an abundant
measure of the Spirit ; but to after ages he imparted only a certain
sufficiency, ' Grace for Grace.' Thirdly, the extent of their charge
was extraordinary ; they were tied to no settled residence, but the
whole world was their Diocese : ' Go ye into all the world,' saith
our Saviour. Fourthly, the manner of their calling was extraor-
dinary, without education, trial, or ordination. Fifthly, they had the
infallibility of the Spirit ; in matters of Faith they could not err.
And lastly, their calling was extraordinary, quoad ante, but not
quoad post, even in respect of the ordinary parts of the Ministerial
Function ; quoad ante, because the calling of churchmen in those days,
was to offer up sacrifices unto God, of bullocks, rams, and lambs,
and other creatures, and to burn incense unto him ; but so was not
the calling of the Apostles ; their calling was to preach the Word
SERMON I. 43
follows; Whoever has a power to ordain, must de-
rive it from the commission which our Saviour re-
and administer the Sacraments, open the gates of heaven to the peni-
tent, and shut them upon the impenitent, &c. ; and so I may say
their calling, in analogy to the Priests' calling under the law, is to
offer up the sacrifice of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving to God, and
to teach every man to present their bodies in a living holy and ac-
ceptable sacrifice. Quoad post it was not extraordinary ; because
Christ established that government for the Christian Church in all
ages to come, or else none at all, for other we see not, but this is
manifest : yea, our Saviour continued the Apostolical and Episcopal
calling, in regard of the substance of it, in the full latitude of Apos-
tolical authority ; and all this I will prove after this manner : And
first,
If the callings of the High Priest, Priests, and Levites, was not extra-
ordinary, quoad post, in the days of Moses : then the callings of
Apostles, Evangelists, and Deacons was not extraordinary, quoad post,
in the days of Christ.
But the first is true, and therefore the second.
My second argument is this
If the callings of the Apostles, 8fc. cannot be called extraordinary,
quoad post, neither in regard of their extraordinary gifts, nor extraor-
dinary manner of calling, nor the extent of their charge, nor their infal-
libility of spirit, then it is not extraordinary at all, in regard of the time
to come.
But for none of these aforesaid respects, can their calling be called
extraordinary, in regard of the time to come.
And therefore it was not extraordinary, in regard of the time to come.
Now I will prove by evidence of Scripture, That the calling of the
Apostles was an ordinary calling, and to be continued until the
second coming of our Saviour, with the same power and authority,
both for ordination and jurisdiction, which they had themselves.
My first testimony is in Matt, xxviii. 19, out of which I form this
argument.
They that were commanded to teach and baptise all nations until the
end of the world, their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end
of the world.
E
44 SERMON I,
ceived from God and gave to his Apostles, and was
by them conveyed to their successors. 3 The only
But the Apostles were commanded to teach and baptise all Nations,
until the end of the world.
And therefore their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end
of the world.
My second testimony is in Mark xvi. 15. The argument is this,
They who were commanded by Christ to ' preach the Gospel to every
creature? that is, to all men without exception, until the end of the world,
their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end of the world.
But the Apostles were commanded by Christ to preach the Gospel to
all men without exception, until the end of the world.
And therefore their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end
of the world.
My third testimony is in Matthew xviii. 18. and John xx. 23. The
argument is thus,
They to whom our Saviour Christ gave the keys of the Kingdom of
Heaven, their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end of the
world.
But our Saviour Christ gave to his Apostles the keys of the Kingdom
of Heaven.
And therefore their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end
of the world.
The fourth testimony is in Matt, xxviii. 20, and John xiv. 16, The
argument I frame thus
They with whom Christ promised to ' be always until the end of the
world', their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end of the
world.
But Christ promised to be with his Apostles always until the end of the
world.
And therefore their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end
of the world.
The fifth testimony is in Matthew v. 14. The argument is this,
They whom Christ appointed only to be ' the light of the world 1 , their
calling was ordinary, and to continue until the end of the world.
But Christ appointed his Apostles to be the light of the ivorld.
SERMON I. 45
way, then, to know in whose hands this commission
is now lodged, is to enquire, what persons were ap-
pointed to succeed 4 the Apostles in then* office.
Now it is plain to any one who will read the Scrip-
tures without prejudice, that there were three 5
distinct orders of ministers in the Christian Church,
answering to those of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,
to whom I have already alluded. I know, of course,
that some have heen pleased to tell us, that
And therefore their calling was ordinary, and to continue until the
end of the world.
The sixth testimony is in Matt. x. 40, and Luke x. 16. The argu-
ment is this,
Whomsoever all men are bound to hear and receive in Chrisfs stead,
their calling was ordinary, and to be continued until the end of the world.
But to hear and receive the Apostles in Chrisfs stead, all men are
bound.
And therefore the calling of the Apostles was ordinary, and to con-
tinue until the end of the world.
The seventh testimony is in Matt. xxiv. 42, and Mark xiii. 35. The
argument is this,
They who are commanded by watching and prayer to attend the second
coming of our Saviour, their calling was ordinary, and to continue until
the end of the world.
But the Apostles were commanded by watching and prayer to attend the
second coming of our Saviour.
And therefore the Apostles' calling was ordinary, and to continue until
the end of the world. Episcopal Government instituted by Christ, pp.
14 21, where the reader will see the above propositions defended
and proved.
3 Hickes on The Dignity of the Episcopal Order, p. 190.
4 See Bingham's Antiquities, vol. i. p. 67. And Bishop Bilsou's
Perpetual Government of Christ's Church, ch. 13. Edit. 1610.
5 Bingham, vol. i. pp. 51. 340.
46 SERMON I.
Timothy 6 and Titus, 7 and others of the highest or-
der, were extraordinary 91 officers in the Christian
6 " The common refuge of Dissenters, that are concerned for the
unbishoping of Timothy, (to speak in Mr. Prynne's language,) is, that
he was an extraordinary officer and Evangelist. He is expressly so
styled, says Mr. Prynne. He is in direct terms called an Evangelist,
say the Assembly of Divines ; and that he was so, says Smectymnuus,
is clear from the letter of the text, 2 Tim. iv. 5. Yet neither in
this place, nor in any other part of Scripture,* is that to be found
which these men affirm with so much confidence.
" If it had been intended that the authority committed to Timothy
and others of his rank should be temporary, either this may appear
from the nature of the thing, or it might have been expected that we
should have had some notice of it in the Scripture. For if we may take
the liberty, without any grounds, to fasten on it the title of temporary
or extraordinary, we may by the same means soon put an end to any
constitutions whatsoever. But there is nothing in the nature of this
authority that may hinder its continuance ; nothing in the Scripture
that declares it to be abrogated. We may conclude, therefore, that
as it is fit to be continued, so it was designed to be so in all succeeding
times.
" We have no reason to believe that St. Paul would alter his own
constitutions without a cause ; or that, without any necessity, he
would put the government of a church into a new model, and divert
the course of discipline from that channel in which it ought to run
in all ages. If therefore he sent Timothy as an extraordinary com-
missioner to interpose in the affairs of Ephesus, we may suppose this
to have been either, 1. Because there was some extraordinary work,
which none but extraordinary officers could perform ; or 2, Because
there were no ministers at Ephesus, or such only as were unfit for
government. But neither of these can well be imagined. Not the
first, for the work was no other than what hath or might have been
performed by Bishops ever since. Not the second, for there were
* See A Brief Account of Ancient Church Government, partiv. ch. i iii.
and Burscough on Episcopacy, p. 115.
SERMON I. 47
Church, and so of temporary institution only , but
I would fain enquire who told them so ? 9 Certainly
presbyters at Ephesus of eminent gifts, such as the Holy Ghost had
made Overseers. It seems improbable then, that these were con-
stituted supreme standing rulers of the Church, or that the work for
which they were so well qualified was so soon taken out of their
hands.
" Particularly it seems improbable, either that they had the power
of ordination, or that it would have been transferred from them to a
stranger who came to visit them, but was not of their number, and
that without any ground or reason given, or any notice taken of them,
as concerned in the matter." Burscough on JSpiscopacy, pp. 114. 125.
7 " It is sufficient, that he (Titus) was a pastor of many Churches,
and had authority over their presbyters and deacons. For if this
be true, it strikes at the root of the Presbyterian and Independent
opinions about Church Government. And I know not what can
be said in vindication of them, unless it be that he was an extra-
ordinary officer. This you insist on, and to prove it you tell me
he was an Evangelist. But the Scripture says of him no such thing.
From the Scripture indeed we learn, that Philip was an Evangelist,
and yet he wanted power either to confirm those that were baptized,
or to ordain officers by imposition of hands. But Titus could perform
the last of these, which was the greater ; and consequently he was
something more than an Evangelist, and could be no less than an
Apostle, or a Bishop. But, that he may be reckoned amongst the
pastors extraordinary, you likewise urge, that he was only left in
Crete, as the deputy or the delegate of the Apostle, and that but for
a time, till he should have established Churches in every city, and
organized them with elders ; which having done, you say, it is very
probable that he returned again to St. Paul, to give an account of
that affair, and then you think his commission expired. Not that
you have read any such thing of him in Scripture : but since he was
obliged to act as the Apostle had appointed, from hence you collect,
that his deputation was but temporary : and you might as well have
concluded, that since it was the duty of presbyters and deacons to
walk as the same Apostle appointed, according to the rules he gave
for their conversation, their offices also were temporary, and designed
48 SERMON 1.
not the voice of antiquity, which directly refutes 1
their groundless assertion. To quote the language
for no long continuance." Burscough on Episcopacy, p. 140. See
also Saravia's Treatise on the Christian Priesthood, chap. 2.
8 " Now it remaineth to prove that the Bishops succeeded in place
of the Apostles, and in place of Evangelists inferior Presbyters ; and
I will begin with this argument.
Either Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles, or the Apostles have
no Successors at all.
But that the Apostles have no Successors at all, it is false, as I have
in my judgment unanswerably proved.
And therefore Bishops are their Successors, for I have proved also
that Presbyters cannot be their Successors.
My next argument is this :
Timothy and Titus were Bishops.
Timothy and Titus succeeded unto the Apostles.
And therefore Bishops succeeded to the Apostles.
I prove the proposition by this argument, that is, that Timothy and
Titus were bishops.
They whose calling was ordinary, and had the power of Ordination
and Jurisdiction over Presbyters, were Bishops.
But Timothy and Titus their calling was ordinary, and had the power
of Ordination and Jurisdiction over Presbyters.
And therefore Timothy and Titus were Bishops.
The proposition will be granted, I prove the assumption ; and first
that Timothy's and Titus' calling was ordinary.
They who had only the ordinary parts of the ministerial Function,
their calling was ordinary.
But Timothy and Titus had only the ordinary parts of the ministerial
Function.
And therefore the calling of Timothy and Titus was ordinary.
The proposition will be granted ; I prove the assumption ;
They who had only power to preach the word and administer the
Sacraments, $~c. had only the ordinary parts of the ministerial Function.
But Timothy and Titus had only power to preach the icord, and ad-
minister the Sacraments, S,-c.
SERMON I. 49
of Stillingfleet, "They who go about to unbishop 2
Timothy and Titus, may as well unscripture the
And therefore Timothy and Titus had only the ordinary parts of the
ministerial Function.
I prove the assumption thus ; Tim. and Tit. had neither the gift
of Miracles, nor the gift of Prophecy, nor the gift of Tongues, nor
the gift of Healing, nor any extraordinary gift at all, for any thing
we read ; neither were they infallibly guided by the Spirit ; for if
they had had the infallible assistance of the Spirit, the Apostle Paul
would not have been so earnest to exhort them to do their duty in
their calling ; Timothy is exhorted to ' war a good warfare, holding
faith and a good conscience,' 1 Tim. i. 18, 19, and to be 'an example
of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith,
in purity,' 1 Tim. iv. 12, and to ' give attendance to reading, to ex-
hortation, to doctrine, and meditation,' and ' not to neglect the gift
that was given him by prophecy,' 1 Tim. iv. 13, 14, 15. Titus had
also the like exhortations; so that it is most certain, neither of
them had the spirit of infallibility, nor no extraordinary gift of the
Spirit, but only the ordinary parts of the ministerial functions, and
consequently their calling was ordinary.
Next I prove their calling was ordinary by this argument.
They whose calling was by education, trial, and ordination, their
calling was ordinary.
But Timothy and Titus, their calling was by education, trial, and
ordination.
And therefore their calling was ordinary.
The proposition needs no probation ; for they who were called to be
preachers of the gospel, by ordinary means, without all question
their calling was ordinary ; for Timothy it is clear, for he had his
education under his grandmother Lois, and his mother Eunice ; he
was tried by the Apostle, and he had the approbation and commen-
dation of the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium, before he
would receive him in his company ; thereafter he had his breeding,
for a greater progress in knowledge, under the Apostle Paul,
before he was made a Presbyter, much more before he was made
a Bishop ; for this cause Paul saith to him, ' Hold fast the form
of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which
F
50 SERMON 1.
Epistles that were written to them, and make them
only some particular and occasional writings, as they
is in Christ Jesus ;' as for his ordination, it is without all question
most clear and evident ; all this also may be said of Titus, and there-
fore I conclude both their callings to be ordinary, Titus' calling as
well as Timothy's.
Thirdly, I prove their calling to be ordinary by this argument.
That calling which was to continue until the end of the world was an
ordinary calling.
But Timothy and Titus calling was to continue until the end of the
world.
And therefore Timothy and Titus calling was an ordinary calling.
I prove the assumption
That which was to be propagated until the appearing of our Lord
Jesus Christ, in the persons of Timothy and Titus successors, was to con-
tinue until the end of the world.
But Timothy and Titus calling was to be propagated in the persons of
Timothy and Titus successors, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.
And therefore Timothy and Titus calling was to continue until the end
of the world.
The proposition will be granted, I prove the assumption ;
That which must be kept until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,
must be propagated by Timothy and Titus successors until his appearing.
But the calling of Timothy and Titus, (in all the particular parts of it,)
must be kept until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.
And therefore their calling was to be propagated in the persons of their
Successors until his appearing.
The proposition is evident, because the parts of the ministerial
function cannot be otherwise kept, but by propagation : and for this
cause the Apostle commands Timothy to propagate. 2 Tim. ii. 2.
' The things that thou hast heard of me (saith he) before many wit-
nesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to
teach others also.'
The assumption is also manifest by that strict charge which he
giveth unto Timothy in the latter end of the first epistle, chap. vi.
13, 14. ' I charge thee (saith he) in the sight of God, who quickeneth
all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate wit-
SERMON I. 51
make Timothy and Titus to have been only some
particular and occasional officers. But the Chris-
nessed a good confession, that thou keep this commandment without
spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.'
Now this commandment that he would have Timothy to keep,
doth comprehend all the particulars contained in his Epistle, both
concerning Doctrine and Government, and in particular the whole
parts of the Episcopal function, which is most obvious to any reader,
and so still my conclusion stands good, That the catting of Timothy
and Titus is to be propagated in the persons of their Successors until the
second coming of our Saviour, and consequently their calling was an
ordinary calling. Episcopal Government instituted by Christ pp. 23-9.
9 " Adversarii earn potestatem quam Episcopalem dicimus, Tito
atque Timotheo, non ut Ephesiorum at Cretensinm Episcopis, sed
ut evangelistis concessam volunt. Per evangelistas autem intelligunt
extraordinarios quosdam nascentis Ecclesia; Christi uiinistros, Apostolis
dignitate et authoritate proximos, quorum opera Apostoli in Evangelic
praedicando fundandisque ecclesiis ntebantur ; in quo quidem munere
successores non habuerint, nee habere debuerint. Primo, quodnam
fuerit eorum munus quos S. Paulus a Christo ecclesise evangelistas
datos esse testatur, neque ex Scriptura, neque aliunde certo constat.
Sed si Pseudo-Atnbrosio aeque in omnibus fidem habeant adversarii,
quod viros ingenuous deceret, non infra Episcopatum modo, sed
Presbyteratum quoque subsidebat. ' Evangelists (inquit ad cap.
iv. Epist. ad Ephes.) Diaconi snnt, sicutfuit Philippus. Qitamvis non
sint Sacerdotes, Evangelizare tamen possunt sine Cathedra, quemadmodum
et Stephanm et Philippus memoratus? Quod si verum est, vides quam
nihil ad rem effugium illud de Timotheo et Tito Evangelistis. Secundo,
non magis constat Titum ac Timotheum fuisse ex eorum ministrorum
numero. Nihil enim ex Scripturis afferri solet ad munus illud Tito
asserendum. Et quse verba de Timotheo in earn rem afferuntur, scilicet,
efyoi/ ire(i)trtv IvayyehiffTu (2 Tim. iv. 5) non magis evincunt eum fuisse
Evangelistam non autem Episcopum, quam hsec ibidem immediate
sequentia, TI Siaxoviav <r nKi\^6^<:w, eum probant fuisse Diaconum,
non autem Presbyterum. Tertio (quanquam vero similius est ivayyA<imi
quemadmodum 8xxov/f voecm hie generali significant usurpari,) demus
F
52 SERMON I.
tian Church, preserving these Epistles as of constant
and perpetual use, did thereby suppose the same
non tantum Timotheum sed Titum quoque fuisse Evangelistas. Demus
etiam eos Evangelistas fuisse quibus Apostoli utebantur ad evangelium
iis annunciandum ad quos nondum pervenerat, et ad ecclesias ex
gentibus ac Judseis congregandas, quorumque adeo munus v^s x'fo
fuerit, non autem perpetuo post prsedicatum per totum orbem Evan-
gelium, et congregatas ubivis Gentium, Christianorurnque Ecclesias,
duraturum. Quid Ecclesiae Ephesina?, jam fidem Christi per Evangelii
praedicationem amplexae, janique plurium Presbyterorum ministcrio
gaudenti, opus fuit Timotbeo Evangelista, hoc est, eo Ministro cujus
munus erat iis Evangelium annunciate qui de Christo nibil unquam
aucliverant ? At Timothei Episcopi, qui jam a Paulo ordinalis Pres-
byteris consilio et authoritate prseesset, qui in officio cessantes moneret,
delinquentes corrigeret, et novos pro Ecclesia? necessitate ipse ordinaret,
(quod meris Presbyteris non licuisse, vel ex eo plusquam probabile est,
quod illi, non istis, id muneris demandat Apostolus,) non fuit inutilis
opera. Quando quis umquam vel fando audivit Evangelistarum muneris
fuisse Presbyteros ordinare, monere, judicare, corripere, et jam con-
stitutas Ecclesias integras regere ? Ea omnia Apostolicse prsseminentise
erant, et eorum tantum quibus similem potestatem Apostoli concessam
voluerant ; ut Timotbei, Titi, et aliorum, non qua Evangelistarum, sed
qua Episcoporum, hoc est, Apostolicse illius prseeminentia? (qute in
Ecclesia perpetua esse debuit) successorum. Unde Primes illos Epis-
copos sacris Apostolorum ipsorum manibus ordinatos, Apostolos dictos
apud veteres passim videre est. Vulgo notus est ille Theodoreti locus,
raf nv KtuKufjiiiat ixiffxtimf, Airo<rr6fat o!nfyt?o (Vid. Hammond. Dissert. 4
de Episcopal, c. 3.) Ut Episcopi Apostolorum successores xar' l|o^iv
jure merito dici possint, non exclusis tamen, in ea parte Apostolicse
successions qua versatur circa Verbi et Sacramentorum administra-
tionem, Presbyteris. Ad Evangelistas autem quod attinet, si eorum
officium ex iis sestimatur quse narrantur Actium Apostolicorum capite
viii. de Philippo, quern unum sacrae litterse Evangelistam indigitant,
ejusdem libri capite 21, 8, in hoc tantum situm fuit, ut iis fidem
Christi prsedicarent, quibus nondum innotuerat, et ut converses ac
credentes Sacri Baptismatis aquis abluerant. Nihil enim ultra sibi
arrogasse Philippus legitur ; advocatis Apostolis, qui Samaritanis, per
SERMON I. 53
kind of office to continue, for the sake whereof
these excellent Epistles were written by St. Paul.
And we have no greater assurance that these Epis-
tles were written by him, than we have that there
were Bishops to succeed the Apostles in the care
and Government of the Churches." 3 Ecclesiastical
illius praedicationem ad fidem conversis et ab eo baptizatis, ipsi manus
imponerent, seu ad eos otnnes in fide confirmandos, seu ad aliquos
ad sacrum ministerium ordinandos. Quinto, licet Apostolus Timothei
Titique ministerio usus sit ad Evangelistarum munus exequendum,
quando et ubi ad id eorum opera visa est utilis, ad propagationem
Evangelii, palam est, vel ipsis adversariis confitentibus, ex datis ad
utrumque Epistolis, aliam illis, Episcopalem scilicet ab eo demandatam
provinciam, cum istum Cretensium, ilium Epbesiorum Ecclesise prae-
ficeret. Quod nobis satis est ad probandtim Episcopatum esse Apos-
tolicae institutionis, proindeque juris Divini. 'Denique quomodocunque
tu appfillaveris Titum et Timotheum et Marcum, (inquit celeberrimus
Molirueus,} seu Episcopos seu Evangelistas, constat eos habuisse suc-
cessores Episcopos, hoeredes illius prceeminentice? Sed ad alia, quibus
hoc idem probetur ac confirmetur, pergamus ;" to which I would refer
the reader. Durelli Sanctce Ecclesice Anglicance Vindicice, cap. xxx.
page 372.
1 See Bishop Taylor's Episcopacy Asserted, vol. vii. sects. 14, 15.
2 Referring to ' The unbishoping of Timothy and Titus, by W.
Prynne, 1636.
3 " You are not able (writes Bishop Sage) to produce better evidence
for this, that such a gospel (e.g. St. Mark's,) or such an Epistle (e.g.
St. James' or St , Jude's, or any other you please,) ought to be em-
braced as part of the Sacred Canon, than I have produced for the
Apostolic Institution of Episcopacy. For this, there is of bright
evidence a great deal even in the genuine Apostolical Monuments, from
which, at the same time, no evidence can be squeezed for the canonical-
ness of the name Gospel or Epistles. Enquire deliberately into the
matter when you will, and you shall not find that the canonical books
were separated from the apocryphal, till after the decease of all the
54 SERMON I.
Cases, vol. i. p. 11. So that according to the ma-
turest judgment of this great man, the office of
Apostles, that is till the second century. Nay, 'tis known, some books
were not universally received even in the third. Our belief therefore
of this, that such or such a book is canonical, must of necessity depend
on the skill, credit, and integrity of those who outlived the Apostles,
i. e. flourished in the second century. Now, Sir, I dare boldly
challenge you to produce as many testimonies of those who lived in
the second century, for the canonicalness of any Gospel or Epistle,
as I have produced for the Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy. The
truth is, Episcopacy has on its side the fuller and the clearer evidence.
Books were not received into the canon at random, but as being
written by persons divinely inspired. Now they could be but few, in
comparison of those who could not but understand the form of Church
Government instituted by the Apostles, who could immediately know
that such books were written by such persons. This could only fall
to the share of those who were present with the Apostles or Evange-
lists when they wrote, or those particular Churches or persons to
whom they wrote, or those who knew their hands or so. But to
have those advantages did not fall to the share of one of four thou-
sand of those who could not open their eyes, and look about them,
without perceiving what/orm of government they lived under. Who
sees not that it is much easier to prove that James the sixth, and
Charles the First, were Kings of Scotland, and that, in their days, the
form of government was Monarchical, than that the one was Author
of B<n\/xo Aoipov, and the other E/XCUV Ba<r<x<xjj ? But doth not this
reasoning I have used tend to make it dubious and uncertain what
books are to be holden canonical ? Not at all ; two matters of fact
may, each of them, be sufficiently proved, and yet there may be
fuller and clearer evidence for the one than for the other ; e. g. you
may be able sufficiently and clearly enough to prove that you wrote
your vindication of your sermon ; yet, I hope you will not deny that
it may be more fully and clearly proved that you were moderator of
your last General Assembly. We may be abundantly certain that
such books are canonical, and such are not, so long as the principle
shall hold, ' That the consentient testimonies of a competent number of
competent and unexceptionable ivitnesses amount to a solid foundation for
SERMON I. 55
Timothy and Titus is of the same authority, and
designed to be of the same continuance, with the
Epistles that were written to them.
The superiority 4 of a bishop to a presbyter con-
supporting the belief of a matter of fact.' This, I am sure, was a prin-
ciple upon which our Lord and His Apostles did always proceed, and
'tis a principle which you must grant, unless you will say that, in
order to the perpetuation of a revealed religion, 'tis always necessary
that there be a perpetual succession of persons immediately inspired to
perpetuate it, and always endued with power of working miracles to
confirm it." Bishop Sage's Reasonableness of Toleration, page 161.
4 " The Holy Scripture also doth plainly enough countenance this
distinction ; for therein we have represented one Angel presiding over
principal Churches which contained several presbyters ; therein we
find episcopal ordination and jurisdiction exercised : we have one
bishop constituting presbyters in divers cities of his diocese ; ordering
all things therein concerning ecclesiastical discipline; judging pres-
byters, rebuking peia. virus lirtrotyrji ' with all authority,' (or imperious-
ness as it were, Titii. 15), and reconciling offenders, secluding heretics
and scandalous persons. The primitive general use of Christians most
effectually doth back the Scripture, and interpret it in favour of this
distinction, scarce less than demonstrating it constituted by the
Apostles. And how can we conceive that all the best monuments
of antiquity, down from the beginning, (the Acts, the Epistles, the
Histories, the Commentaries, the writings of all sorts, coming from
the blessed Martyrs and most holy confessors of our Faith,) should
conspire to abuse us ; the which doth speak nothing but bishops ;
long catalogues, and rows of bishops, succeeding in this and that city ;
bishops contending for the faith against Pagan idolaters and heretical
corrupters of Christian doctrine ; bishops here teaching, and planting
our religion by their labours, there suffering and watering it by their
blood ?" Barrow, Sermon xxiv.
"Again, "As to the government of the Church by episcopal
presidency, to which princes and presbyters agree, he (Bishop
Brownrig) was too learned a man to doubt, and too honest to deny
the universal custom and practice of the Church of Christ in all ages
56 SERMON I.
sists in potestas ordinis, and potestas jurisdictionis 5
the power of order, 6 and the power of jurisdiction. 1
and places for fifteen hundred years, according to the pattern (at least)
received from the Apostles ; who without doubt followed, as they best
knew, the mind of Christ." Memorials of Bishop Brownrig, by
Bishop Gauden. See also Hobart's Apology for Apostolic Order.
5 " ' A bishop,' saith St. Augustine, ' is a presbyter's superior ;'
but the question is now, wherein that superiority did consist. The
bishop's pre-eminence we say, therefore, was two-fold. First, he
excelled in latitude of the power of order ; secondly, in that kind of
power which belongeth unto jurisdiction. Priests in the law had
authority and power to do greater things than Levites, the high-priest
greater than inferior priests might do ; therefore Levites were
beneath priests, and priests inferior to high-priests, by reason of the
very degree of dignity and of worthiness in the nature of those
functions which they did execute, and not only for that the one had
power to command and control the other. In like sort, presbyters
having a weightier and a worthier charge than deacons had, the
deacon was in this sort the presbyter's inferior ; and where we say
that a bishop was likewise ever accounted a presbyter's superior, even
according unto his very power of order, we must of necessity declare
what principal duties, belonging unto that kind of power, a bishop
might perform, and not a presbyter.
"Again, the power of ordaining both deacons and presbyters, the
power to give the power of order unto others, this also hath been
always peculiar unto bishops. It hath not been heard of, that inferior
presbyters were ever authorized to'ordain. And concerning ordina-
tion so great force and dignity it hath, that whereas presbyters, by
such power as they have received for administration of the Sacra-
ments, are able only to beget children unto God, bishops having
power to ordain, do by virtue thereof create fathers to the people of
God, as Epiphanius fitly disputeth. There are which hold that
between a bishop and a presbyter, touching the power of order, there
is no difference. The reason of which conceit is, for that they see
presbyters no less than bishops authorized to offer up the prayers of
the Church, to preach the Gospel, to baptize, to administer the Holy
Eucharist ; but they consider not withal as they should, that the
SERMON I. 57
As to the former, the power of ordaining, " in lati-
tude," 8 as Hooker expresses it, " of the power of
presbyter's authority to do these things is derived from the bishop
which doth ordain him thereunto ; so that even in those things which
are common unto both, yet the power of the one is as it were a certain
light borrowed from the other's lamp. The Apostles being bishops
at large, ordained everywhere presbyters. Titus and Timothy having
received episcopal power, as apostolic ambassadors or legates, the one
in Greece, the other in Ephesus, they both did, by virtue thereof,
likewise ordain, throughout all Churches, deacons and presbyters
within the circuits allotted unto them. As for bishops by restraint,
their power this way incommunicable unto presbyters which of the
ancients do not acknowledge ?
" Touching that other chiefty, which is of jurisdiction ; amongst the
Jews, he, which was highest through the worthiness of peculiar
duties incident unto his function in the legal service of God, did bear
always in ecclesiastical jurisdiction the chiefest sway. As long as the
glory of the temple of God did last, there were in it sundry orders of
men consecrated unto the service thereof, one sort of them inferior
unto another in dignity and degree ; the Nethinims subordinate unto
the Levites, the Levites unto the Priests, the rest of the priests to
those twenty-four which were chief priests, and they all to the High-
Priest. If any man surmise that the difference between them was
only by distinction in the former kind of power, and not in this latter
of jurisdiction, are not the words of the law manifest, which make
Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, chief captain of the Levites, and
overseer of them unto whom the charge of the sanctuary was com-
mitted ? Again, at the commandment of Aaron and his sons, are not
the Gersonites themselves required to do all their service in the
whole charge belonging unto the Gersonites, being inferior priests, as
Aaron and his sons were high-priests ? Did not Jehoshaphat appoint
Amarias, the priest, to be chief over them who were judges for the
cause of the Lord in Jerusalem ? ' Priests,' saith Josephus, ' worship
God continually, and the eldest of the stock are governors over the
rest. He doth sacrifice unto God before others, he hath care of the
laws, judgeth controversies, correcteth offenders, and whosoever
obeyeth him not is convict of impiety against God.'
G
58 SERMON I.
order," that is peculiar to the bishop ; and no in-
stance has yet appeared of presbyters 9 exercising
that power. St. Paul gives it as a special charge to
Timothy, to " lay hands suddenly on no man."
This would have been a very useless charge, if the
presbyters of Ephesus could have ordained; but
not one word is said as to their possessing this
power. The same silence as to presbyters exer-
cising this authority, is observed by the Apostle in
his Epistle to Titus, " For this cause left I thee in
" In the office of a bishop, Ignatius observeth these two functions,
lipartudv x apx"" : concerning the one, such is the pre-eminence of a
bishop, that he only hath the heavenly mysteries of God committed
originally unto him ; so that otherwise than by his ordination, and by
authority received from him, others besides him are not licensed
therein to deal as ordinary ministers of God's Church.
" And touching the other part of their sacred function, wherein the
power of their jurisdiction doth appear ; first, how the Apostles them-
selves, and secondly, how Titus and Timothy had rule and jurisdiction
over presbyters, no man is ignorant." Hooker, vol iii. p. 205, &c.
See also Dr. Featley's Sixteen Reasons for Episcopal Government.
6 Bingham, vol. i. ch. iii. sect. 5, and Heylyn's History of Episcopacy,
pt. i. ch. v.
7 Bingham, vol. i. chap. iii. sect. 8 ; Mason's Vindicice Ecc. Aug.
book 4, chap. 1, and Bishop Carleton on Jurisdiction, ch. iv.
8 " The power of order in bishops, (besides all the power which is
in the Presbyters,) is power by imposition of hands to convey grace,
as the ordinary instrument of the Holy Ghost, either to parties
baptized, for their confirmation, or to penitents for their reconciliation,
or to parties designed to the ministry for their ordination." Bishop
Downame's Defence, b. 3. ch. 4.
9 Bingham, vol. i. ch. i. sect. 1, and chap. iii. sect. 6. See also
Downame's Defence, book 3, ch. 4.
SERMON I. 59
Crete, that thou shouldest ordain elders in every
city." From these texts the Fathers observe, that
none 1 but bishops, 2 in the ecclesiastical sense of the
word, had the power of ordaining; so say SS. Cy-
prian, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Jerome, 3 and many
1 Bingham's Antiquities, vol. i. p. 85, and Hobart's Apology for
Apostolic Order.
2 " For to clear the distinction of order, it is evident in antiquity,
that bishops had a power of imposing hands, for collating of orders,
which presbyters have not. What was done in this affair in the times
of the Apostles I have already explicated ; but now the enquiry is,
what the Church did in pursuance of the practice and tradition apos-
tolical ? The first and second canons of Apostles command, that two
or three bishops should ordain a bishop, and one bishop should ordain
a priest and a deacon. A presbyter is not authorized to ordain ; a
bishop is. St. Dionysius affirms, Sacerdotem non posse initiari, nisi
per invocationes episcopates, and acknowledges no ordainer but a
bishop. No more did the Church ever ; insomuch that when Nova-
tus, the father of the old puritans, did airibire episcopatu.ni, he was fain
to go to the utmost parts of Italy, and seduce or entreat some bishops
to impose hands on him, as Cornelius witnesses in his epistle to Fabi-
anus, in Eusebius. To this we may add, as so many witnesses, all
those ordinations made by the bishops of Rome, mentioned in the
pontifical book of Damasus, Platina, and others, Habitis de more
sacris ordinibus Decembris mense, presbyteros decem, diaconos duos, &c.
creat S. Clemens: Anacletus presbyteros quinque, diaconos tres, episcopos
diversis in locis sex numero creavit; and so in descent, for all the
bishops of that succession, for many ages together." Bishop Taylor's
Episcopacy Asserted, sect. 32.
3 See Bishop Bilson's Perpetual Government of Christ's Church, p.
238 ; and as the testimony of St. Jerome is so frequently adduced by
the opponents to Episcopacy, as favouring their views, the following
extract from Dr. Downame's Defence will be read with interest :
" Now I come to Jerome : for the Refuter thinketh it ' very strange,
that I should bring him as a patron of the Bishop's sole power to
ordain.' It seemeth that the Refuter conceiveth nothing aright. I
60 SERMON I.
others ; to whom may be added the testimony of
canons and sanctions apostolical, and the decrees of
bring in Jerome in this place, not as a patron of Bishops, but as one,
who, pleading for the superiority of Presbyters above Deacons, and
desiring to raise them as near as he can to Bishops, doth notwith-
standing confess that Bishops are superior in ordination ; What doth
a Bishop (saith he) excepting ordination, ivhich a Presbyter may not do ?
To which the Kefuter, having no answer of his own, intreateth
another to answer for him ; which done, he craketh, as if ' he had
laid me on my back.' The answer is, that ' Jerome speaketh of his
own time.' No doubt ; for speaking in the present tense, whereby he
signifieth actum continuum, he doth not exclude his own time. But
doth he therefore speak of his own time only ? or doth he signify, that
there was a time since there were first Bishops, (which he confesseth
was in the time of the Apostles,) when the Bishops had not this power ?
If this could be shewed, then Jerome might be thought not to speak
of the Apostles' times. Nay, does not Jerome speak as well de jure, as
de facto, when he saith, " What doth a Bishop" &c., that is 'what
hath a Bishop right to do by the power of his order, which a Presbyter
hath not a right to do by the power of his order, only except ordina-
tion? That I confess to be above the Presbyter's power!' Well,
and to what end doth Jerome speak this of his own time ? That,
' having shewed before out of the Scriptures, and the practice of the
Church at Antioch, that of old a Bishop and a Presbyter were all
one, he might see that, in his time also, there remained a proof thereof ;
because a Bishop then did nothing, except ordination, which a Pres-
byter could not do.' Out of the Scriptures Jerome proveth, that in
those times, when the Scriptures were written, the name Episcopus
and Presbyter were confounded (Epist. ad Evag.) ; because, as the
name Episcopus was given to Presbyters, (Phil, i., Acts, xx., Tit. \.)
so the name Presbyter to Apostles and Bishops, as 1 Tim., c. iv., v. 14 ;
where Jerome understandeth, as before, by Presbyterium, Episcopatus,
1 Pet. v. 1 . Joan. Epist. ii. and iii. And this is Jerome's first argu-
ment, that Presbyters are superior to Deacons. But hence it doth
not follow that therefore the offices of a Bishop and Presbyter are
confounded; especially, after the institution of a Bishop. Doth
Jerome think, that every Presbyter is equal in degree with Timothy,
SERMON I. 61
eight famous councils 4 in Christendom, viz. Ancyra,
Antioch, Sardis, Alexandria, two of Constantinople,
because the office of Timothy in Jerome s understanding is called
Presbyterium ? or that they are equal with Peter and John, because
they called themselves Presbyters ? His second argument to prove
the superiority of Presbyters above Deacons, is, because Bishops were
chosen out of Presbyters, and by Presbyters, whereas, contrariwise,
he that is chosen from among Deacons, by Deacons, is only an Arch-
deacon. The former part he first illustrateth by the end, which was
'to avoid schism ; and then proveth it by the practice of the Church
of Alexandria. In his setting down the end, he lets fall one word,
which if it be not favourably expounded, will make him contradict
himself and the truth. For upon the ^allegation of St. John's second
and third Epistle, he saith, ' Quod autem postea unus electus 1 that one
'afterwards' was chosen who should be set over the rest, it was
provided as a remedy against schism, lest every one drawing after
him should rend the Church of Christ. What say you, Jerome
were Bishops first ordained after St. John's time ? Do not yourself
testify that St. James, a little after the ascension of Christ, was by
the Apostles made Bishop of Jerusalem ; that Mark was Bishop of
Alexandria ; that ever since his time, (and he died almost forty years
before St. John,} there hath been a Bishop in a degree superior to
other Presbyters ; that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, &c. ? That
word ' afterwards' therefore is not to be referred to St. John's time,
but to those testimonies where he proved the name Episcopus to be
given to Presbyters ; which custom, as he supposeth, continued until
one of the Presbyters, being chosen from among the rest, was called
Bishop. For indeed, while Apostles, or Apostolic men, were made
Bishops, Bishops were called Apostles of the Churches. But when
out of the Presbyters one was chosen, he began, for difference sake,
to be called the Bishop, the Angel of the Church. Now that Bishops
were chosen out of Presbyters, and by Presbyters, he proveth by the
example of the Church at Alexandria ; for even at Alexandria, from
Mark the Evangelist, unto Heraclas and Dionysius, Bishops, (who
were not chosen from among the Presbyters,) the Presbyters have
always called one, chosen from among themselves, and placed in a
higher degree, the Bishop, even as if an army do choose their General,
62 SERMON I.
the Arausican Council, and that of Hispalis. The
next point in which bishops are superior to presby-
or Deacons choose from among themselves one, whom they know to
be industrious, and call him the Archdeacon. His fourth argument
is this. There be many things which a Bishop by the power of his
order may do, which a Deacon cannot ; but there is nothing which a
Bishop may do by the power of order, excepting ordination, which a
Presbyter may not do. A Presbyter is therefore by so much superior
to a Deacon, by how much he is nearer to the Bishop. This is the
very scope of this place, and to the same are all the arguments follow-
ing referred. The sum whereof is, that the Presbyter is a degree be-
tween the Bishops and Deacons. You see then, what Jerome proveth
out of the Scriptures ; not that the office, but the name of Bishop and
Presbyter were for a time confounded. Now let us see what he
proveth ' by the practice of the Church at Antioch ;' he would say
at Alexandria, ' that of old a Bishop and a Presbyter were all one.
See you not how he proveth it, when he saith, that ever since Mark's
time the Bishop hath been 'placed in a higher degree above the Pres-
byters f Was this to prove that a Bishop and Presbyter are equal, or
all one ? Or did Jerome intend any thing else, but to prove the
Presbyters superior to Deacons, and that by such arguments as before
I analysed ? We have heard what Jerome proveth out of the
Scriptures, and practice of the Church at Alexandria ; now at the last,
let us hear the end of his speech ; ' That he (I know not who) might
see, that in his time also there remained a proof thereof, because a
Bishop even then did nothing, except ordination, which a Presbyter
could not do.' Toto ccelo errat; it was not Jerome's end to prove the
Presbyter equal with the Bishop, but superior to the Deacon; for if
the former had been his intent, this, and the other from the practice
of Alexandria, had been very untoward arguments to prove his
purpose. At Alexandria the Bishop, ever since Mark's time, was
superior to Presbyters in degree, therefore they were equal! The
Bishop is superior in the power of ordination, therefore Presbyters be
his equals ! Hath not the Refuter now great cause, think you, to
crake of this answer ? Was this, among all the testimonies which I
alleged, chosen as most misalleged, by occasion whereof he ' might
pay me mine own, and tell me that it was wherried in with oars by
SERMON I. 63
ters, is the power of jurisdiction 5 ; that consists in
regulating divine service, and the administration of
him that looked another way.' Blessed be God, that so guided me
in the way of truth, that, among all my allegations, the Refuter hath
not been able to charge me with misalleging any one. As for this,
nothing could be more pregnant and pertinent to prove, that Bishops
were superior to Presbyters in ordination, than as I said in the sermon,
that Jerome himself, even when and where he seeketh to advance the
Presbyters as high as he can, above the Deacons, doth confess ordina-
tion to be peculiar to Bishops. Now, whereas Jerome saith a Pres-
byter may do any thing which a Bishop doth, excepting ordination,
I did easily foresee it would be objected, that if Bishops be superior
only in the power of ordination, then are they not superior in juris-
diction. This objection I prevented in these words. ' Where you are
not to understand him, or other of the Fathers, speaking sometime to the
like purpose, as though the Bishops were not superior in any thing else ;
but that, potestate ordinis, as touching power of order, he is superior
only in ordination. For that he is superior potestate jurisdictions, they
every where acknowledge.'' I know some* answer, that in Jerome's
judgment Bishops are jure divino, superior to other ministers, only in
the power of ordination; but in the power of jurisdiction jure
apostolico; in that he acknowledgeth, that superiority of Bishops
was brought in by the Apostles necessarily for the avoiding of schisms.
Which answer I refusing, because Jerome f saith the like of the
superiority of the Bishops in general, and of the power of ordination
in particular, that it was reserved to the Bishop ne a multis disciplina
Ecclesice vindicata, concordiam sacerdotum solveret, et scandala generaret,
made choice of this other, as the more like to be true.... Whereas there-
fore I expounded Jerome and some others, who say the Bishop is supe-
rior to the Presbyters only in ordination, as not meaning that he is
not superior also in the power of jurisdiction, but that in respect of
the power of order, he was superior only in the right of ordaining ;
because whereas other parts of the power of order be common to him
with Presbyters, that of ordaining is his peculiar right and prerogative ;
* Bell, de Cler. 1. i. c. 15.
f Advers. Lucifer. I'M Titu i. ad Evagr. de 7 Ordin. Eccles.
64 SERMON I.
the sacraments, St. Paul gave Timothy this direc-
tion, that " first of all supplications, prayers,
I did not speak without understanding Jerome, and some
other Fathers, acknowledging the Bishop to be superior in jurisdic-
tion, and yet affirming that he is superior only in the right of ordina-
tion or imposing hands, must thus be understood, as judging the
Bishop to be superior only therein, quoad ordinis potestatem, as touching
the power of order ; they holding other things belonging to the power
of order, as the ministry of the Word, and Sacraments of Baptism and
the Lord's Supper, to be common to Bishops with other ministers ;
but the power of ordination to be peculiar to the Bishops, and, in their
judgments, not communicable to Presbyters; because as Thomas
saith, ' ea quce sunt ordinis non possunt committi nisi Tidbenti ordinem? "
Bishop Downame's Defence, ~c., Book iii., c. 4. See also A Sermon
defending the honourable function of Bishops, by the same Author,
pp. 87 93, in support of which the former work was published,
against the objection of Paul Baynes.
4 See also Dr. Downame's Defence, book 3, ch. 4. " That the power
of ordination was peculiar to the bishop in the judgment of the
Fathers, I prove, first, by the authority of Councils ; then by the
testimonies of Epiphanius and Jerome. To the former he * answereth,
'It is to no purpose to meddle with these allegations out of the
councils, which were well nigh three hundred years after the Apos-
tles' times, and some of them such as deserve neither imitation, nor
approbation.' Here let the Christian reader judge what credit he
deserveth, that so contemptuously shaketh off the authority of antient
Councils, even the second among the four antient general Councils,
which are and have been, from time to time, received in the Church,|
as it were four Gospels. But let us examine the particulars, and
consider whether they deserve to be so lightly rejected. The first
testimony was taken out of an epistle j written by the Presbyters
* A ' Nameless Author,' who published a Reply to Dr. Downame's Ser-
mon, preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath and Wells.
t Greg. Mag. L. i. Epis. 24. " Sicut Evanyelii 4 libros, sic 4 concilia
suscipere et venerari mefateor."
i Athana. apol. 2. in Epist. Presb. et Deacon Mareot. ad curios, et Philagr.
prefect. JEgypti.
SERMON I. 65
intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all
men ; for kings, and all that are in authority ; that
and Deacons of Mareot, in the behalf of Athanasius the Great, their
bishop, who was accused, for that by his appointment Macarius had
disturbed one Ischyras, a pretended Presbyter, in the administration
of the Communion, and had broken the sacred cup. They testify
these things to be false ; and, among the rest, they deny that Ischyras
was a Presbyter, because he was ordained of Colluthus, the Presbyter,
who was but an imaginary or phantastical * bishop, and afterwards
by a General Council,f to wit, by Osius and the Bishops who were
with him, commanded to remain a Presbyter as he had been before ;
for which cause, all that were ordained of Colluthus, among whom
was Ischyras, returned to their former place and order. The like is
testified by the synod of Alexandria, j which denieth that Ischyras
could be ordained Presbyter by Colluthus, ' seeing Colluthus himself
died a Presbyter, and all his ordinations were reversed, and all that were
ordained by him were held as laymen.' 1 x< -naura. ytig aura yfyoven oixupo;.
Hereunto we may add another most pregnant testimony, expressed
in the acts of the same general Council of Sardica, \\ wherein it was
decreed, that ' forasmuch as MUSCRUS and Eutychianus were not ordained
Bishops, that therefore such clerks as they had ordained should be held
as laymen.' My second testimony is out of the second general
Council, concerning Maximus, who being by birth an Alexandrian,
and by profession a Cynic Philosopher, before he was converted to
Christianity, and received into the clergy by Gregory the Divine,
against whom he ambitiously sought the Bishoprick of Constantinople,
bribing the Bishops of Egypt ; who being come to Constantinople, and
excluded out of the Church, went into a certain minstrel's house, and
there unlawfully chose Maximus the Cynic to be Bishop of Constanti-
nople. The general Council therefore, assembled at Constantinople,
f This seems to have been the general Council of Sardica, which was
not 250 years after the Apostles' times.
J Epist. Synod. Alex, in Apol. 2. Athanas.
|| Vid. Balsam, in Cone. Sardic. c. 18, 19.
Constantinop.i.c.4, Grose, et 6, Lot. Balsam, in Cone. Constant, i. c.4.
H
66 SERMON I.
men may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all
godliness and honesty." (1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, 7.) And
determineth thus concerning Maximus : that ' he neither was nor is
a Bishop, neither they clerks who had been ordained by him, in whatsoever
degree of the clergy? * And to this I will add another testimony out
of the fourth general Council, | where Bassianus, who had been Bishop
of Ephesus, and now sought to recover it, alleged for himself, 'that
if he were not Bishop, then were not they clerks which had been ordained
by him.\ . . . These testimonies plainly evince, that in the primitive
Church, the power of ordination was so in Bishops, as that either
themselves did ordain, or if this power were communicated to others,
it was by leave and permission from them. And little reason had
the refuter so lightly to esteem these testimonies, as being under age.
For unless he be able to shew, that in the first 200 years the Pres-
byters either had dejure the power to ordain, or that de facto they
did use to ordain, which he will never be able to shew, the worst of
these testimonies for the Bishops, is of more worth than all that he
shall be able to say against them. Let him produce, if he can, any
one testimony of Scripture, any one sentence out of the Councils,
Histories, or Fathers, proving that Presbyters without a Bishop had
right to ordain, and I will yield to him.... But to return to my proofs :
for one there remaineth yet out of the Councils, shewing that in
ancient times, they were so far from permitting Presbyters without a
Bishop to ordain, that when as a certain Bishop, in the ordination of
one Presbyter and two Deacons, used only the help of a Presbyter
to read the words of consecration, and to bless them, himself laying on
his hands, but being not able from the pain of his eyes to read, the
Council of Hispalis\ , reversed the ordination as unlawful. This is
the Council which the refuter judged 'to deserve neither imitation
nor approbation ;' by which censure of this one, though he durst not
give it of any of the aforenamed Councils ; yet it being indefinitely
propounded, he discrediteth the rest with the unlearned, who are not
* SoZ. 1. vii. C. 9. fii\rt xAttyxxef Tuf \>ir aura ^/50TC>)&iVTf i tint 8>jirOTt
a&yuw y.Krjfu.
f Cone. Chalc.Act. 11.
J Condi. Hisp. ii. c. 5. Dist. xxiii. c. 14.
SERMON I. 67
this power of regulating divine service, 6 necessarily
implies the chief power of administering the sacra-
able to distinguish. But let us hear more particularly his grave
censure of this Council ; ' What a toy was it for the Council of Seville
in Spain to reverse the ordination,' &c. What a boy is this, (might
these Fathers say), that presumeth thus to censure us ? Was not
Isidor, the Archbishop of Seville, the president of this Council, and
author of these Canons, one of the most learned of the writers which
have been in the Church within this thousand years ? Was not this
Council held against the hereticks called Acephali, and did it not
learnedly and judiciously confute them? Did these grave Fathers
toy, when by grave censures they sought to preserve the discipline
and Canons of the Church, to maintain the lawful authority of
Bishops, and to prevent the presumptuous usurpation of Presbyters,
contrary to the Canons of the Church ? Had not the ancient Council
of * Orange decreed. ' That if any Bishop should by any infirmity or
weakness, either fall into the dulness of his senses, (as this Bishop did,)
or lose the faculty of speech, he should not suffer Presbyters, (as this
Bishop also did,) under his presence, to do those things which are not
done, but by Bishops ; but that he should call for a Bishop, to whom he
may commit that which is to be done in the Church /" The testimony of
Si. Jerome, in favour of the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters
in potestate ordinis, is given in the words of Dr. Downame in a previous
note (see page 59, note 3.) For that of Epiphanius, I must refer the
reader to the Defence, p. 94, book iii. c. 4, sect. 17.
5 " The primitive Church expressing the calling and offices of a
bishop, did it in terms of presidency and authority. Episcopus typum
Dei Patris omnium gerit, saith St. Ignatius, 'the bishop carries the
representment of God the Father,' that is, in power and authority,
to be sure, (for how else ?) so as to be the supreme in suo ordine, ' in
offices ecclesiastical.' And again, Quid enim aliud est episcopus (juam
is, qui omni principatu et potestate superior est ? Here his superiority
and advantage is expressed to be in his ' power ;' ' a bishop is greater
and higher than all other in power,' viz. in mater ia, or gradu religionis.
And in his Epistle to the Magnesians : Hortor ut hoc sit omnibus
* Cone. Arausican, c, 29.
68 SERMON I.
ments ; 7 a power conferred immediately upon the
Apostles by Christ Himself; the one at the last
studium, in Dei concordid omnia agere, episcopo prcesidente loco Dei :
' Do all things in unity, the bishop being president in the place of
God.' ' President' in all things. And with a fuller tide yet, in his
Epistle to the Church of Smyrna : Honora episcopum, ut principem
sacerdotum imaginem Dei referentem, Dei quidem propter principatum,
Christi vero propter sacerdotium. It is full of fine expression, both
for eminence of order and jurisdiction. The bishop is ' the prince of
the priests, bearing the image of God for his principality,' that is,
his jurisdiction and power ; but ' of Christ Himself for his priesthood,'
that is, his order. St. Ignatius hath spoken fairly ; and if we
consider that he was so primitive a man that himself saw Christ in
the flesh, and lived a man of exemplary sanctity, and died a martyr,
and hath been honored as a holy catholic by all posterity, certainly
these testimonies must needs be of great pressure, being sententice
repetiti dogmatic, not casually slipped from him and by incogitancy,
but resolutely and frequently
" But the instances of this kind are infinite ; two may be as good
as twenty, and these they are. The first is of St. Ambrose : Honor et
sublimitas episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adcequari; 'The
honour and sublimity of episcopal order is beyond all comparison
great.' And their commission he specifies to be in pasce oves meas ;
unde regpndcB sacerdotibus contraduntur, merito rectoribus suis subdi
dicuntur, &c. ; ' The sheep are delivered to bishops as to rulers, and
are made their subjects ;' and in the next chapter, Hcec vero cuncta,
fratres, ideo nos prcemisisse cognoscere debetis, ut ostenderemus nihil
esse in hoc sceculo excellentius sacerdotibus, nihil sublimius episcopis
reperiri : ut cum dignitatem episcopatus episcoporum oraculis demon-
stramus, et digne noscamus quid sumus, actione potius quam nomine
demonstremus ; ' These things I have said, that you may know
nothing is higher, nothing more excellent than the dignity and
eminence of a bishop,' &c. The other is of St. Jerome : Cura
totius ecclesios ad episcopum pertinet ; ' The care of the whole Church
appertains to the bishop.' But more confidently spoken is that in his
dialogue adversus Luciferianos : Ecclesice salus in summi sacerdotis
dignitate pendet ; cui si non exsors qucedam et ab omnibus eminens detur
SERMON I. 69
supper, " Do this," that is, administer the Lord's
supper, for that was the act in which our Saviour
potestaS) tot in ecclesiis efficientur schismata quot sacerdotes ; ' The safety
of the Church consists in the dignity of a bishop, to whom, unless an
eminent and unparalleled power be given by all, there will be as many
schisms as priests.'
" Here is dignity and authority and power enough expressed ; and
if words be expressive of things, (and there is no other use of them,)
then the bishop is superior in a peerless and incomparable authority ;
and all the whole diocese are his subjects, viz. in regimine spirituali."
Bishop Taylor's Episcopacy Asserted, sect. 34.
Again, " What the authority of Bishops was iu the primitive
Church in respect of government, (writes Dr. Downame), I will first
shew absolutely, and then by way of comparison with Presbyters.
What the au9evra, as the Council of Carthage (C.Carth.Grce. ch. 68,)
calleth the authority of Bishops, was, may first appear by this, that
they were accounted the governors and rulers of the Churches,
meaning thereby Dioceses. For though there were many ministers,
who were Angels, Pastors, Bishops, yet there was but one in every
church, which was the Angel, the Pastor, the Bishop, the governor of
the Church ; bearing, as Ignatius saith, the sway of authority above
and over them all. (Ignat. ad. Trail.) But I delight to hear Jerome,
the only pretended patron of the Disciplinarians ; who confesseth,
as we have heard, (contra Lucifer.) that of necessity a peerless
power and eminent above all, is to be attributed to Bishops, and that
the safety of the Church dependeth thereon. He therefore, in his
commentary upon Esay, chap. 60, v. 17, reading according to the
Septuagint, (Hier. 1 Esa. 60. ) ' I will give thy Princes in peace,
and thy Bishops in righteousness,' saith, ' Herein the majesty of the
Holy Scriptures is to be admired, which calleth, principes futuros
Ecclesice, Episcopos, the Princes or Rulers, which should be of the
Church, Bishops ; whose visitation is all in peace, and the name of
their dignity,' (meaning their superintendence,) ' in righteousness.'
And on those words of the 45th Psalm (Hier. in Pxa. 45.) ' Instead
of Fathers children shall be borne unto thee,' ' O Church (saith he)
the Apostles were thy Fathers, for they begat thee. Now, forasmuch
as they are gone out of the world, thou hast Bishops who were borne
70 SERMON 1.
was engaged, " Do this in remembrance of me ;"
the other after His resurrection, " Go ye, and teach
of thee. For these also are thy Fathers, because thou art governed
of them.' And on the words following ' Whom thou shalt make
Princes in all the earth,' 'for (saith he) in the name of God the
gospel is spread in all ends of the world, in which Principes Ecclesice,
id est, Episcopi, the princes of the Church, that is to say, the Bishops,
are placed. 1 On which words Augustine also doth comment to the
like purpose. ' Instead of the Apostles, sons are borne to thee,
Bishops are ordained ; think not thyself forsaken, because thou seest
not Peter and Paul who begat thee ; of thine own issue is sprung a
fatherhood; Agnoscant qui prcecisi sunt; veniant ad unitatem, &c.
Let them which are precise, or cut off by schism, acknowledge it, and
come unto unity. The Church hath borne sons, and instead of her
fathers, hath made them princes over all the earth ;' (Aug. in Psal. 45)
Optatus likewise calleth the Bishops ' apices et principes omnium?
(Lib. 2 advers. Parmen.}" Bishop Downame, having quoted the
Council of Carthage and other authorities, again adduceth Jerome.
" But what saith Jerome ? He having intreated of the other degrees
of the Clergy, at the last cometh to intreat de prcecipuo gradu Ecclesice,
of the chief degree of the Church, qui ordo episcopalis est, which is the
order of Bishops ; the power whereof he setteth down in these
words ; ' He ordaineth Priests and Levites,' that is Presbyters and
Deacons, &c. He governeth the Church of God ; he showeth what
every one ought to do ; he condemneth, he receiveth, he bindeth, he
looseth that which was bound ; he hath the keys of the kingdom of
heaven; he openeth and shutteth the throne of God, (meaning
heaven,) having nothing (meaning no ecclesiastical order) above
him,' &c. But the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters I shewed
in the sermon by comparing the jurisdiction of Bishops with that
which Presbyters have, both in regard of the greatness and largeness,
and also in respect of the derivation thereof. The Presbyter's
jurisdiction is over the flock of one parish ; the jurisdiction of the
Bishop is over the whole Diocese. The Presbyter's is private in the
court of conscience ; the Bishop's public, and in the external court
also. The Presbyter governeth the people only of one flock ; the
Bishop governeth not only the people of the whole diocese, but the
SERMON I. 71
all nations, baptizing them," &c. ; and through them
upon the bishops, the successors of the Apostles.
Presbyters, indeed, have the power of administering
the sacraments, but cannot exercise it without au-
thority from the bishop 8 . This we are expressly
taught by Ignatius 9 , who was nearly contemporary
with Timothy, and perfectly well acquainted with
several of, if not all, the Apostles. The councils of
Laodicea, Aries, and Toledo, say, " The presbyters
shall do nothing without the consent of the bishop,
Presbyters also themselves. The Presbyters receive institution unto
their jurisdiction from the Bishop, and exercise it under the Bishop
of the Diocese, who having, (as the council of Antioch and Jerome
say,) the care of the whole Church or Diocese, admits the Presbyters
in partem solicitudmis, into part of their care, by giving them institution
to their several parishes. The Presbyters do answer to the sons of
Aaron, and are successors of the seventy disciples, as divers of the
Fathers do teach ; but the Bishops answer to Aaron, and are the
successors of the Apostles, as I prove by the testimony of Jerome,
(Hieron. ad Marcel, advers Montan.) who saith, that in the true
Church Bishops do hold the place of the Apostles ; and of Irenceus,
(Lib. iii. c. 3.) that the Apostles left the Bishops their successors, de-
livering unto them their own place of government." Bishop Dow-
name's Defence, book iii. ch. v. p. 111.
6 Bingham, vol i. p. 111. See also Archbishop Potter on Church
Government, ch. iii. p. 66. ; and Heylyn's Hist. ofEpis. pt. i. ch. v. sec. 8.
7 Bingham, vol. i. pp. 80 82. See Archbishop Potter, ch. iii. p.
70, et seq. ; and Heylyn's Hist, of Epis. pt. i. ch. v. sec. 9.
8 Bingham, vol. i. p. 81.
9 " Quemadodum enim Dominus sine Patre nihil facit, ' nee enim pos-
sum facere a meipso quicquam - 1 sic et vos sine Episcopo, nee Presbyter,
nee Diaconus, nee laicus ; nee quicquam videatur vobis consentaneum,
quod sit prater illius judicium ; quod enim tale est, et Deo inimicum."
Epist, ad Magnesianos,
72 SERMON I.
without his privity or knowledge." Under this
head may be placed the bishop's authority to pre-
vent presbyters from preaching false doctrine ',
" Charge them not to preach doctrines which rather
minister questions than godly edifying." (1 Tim.
i. 3, 4.) But what was Timothy to do if they did
not obey his charge ? He must silence them, as
Titus was particularly directed to do. " There are
many," writes St. Paul, " whose mouths must be
stopped, teaching things that they ought not."
(Titus i. 11.) " A man that is an heretic after the
first and second admonition reject," (Titus iii.
10.) is the command given directly to Titus by St.
Paul ; a passage respecting which even Calvin
writes, Tito scribens Paulus. non disserit de officio
*/
magistratus, sed quid episcopo conveniat ; and St.
Jerome (notwithstanding his desire to elevate the
presbyter 2 ,) declares, that this power belongs to the
1 Bingham, vol. i. p. 83. And Heylyn's Hist, of Epis. pt. 1,
ch. 5, sec. 11.
2 " Wherein, if a'man suppose that Jerome and Chrysostom knew
no difference at all between a presbyter and a bishop, let him weigh
but one or two of their sentences. The pride of insolent bishops hath
not a sharper enemy than Jerome ; for which cause he taketh often
occasions most severely to inveigh against them; sometimes for
showing disdain and contempt of the clergy under them ; sometimes
for not suffering themselves so be told of their faults, and admonished
of their duty by inferiors ; sometimes for not admitting their presby-
ters to teach, if so be themselves were in presence ; sometimes for not
vouchsafing to use any conference with them, or to take any counsel
of them. Howbeit, never doth he in such wise bend himself against
their disorders, as to deny their rule and authority over presbyters."
Hooker, Episcopal Jurisdiction Asserted ly Jerome, book vii. ch. vi.
SERMON I. 73
office of a bishop. " I wonder," says he 3 , speaking
of Vigilantius, a presbyter, who propagated false
doctrines, " I wonder that the bishop, in whose
diocese he is a presbyter, has so long given way to
his impiety, and that he has not rather broken in
pieces, with the apostolic and iron rod, this unprofit-
able vessel." This was the verv rod which was
/
put into the hands of Timothy and Titus by St.
Paul. It was peculiar to the bishop in Jerome's
day, and he calls it an apostolic rod, and conse-
quently it was no usurpation. But episcopal juris-
diction extends beyond this ; it appertains to the
correction of morals 4 , so far as it can be done by
Again, " The ancient Christian people, yea, and the ancient Chris-
tian presbyters, owned their bishops as fathers, in a precedency and
presidency of place, degree, dignity, and authority ecclesiastical.
" Thus did St. Jerome write with respect to St Austin as a bishop,
and his junior in age, yet so far his superior ; although St. Austin's
humility, indeed, so far compliments with, and cools the other's heat,
as to say, that although bishop Austin's precedency before Presbyter
Jerome was by ecclesiastical use and custom, (very old, apostolical,
and universal,) yet, as to the truth of personal worth and eminency of
merit, Presbyter Jerome was above Bishop Austin." Dr. Gauden's
Sermon at the Funeral of Dr. Brownrig, bishop of Exeter. See also
Dr. R. Mocket's Politia Ecclesice Anglicance, cap. 5. Downame's
Defence, Book iii. ch. iv., p. 101. Brokesby's Primitive Church, ch.
xiv. Saravia's Treatise on the different degrees of the Christian
Priesthood, ch. xxiii. And Note 3, p. 59.
3 " Miror sanctum episcopum, in cujus parochia presbyter esse dicitur,
acquiescere furori ejus, et non virga apostolica virgaque ferrea confrigere
vas inutile.'- Ep. 53. ad Ripar.
4 See Archbishop Potter on Church Government, ch. iii. p. 67.
I
74 SERMON I.
ecclesiastical censure 5 . Both presbyters and people
were in this respect subject to the bishop. 6 St. Paul
says to Timothy, " Against an elder (i. e. a presby-
ter 7 ) receive not an accusation, but before two or
three witnesses," and, " them that sin rebuke before
all, that others also may fear." (1 Tim. v. 19, 20.)
Presbyters then were subject to censure; but to
whose ? To that of their congregation ? No such
absurdity; but to their bishop's 8 , to Timothy's.
s Binghara, vol. i. book ii. ch. iv.
6 The reader may peruse with advantage the fifth section of the
second part of Bishop Hall's Episcopacy by Divine Right.
7 See Whitby, ad loc.
8 "St. Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis, Necesse
itaque est, saith he, quicquid facitis, ut sine episcopo nihil tentetis. So
the Latin of Vedelius, which I the rather choose, because I am willing
to give all the advantage I can. ' It is necessary,' saith the good
martyr, ' that whatsoever ye do, you should attempt nothing without
your bishop.' And to the Magnesians : Decet itaque vos obedire epis-
copo, et in nullo illi refragari ; ' It is fitting that ye should obey your
bishop, and in nothing to be refractory to him.' Here is both a
decet and a necesse est already ; ' it is very fitting, it is necessary.'
But if it be possible, we have a fuller expression yet, in the same
epistle : Quemadmodum enim Dominus sine Patre nihilfacit, ' Nee enim
possum facer e a meipso quicquam ;' sic et vos sine episcopo, nee diaconus,
nee laiconus*, nee laicus ; nee quicquam videatur vobis consentaneum quod
sit prceter illius judicium ; quod enim tale est, et Deo inimicum. Here
is obedience universal, both in respect of things and persons ; and all
this no less than absolutely necessary. ' For as Christ obeyed his
Father in all things, saying, ' Of myself I can do nothing ;' so nor
you without your bishop, whoever you be, whether priest, or deacon,
* Sic in Bp. Heber's edition of Bp. Taylor's Works, and in folio, 3rd
edit., 1674. In the original the words are, O'TW xi fy*> $vtv TW IjriffxSjrw,
SERMON I. 75
The laity 9 also were subject to Timothy's correction :
" an elderly man," he was to " entreat as a father ;"
or layman ; let nothing please you which the bishop dislikes ; for all
such things are wicked, and in enmity with God.' But it seems St.
Ignatius was mightily in love with this precept, for he gives it to
almost all the churches he writes to. We have already reckoned the
Trallians and the IMagnesians. But the same he gives to the priests
of Tarsus, vpfo-BuTtpoi vTroTac-o-tTwa-oiv iirHrxfatfi, ' Ye presbyters, be subject
to your bishop.' The same to the Philadelphians : Sine episcopo nihil
facite, ' Do nothing without your bishop.' But this is better expli-
cated in his epistle to the Church of Smyrna : Sine episcopo nemo
quicqwm facial eorum, qua ad ecclesiam spectant ; ' No man may do
any thing without the bishop,' viz. ' of those things which belong to
the Church.' So that this saying expounds all the rest; for this
universal obedience is to be understood according to the sense of the
Church ; viz. to be in all things of ecclesiastical cognizance, all Church
affairs. And therefore he gives a charge to St. Poly carp, their bishop,
that he also look to it that nothing be done without his leave. Nihil
sine tuo arbitrio agalur, nee item tu quicquam prater Dei fades volun-
tatem ; ' As thou must do nothing against God's will, so let nothing
(in the Church) be done without thine.' By the way, observe, he
says not, that as the presbytery must do nothing without the bishop,
so the bishop nothing without them : but, so the bishop nothing
without God. But so it is, 'nothing must be done without the
bishop ;' and therefore, although he encourages them that can to
remain in virginity ; yet this, if it be either done with pride or without
the bishop, it is spoiled. For, Si gloriatiis fuerit, periit; et si id ipsum
statuatur sine episcopo, corruptum cst. His last dictate in this Epistle
to St. Polycarp, is with an Episcopo attendite, sicut et Dem vobis ;
1 The way to have God to take care of us, is to observe our Bishop.'
Hinc et von decet accedere sententice cpiscopi, qui secundum Deum vos
pascit ; quemadmodum etfacitis, edocti a Spiritu ; ' You must therefore
conform to the sentence of the bishop ; as indeed ye do already, being
taught to do so by God's Holy Spirit.'
" There needs no more to be said in this cause, if the authority of
so great a man will bear so great a burden. What the man was, I said
before ; what these epistles are, and of what authority, let it rest upon
r-
76 SERMON I.
(1 Tim. v. 1.) the " younger men" were to be "re-
buked" with greater freedom, but still with lenity.
Vedelius, a man who is in no wise to be suspected as a party for
episcopacy ; or rather upon the credit of Eusebius, St. Jerome, and
Ruffinus, who reckon the first seven, out of which I have taken these
excerpta, for natural and genuine. And now I will make this use of
it. Those men that call for reduction of episcopacy to the primitive
state, should do well to stand close to their principles, and count
that the best episcopacy which is first ; and then consider but what
St. Ignatius hath told us for direction in this affair, and see what is
gotten in the bargain. For my part, since they that call for such a
reduction hope to gain by it, and than would most certainly have
abidden by it, I think it not reasonable to abate any thing of Ignatius'
height, but expect such subordination and conformity to the bishop,
as he then knew to be a law of Christianity But let this be remem-
bered all along, in the specification of the parts of their jurisdiction."
Bishop Taylor'a Episcopacy Asserted, sect. 35. See also Dr. Dow-
name's Defence, book iii. ch. v., and Sermon, Defending the Honorable
function of Bishops, pp. 46 50, and Heylyn's Hist . of Epis. pt. i.
ch. v. sect. 13.
9 " I shall not need to derive hither any more particular instances
of the duty and obedience owing from the laity to the bishop ; for this
account will certainly Le admitted by all considering men. God hath
intrusted the souls of the laity to the care of the ecclesiastical orders ;
they, therefore, are to submit to the government of the clergy in
matters spiritual, with which they are intrusted. For, either there is
no government at all, or the laity must govern the Church, or else
the clergy must. To say there is no government, is to leave the
Church in worse condition than a tyranny. To say that the laity
should govern the Church, when all ecclesiastical ministries are com-
mitted to the clergy, is to say Scripture means not what it says ; for
it is to say, that the clergy must be prcepositi, and -pot <mam, and
pradati: and yet the prelation, and presidency, and rule, is in
them who are not ever, by God's Spirit, called presidents or
prelates, and that it is not in them who are so called. In the
mean time, if the laity, in matters spiritual, are inferior to the
clergy, and must, in things pertaining to the soul, be ruled by
SERMON I. 77
Thus the Apostle minutely enumerates the several
powers in the commission with which Timothy was
invested' . And as if this were not enough, he par-
thera to whom their souls are intrusted ; then, also, much rather
they must obey those of the clergy, to whom all the other
clergy themselves are bound to be obedient. Now, since by the
frequent precept of so many councils and fathers, the deacons and
presbyters must submit, in all things, to the bishop, much more must
the laity ; and, since the bishop must rule in chief, and the presbyters,
at the most, can but rule in conjunction and assistance, but ever in
subordination to the bishop, the laity must obey de integro. For that
is to keep them in that state in which God hath placed them."
Bishop Taylor's Episcopacy Asserted, sect. 35.
See also Bingham's Antiquities, vol. i. pp. 97 100. In book ii.
chap. iv. sect. 1, Bingham writes, " The power of the bishop over the
people will, upon enquiry, be found to extend itself over all persons,
of what rank or quality soever, within their diocese, or the bounds
and limits of their jurisdiction Ignatius makes bold to say, that
' as he that honours his bishop is honoured of God, so he that does
any thing covertly, in opposition to him, is the servant of Satan.'
And St. Cyprian defines the Church to be 'a people united to its
bishop, a flock adhering to its pastor ;' whence ' the Church may be
said to be in the bishop, and the bishop in the Church ; and if any
are not with their bishop, they are not in the Church." See also
Dr. Downame's Defence, &c. book iii. ch. 5, and Heylyn's Hist, of
Epis. pt. i. ch. v. sect. 14.
1 " Nee minus liquidum est, turn ex ipsis Scripturis Sacris, turn ex
veterum monumentis, Beatos Apostolos quam a Christo Domino ac-
ceperant potestatem Episcopalem, in reliquos Evangelii ministros non
omnibus promiscue, ita ut unus quisque non nisi omnium fratrum
ccetui subjiciendus foret, sed quibusdam tantura e-uvf/,yo/f communicasse,
et ministerium variis ordinibus ac gradibus distinctum in Ecclesia con-
stituisse ; et ut esset unus aliquis, ad quern et novorum ministrorum
ordinatio, et in jam ordinatos inspectio peculiar! modo pertineret, cum
authoritate delinquentes et in officio cessantes, pro delicti ratione,
monendi atque corrigeudi, ad Ecclesiae aedificationem. Earn potestatem
a sancto Christi Apostolo Paulo, T imotheum et Titura nccepisse, luculen-
78 SERMON I.
ticularly defines the limits of those powers which
were conferred upon the presbyters. When he met
tius est quam ut negari queat, nisi ab eo qui adeo ccccuti t, ut ne ea quidem
cernat quae ipsius oculis obversantur. Hsec enim legas in Epistolis
quas ad eos scripsit Apostolus. ' Permane in eis quce didicisti, (inquit
Timotheo,) et quce tibi concredita sunt, sciens a quo didiceris.' (2 Tim.
iii.) ' Et quce audisti ex me inter multos testes, hcec committe fidelibus
hominibus, qui idonei sint ad alias quoque docendos' (2 Tim. ii.)
' Manus cito ne cui imponito, ne cum alienis communices peccatis.'
(1 Tim. v.) ' Hujus rei gratia reliqui te in Creta, (sic Titum allo-
quitur,) ut quce reliqua sunt per gas corrigere, et constituas oppidatim
Presbyteros, sicut ego tibi mandavi,' (Tit. i.) Ex quibus patet, utrique
ab Apostolo commissam fuisse potestatem ordinandi ministros ad
Evangelii prsedicationem. Ostendunt autem sequentia, eos, quos ad
sacrum ministerium ordinaverant, licet ipsorum in opere Evangelii
ffwtpyv} fuerint, in inferiore gradu substitisse; adeo ut Timotheo et
Tito potestas, sic praecipiente Apostolo, reservata fuerit eosdem mo-
nendi, judicandi, corripiendi, exauthorandi. ' Denuncia quibusdam ne
diversam doctrinam doceant, nee attendant fabulist (\ Tim. i.) Adversus
Prcsbyterum accusationem ne admiltito, nisi sub duobus aut tribus tes-
tibus. Eos qui peccant coram omnibus argue, ut reliqui timeant.'
(1 Tim. v.) ' Sunt multi refactarii, et vaniloqui, et mentium deceptores,
quibus oportet os obturari. Domos enim tolas subvertunt, docentes qua
non oportet, turpis lucri causa. Hos severe redarguito, ut sani sint
in fide, neque attendant Judaicis fabulis et mandatis hominum aver-
santium veritatem. Haereticum hominem post unam aut alteram ad-
monitionem rejice.' (Tit. 1, 2, 3.) Ex iis quse habentur in 1 Tim.
v. 19 22, de accusatione adversus Presbyterutn non recipienda, et
de manibus nemini temere imponendis, fateri cogitur Cl. Beza in
Annotatis ad ea loca, ' Timotheum in Ephesino Presbyterio turn fuisse
Antistitem.' Quod autem hie vel maxime observandum, erant in
Ephesiorum Ecclesia, quod supponit Beza, plures Presbyteri ; (Act.
xx,) antequam S. Paulas illius curam Timotheo committeret ; quorum
collegio si concessa fuisset ab Apostolo potestas alios Presbyteros
ordinandi, et in singulos jurisdictio, quid opus erat novo Inspectore
Timotheo, ad ea munia obeunda ?_ldem de Tito etCretensibus Presby-
teris qupcri potest ; cum verisimile non sit, quod quibusdam placet, in
SERMON I. 79
them at Miletus, he gave them this solemn charge,
"Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all
the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made
you overseers, to feed the Church of God, which
He hath purchased with His own blood." (Acts
xx. 28.) Upon which it has been justly remarked,
that "when St. Paul gives his charge to Timothy,
it is in plain words, that he is to govern and ordain 3
ea regione nullos ab Apostolo fuisse Evangelii ministros ordinatos, in
qua tanta fuit fidelium multitude, ut in una quaque civitate, xarx iriKiv,
constitui debuerint Presbyteri ; boc est, in iis civitatibus in quibus non
jam erant aliqui constituti." Durelli Sanctte Ecclesiw Anglicance
Vindicice, cap. xxx. p. 371.
2 " Next I will prove Timothy and Titus to have the power of or-
dination of Presbyters ; this is the argument :
They, who are commanded to ordain Elders, have the power of ordi-
nation.
Timothy and Titus are commanded to ordain Elders.
And therefore Timothy and Titus had the power of Ordination.
The proposition cannot in reason be denied, for Paul would never
have commanded them to do that which they had no power to do ;
yea, the same power of ordination is a part of that commandment
which he is bidden to commit to faithful men, to be kept and pro-
pagated until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. The assump-
tion is manifest. 1 Tim. v. 22 and Tit. i. 5.
That they had the power of Jurisdiction is proved thus :
They who are commanded to rebuke, censure, and correct, with all
authority, and not suffer themselves to be despised, to stay foolish
questions and vain babblings, to excommunicate the obstinate, to try and
prove those who desire the office of a Bishop, and either to admit or
reject them, according to their weakness or ability, have the power of
jurisdiction spiritual.
But Timothy and Titus are commanded to do all these things. 1 Tim.
iv. 1 1, 12. 1 Tim. iii. 2, v. 17, 19, 20. 1 Tim. vi. 17- Tit. i. 1113,
and Tit. iii. 10.
80 SERMON I.
presbyters : when he gives his charge to these pres-
byters, it is to feed the flock of lay-Christians 3 ."
And therefore Timothy and Titus have the power of jurisdiction
spiritual.
The strength of this argument I refer to the consideration of the
learned, for I hope no wise man will say, that these privileges can be
divided from the power of jurisdiction. Now, I will use one argument
yet, to prove that Timothy and Titus had the power of Ordination
and Jurisdiction jointly.
If those Bishops, of whom the Apostle Paul speaks in his Epistles
to Timothy and Titus, received the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction,
by those instructions and precepts which the Apostle Paul sets down in
those Epistles, then Timothy and Titus much more received the power
of ordination and jurisdiction by those instructions of the Apostle Paul
set down in those Epistles.
But the first is true, and therefore the second is true also.
The connexion of the proposition is valid enough, for if inferior
Bishops (whom the Apostle calleth also elders in that place,) received
the power of ordination and jurisdiction, (as is asserted by all the
opposers of Episcopacy,) by the apostle's injunctions in those epistles,
much more have superior Bishops (as Timothy and Titus were) this
twofold power by those injunctions : this is an argument strong
enough ad hominem, although I confess, that properly Timothy and
Titus have not this twofold power here by the Apostle Paul, but only
are commanded to put that power in execution which the Apostle
Paul before had conferred upon them at their ordination, which also
they are commanded to propagate and transmit unto others, for the
preservation of the calling, and propagation of the gospel of Christ
until his second coming to judgment." Episcopal Government insti-
tuted by Christ, p. 30.
3 " I will prove by three unanswerable Reasons, that Presbyters
did not succeed the Apostles
My first Reason I will form thus
They that were inferior in degree to the Apostles, were not the Apostles' 1
successors in that same order and degree.
But Presbyters were inferior in degree to the Apostles.
SERMON I. 81
It is frivolous to argue from the community of
names to the sameness of office. " Although,"
And therefore Presbyters were not the Apostles' successors in that
same order and degree.
The proposition I take for granted, for I hope no man will deny it.
I prove the assumption, first, by the consent of all the Divines that
ever were in this world, next, by the clear evidence of Scripture,
throughout all the Book of God, where the Apostles, who were chief
Bishops and Overseers both of the Pastors and the people, are clearly
distinguished from inferior Bishops, who only have the oversight of
the people, as is evident by the Apostle Paul in his directions to the
Elders of Ephesus, Acts xx.
My second reason I will form thus
If Elders be the Apostles Successors, then that same power and
authority necessary for the government of the Church, is committed to
them by the Apostles, as amply as they themselves had it.
But that same power and authority necessary for the government of
the Church, is not committed unto Elders, as amply as the Apostles
themselves had it.
And therefore Elders are not the successors of the Apostles.
If any man deny the proposition, I will ask him how it can be
possible that Elders can be the Apostles' successors, unless they succeed
them in that same power and authority ? Truly it is beyond my
capacity to conceive and understand it ; I know they cannot succeed
them in those things that are extraordinary, but in their ordinary
power and authority, and that which is perpetually necessary for the
government of the Church of Christ, under the gospel, they must
succeed them, and they be their successors.
I prove the assumption. Any one of the Apostles might ordain
Elders ; so Paul ordained twelve Elders at one time at Ephesus, (Acts
xixj : any one might ordain Bishops ; so Paul ordained Timothy and
Titus bishops of Ephesus and Crete ; for Timothy it is clear, 2 Tim. i. 6 :
any one of the Apostles might command Elders and Deacons to
preach the gospel any where, as is evident throughout all Paul's
epistles, and in the Acts of the Apostles, and which I think no divine
will deny : any one of them might prescribe rules and laws to inferior
Elders ; so did the Apostle Paul to the Elders of Ephesus, (Acts 20. )
K
82 SERMON I.
says Bishop Taylor, "it was so that ' episcopus'
and ' presbyter' were distinct in the beginning after
the Apostles' death, yet sometimes the names are
used promiscuously ; which is an evidence that
confusion of names is no intimation, much less an
argument, for the parity of offices, since themselves,
who sometimes, though indeed very seldom, confound
the names, yet distinguish the offices frequently and
dogmatically 4 ." And therefore, though the words
bishop and presbyter be used promiscuously, and
mere presbyters frequently termed Iwi'o-xowoj, if spoken
of in conjunction with bishops 5 , yet this by no means
proves that therefore the powers 6 which belong ex-
to Archippus, (Col. iv. 17,) who by the declaration of all the antients
was a bishop, and so superior to an Elder : any one of the Apostles
might command, rebuke, censure, and correct Elders, at their own
pleasure, as is most evident in Scripture, and in particular in St. Paul's
Epistles : now these 1 ; things no Elder can do by himself; and there-
fore, That same ordinary and necessary power which the Apostles had,
is not committed to inferior bishops, but to superior." Episcopal
Government instituted by Christ, p. 23.
4 Episcopacy Asserted, sect. 24 ; see also sect. 23, and Saravia's
Treatise on the Different Degrees of the Christian Priesthood, ch. 9,
10, 13, 14, 15, 16.
5 Bishop Taylor remarks, that " although bishops be called pres-
byters, yet, even in Scripture, names are so distinguished, that mere
presbyters are never called bishops, unless it be in conjunction with
bishops ; and then in the general address, which in all fair deportments
is made to the more eminent, sometimes presbyters are, or may be,
comprehended." See sects. 23 and 24 of Bishop Taylor's Episcopacy
Asserted.
6 See Bishop Hall's Episcopacy by Divine Right, part ii. sect. 1 .
Dr. Downame's Defence, &c. book iii. chap. iv. p. 88, and Jack-
son's Diss. on Epis. pp. 33"- 47.
SERMON I. 83
clusively to those we now call bishops, and who had
this distinctive appellation immediately upon the
death of the Apostles 7 , before, or at the very begin-
ning of, the second century, were ever vested in pres-
byters. To reason thus would be to argue that the
three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons, are all
one ; for the Apostles are sometimes called <Jtaxoi/o,
(deacons or ministers,) as well as presbyters, nay, our
Saviour Himself is called by that name ; (Rom. xv.
8.) and yet no one would argue that deacons have
a power to ordain, and are Apostles and bishops,
because during the lifetime of the Apostles there
was a community of names 8 . And yet this is the
7 " I hesitate not to affirm, upon the authority of St. Clement,
(authority little inferior to that of St. Paul,) that episcopal govern-
ment was a characteristic mark of the Christian Church, as soon as
it had acquired any regular establishment ; and although the language
of the Apostles has by some been considered as not sufficiently decided
on this point, yet, according to the tenor of the answer given by
Charles the First to Henderson, there does not appear to be any
authority more proper to determine the sense of sacred Scripture,
than the authority of the primitive Church." Daubeny's Appendix
to Guide to the Church.
8 " If the presbyterians will say, (because they have nothing left to
say,) that all London (for example) was but one parish, and that the
presbyter of every other parish was as much a bishop as the Bishop
of London, because the words iTno-xcwof and Trptir&TeQvt, bishop and
presbyter, are sometimes used in the same sense, they may as well
prove that Christ was but a deacon, because He is so called (Rom.
xv. 8.), 8<d!xovof, which we rightly translate a ' minister'; and bishop
signifies an overseer, and presbyter an ancient man, or elder man ;
whence our term of alderman. And this is as good a foundation to
prove that the Apostles were aldermen, in the citv acceptation of the
K 8
84 SERMON I.
utmost of the argument that can be adduced from
the promiscuous use of the words bishop and pres-
word, or that our aldermen are all bishops and apostles, as to prove
that presbyters and bishops are all one, from the childish jingle of
the words.
" It would be the same thing if one should undertake to confront
all antiquity, and prove against all the histories, that the emperors of
Rome were no more than generals of armies, and that every Roman
general was emperor of Rome, because he could find the word imps-
rator sometimes applied to the general of an army.
" Or as if a commonwealth-man should get up and say, that our
former kings were no more than our dukes are now, because the style
of Grace, which is now given to dukes, was then given to kings.
" And suppose that any one were put under the penance of answer-
ing to such ridiculous arguments, what method would he take, but to
show that the Emperors of Rome, and former kings of England, had
generals of armies and dukes under them, and exercised authority
over them ?
" Therefore when we find it given in charge to Timothy, the first
bishop of Ephesus, how he was to proceed against his presbyters when
they transgressed, to sit in judgment upon them, examine witnesses
against them, and pass censures upon them, it is a most impertinent
logomachy to argue, from the etymology of the words, that notwith-
standing of all this, a bishop and a presbyter are the same thing ; there-
fore that one text (1 Tim. v. 19.) is sufficient to silence this pitiful
clamour of the Presbyterians ; our English reads it, ' against an
elder,' which is the literal translation of the word presbyter, xra
irpeo-ftvTepw, ' against a presbyter receive not an accusation, but before
two or three witnesses ;' and, ' them that sin rebuke before all, that
others also may fear.' Now upon the Presbyterian hypothesis, we
must say that Timothy had no authority or jurisdiction over that
presbyter against whom he had power to receive accusations, examine
witnesses, and pass censures upon him, and that such a presbyter had
the same authority over Timothy; which is so extravagant and
against common sense, that I will not stay longer to confute it, and
think this enough to have said concerning the Presbyterian argument
SERMON I. 85
byter 9 . The only;] way to prove that the power of
ordination and jurisdiction belongs to presbyters, is
to show that whoever had a power to preach and ad-
minister the sacraments had also a power to ordain
and exercise jurisdiction; or that whoever were called
by the name of presbyters or bishops, were invested
with such authority. This is a position 1 that never
has and never can be proved ; on the contrary, it is
clear that many, who were authorized to preach
and administer the sacraments, had no power of
ordination 2 or of jurisdiction 3 . The fact is, as Bishop
from the etymology of the words bishop and presbyter." Leslie's
Works, vol. vii. p. 105. See also Hammond's Vind. of Diss. on Epis.
ch. ii.
9 Potter on Church Government, ch. iii. pp. 116 121. "It is very
strange to see men quarrel about the name when the thing or office is
so clearly distinguished ; St. Paul calls Timothy a. Deacon, was he there-
fore not so much as a Presbyter ? St. Peter calls Judas a Bishop, was
he therefore not an Apostle ? And he calls himself a Presbyter, was he
therefore not a Bishop ? Such arguments as these are against all
orders whatever. The Fathers themselves tell us, that this very
dispute would happen about the name of Bishop, (Clemens Epis. ad.
Corin. \.) and they decide it by saying, that though at first the name
was promiscuous, yet, upon settling the external form, it became
proper ; and then it was as ridiculous to misapply it, as to call a
King, Tyrannus, or a Soldier, Latro." Oldisworth's Timothy and
Philatheus, vol. iii. p. 37. See also Hcylyn's Hist, of Epis. pt. i. ch.
ii. sect. 15.
1 Bishop Taylor's Episcopacy Asserted, sect. 32 ; and Bishop Sage's
Reasonableness of Toleration, page 176.
2 Bingham's '^Antiquities, vol. i. ch. iii. sect. 5, 6, 7. Barwick's
Treatise on the Church, pt. i. ch. 2, 3.
3 " Now for the better clearing of this doctrine, I will prove that
Presbyters, or inferior Bishops, have no ways the power of ordination
86 SERMON 1.
Beveridge has shown, that all the writers 4 at the
close of the first century, and after that time,
and jurisdiction. I desire any opponent to shew me the place where
it is recorded in the Scripture : in the epistles to Timothy and Titus
they find it not ; Timothy and Titus are commanded to put all the
parts of the Apostolical power in execution, but not those Elders and
Deacons of whom the Apostle speaks there, they get no commandment
to use that power ; for it is more than evident, that all the injunc-
tions set down in these epistles are given to Timothy and Titus, and
all those who were to succeed them in that same order and degree,
yea to them as they are singular men, and as superior in order and
degree to all those towards whom they are to exercise that power ;
and the reason is this, because one man in that same order and
degree cannot have power over another in that same rank and order ;
one Bishop cannot have power over another, one Presbyter cannot
have power over another ; that man that hath power over another,
must be superior to him in degree, or he can have no authority over
him, that is his own properly ; delegate he may have, but that is not
his ; it is his in whose name he exercises that power.
But it will be replied, that this power is given to a company of
Presbyters, and not to one in particular. Answer, This power is
given here to Timothy and Titus as singular persons, and therefore
I will make the matter manifest by a formal argument.
That power which is committed to certain particular and singular men
in the Ministry, is not committed to a representative body of Ministers.
But the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction is committed to certain
particular and singular men in the Ministry.
And therefore it is not committed to a representative body of Ministers.
The proposition cannot be denied, for that which is committed to
one singular man in a calling, cannot be said to be committed to
the whole company and trade indefinitely : for example, that power
which is committed to one alderman in the city, to wit, the master
or Lord Mayor, is not committed to the whole council of aldermen ;
he hath a different and superior power to all the rest.
As to the assumption, that this power was committed to certain
singular men, as to Timothy and Titus, and all those who were to
succeed them in the same rank and order, it is more than evident :
SERMON I. 87
constantly speak of the three 5 orders under the
three determinate titles of bishops, priests, and
Now to note this by the way, since Presbyters do not succeed to
Timothy and Titus, in that same order and degree, the power of
ordination cannot be committed unto them.
Furthermore, if the power of ordination and jurisdiction be com-
mitted to Presbyters, as they are singular men, every Presbyter hath
alike power and authority within his own charge, every one is Pope
in his own parish, and may command, rule, and govern, as he thinks
good, for who can controul him ? None of his brethren have any more
power over him, than he hath over them, for every one hath equal
power and authority transmitted unto them, and this is downright
Brownism.
But it may be replied, that the Presbytery hath power over all
particular ministers.
Answer. Who hath given them this power ? It is not given them
by Christ, nor his Apostles.
If you reply, it is agreed upon by common consent. I answer,
then at least, Presbyterial government is not of divine ordination.
But I would ask this question, What if I should refuse to give my
consent to such a government, or to subject myself to it, how can I
be forced to obey their canons and laws, by whose authority ? The
representative church, (such as the Presbytery is,) cannot compel me,
before I subject myself to her authority ; the civil magistrate cannot
do it either, by the doctrine of all my opposites ; and some would say,
if any should usurp authority and compel by violence, it would be
destroying our Christian liberty, and tying us whom Christ hath
made free, and, in a word, the demolishing of that platform of govern-
ment, which Christ himself did establish ; any defender of parochial
government may reason in this kind.
But it will be again replied, that this authority is given to a com-
pany of Presbyters, Acts viii. 14, and xi. 22, and xv. 6, 7, 8, to 30, and
1 Cor. v. 3, 4. 5.
Answer. These things were done in the infancy of the church, be-
fore the government was established, and so can be no rule for after
ages, some will so answer.
I answer further ; there is not a word there that will confirm
88 SERMON I.
deacons, and that no argument can be drawn from
the above objection against the threefold order in
Presbyterial government, for none of the meetings spoken of in those
places consists of persons having the like and equal authority, but all
that was done in them was done by Apostolical power ; by the power
of the Apostles they were convened together, by the Apostles'
moderation those meetings were governed, by their authority all
things were concluded, they had full and absolute power in their
own hands, although it pleased them to do nothing without the con-
sent of their brethren of an inferior order ; ye will find all that I have
said true, if ye will be pleased to see the places.
But most clearly it appeareth, 1 Cor. v. 3, 4, 5, where the Apostle,
by his power and authority, commandeth the Corinthian ministers to ex-
communicate the incestuous person in an open assembly, or rather to
intimate that excommunication which he had already pronounced, for
thus he speaketh : ' For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit,
have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath
done this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are ga-
thered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to
deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the Jlesh, that the
spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.' 1
I hope this meeting was enjoined by the Apostle upon an extraor-
dinary occasion, and nothing was done but by his special appointment.
Here is nothing to warrant the authority of Presbyterial government ;
there seems something to be in the words for parochial ; if there had
been parishes and lay-elders in those days ; and truly if I were not
of that judgment, that the calling of the Apostles were an ordinary
calling, and to be continued with the same latitude of power and
authority in their successors until the end of the world, I might easily
be moved to approve of parochial government ; but never of Pres-
byterial ; and truly, if the callings of the Apostles and Evangelists be
not acknowledged to be instituted by Christ for the perpetual govern-
ment of God's church, Parochial government is that which hath
greatest show of warrant in the Scriptures ; as for Presbyterial, it hath
not so much as any show at all in the whole book of God." Episcopal
Government instituted by Christ, pp. 31 34. See alsoBingham, book
ii. ch. iii. sect. 8.
SERMON I. 89
the Christian Church, or any thing urged in preju-
dice to the Divine right of Episcopacy. It is there-
4 I would direct the reader's attention to the fourth and fifth
chapters of Brett's Account of Church Government.
5 " I know that it will be objected, that there should be but two orders
of Church Governors now under the Gospel, because Christ himself
appointed but two, Apostles and Evangelists, both of them called, at
first, Disciples, only distinguished by their number, twelve, and
seventy.
Answer. Christ appointed but two indeed, because he supplied the
room of the High Priest himself; neither would he have any more
during his own ministry ; he was chief Governor of the Church
himself, and he would have no suffragans as long as he lived. Where
the king is present himself, he needs not a commissioner, nor a
viceroy. Again, had Christ chosen three orders in his own time, then
there should have been four orders of Church Governors all the
while of Christ's ministry upon earth. First, Christ himself, (for I
hope no man will refuse Christ for one, and for the chief too,) and the
other three ordained by Christ. Now our blessed Master and
Saviour, because he would keep analogy, (so far as I can conceive,)
with the number and degrees of Church Governors under the law,
he would choose but two, and leave the third to be added by the
Apostles after his departure ; which they did with all diligence, as we
may see Acts 6.
That our Saviour used this analogy in this, I will prove by
other particulars, wherein he observed the like analogy ; and first in
the number of the Sacraments; as his Father appointed but two
under the law, Circumcision, and the Paschal Lamb, so he appointed
but two under the gospel, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord; the
one to succeed in the place of Circumcision, the other in the place of
the Paschal Lamb. And again, as Circumcision did represent unto
us the guilt of sin, so our Saviour would have Baptism to represent
to us remission of sins ; and as the Passover represented to the people
of Israel their bodily deliverance from the bondage of Egypt, so our
Saviour would have his last Supper to represent to us our spiritual
deliverance from the bondage of sin and Satan.
L
90 SERMON I.
fore, I conceive, clear, that none but such as receive
ordination from the hands of a bishop 6 have any
When our Saviour instituted Baptism he devised no new ceremony,
but took that ceremony of washing which the Jews used in their
purification, and appointed it to represent our spiritual washing from
sin. So likewise in the institution of the other Sacrament, he did not
devise any new ceremony to represent his death and passion, but took
the last part of the Paschal Supper, and appointed it for that use.
The custom of the Jews was, after the Supper was ended, and the
Pascal Lamb eaten, he that was master of the feast took as many
pieces of bread as there were present at the eating of the Lamb, (and
there behoved to be between the number of ten and the number of
twenty, for there might not be fewer than ten, nor more than twenty,)
and gave every one a piece, saying these words, ' This is the bread of
affliction which your fathers eat in the wilderness'; and thereafter he
took the cup, and gave it to them, saying, ' This is the cup of affliction
which your fathers drank in the wilderness. 11 Now our Saviour Christ
renewed the same ceremony ; for the text saith, that first ' he took
bread,' and after that ' he had given thanks, he brake it,' and gave
to every one a portion, and said, ' This is my body which is broken
for you, Do this in remembrance of me :' and in like manner ' he
took the cup, saying This cup is the new Testament and Covenant
in my blood, drink ye all hereof, ' and ' as oft as ye eat of this
bread, and drink of this cup, ye shew the Lord's death 'till he come,'
saith the Apostle Paul. 1 Cor. xi. 26.
Moreover, Christ chose twelve Apostles, in analogy to the twelve
Patriarchs, that like as the whole people of God under the law did
proceed out of the loins of the twelve Patriarchs, so also God's
children under the Gospel should be begotten by the ministry of the
twelve Apostles and their successors. He chose also seventy disciples,
in analogy to the seventy elders of the Jews, whom Moses elected to
govern the people of Israel under himself; so that our Saviour would
have those seventy Disciples, and their successors, to be spiritual
governors of the people of God under the Gospel.
Moreover, Christ fasted forty days in the wilderness, in reference to
Moses fasting forty days upon Mount Sinai. Christ entered into his
ministry in the thirtieth year of his age, in similitude of the Priests
SERMON I. 91
authority to minister in holy things, since the power
of ordination is appropriated to this highest order
and Levites entering in their several functions. So that there is
nothing more probable in the Scriptures than that, as Christ, by way
of analogy, did imitate the Jews in many things, so also would he
have as many degrees of Church Governors under the Gospel as
there were under the Law, and that he would be chief Governor
himself of both Churches.
But, that ye may believe the truth of these things the better, I
will let you see that the Apostles also followed the example of their
Master in the imitation of the Jews in many things : as in the use
of lots, conform to the ancient custom of the Jews, Matthias is chosen
to be an Apostle ; so also they continued the use of an holy kiss at
their meetings, (yet, if they had been as precise as many people now-
a-days, they would have abolished that ceremony, becau'se Judas
betrayed his Master with a kiss,) and gave it in commandment; 'Greet
one another with an holy kiss,' saith the Apostle Paul : so also the
use of Love feasts proceeded from the Jews ; for as after their sacri-
fices they feasted one another, so after the celebration of the Lord's
Supper, they had their Agapce, and Love feasts, which the Apostle
Paul did not discharge, but forbade them in public, and licentiates
them in their own private families ; ' Have ye not houses to eat and
drink in, or despise ye the Church of God,' saith he ? The day of
celebration of the Sacrament of the Supper was ever a festival day to
them, but not a day of fasting as it is with many now. So also the
custom of laying on of hands was borrowed from the Jews. Num. viii.
10. In these and some other forms and ceremonies, the Apostles did
imitate the nation of the Jews ; but let these serve for an example.
The primitive Church also followed the example of Christ and his
Apostles in this analogizing ; and in particular, as in the consecration
of Priests, some pieces of the sacrifices were put in the Priest's hands,
(Exod. xxix.) even so they put the Bible in the hands of the
Minister at his ordination ; this was done both by the Jewish Church
and the Christian ; to teach both, ' That no man taketh this honor unto
himself, but he that is called of God :' so also, they erected a mother-
Church, wherever there was a Bishop, even as the Jews had but one
Mother- Clmrch, the Temple of Jerusalem, because they had but one
L 2
92 SERMON I.
in the Christian Church. And to what has been
necessarily briefly said, it might be easy to add the
High Priest ; and therefore in respect that Bishops succeeded in the
room of the High Priest in the government of the Church, wherever
there was a Bishop, there they built a Mother-Church, and all the
rest of the Churches of the Diocese were but pendicles of her, as the
Jewish Synagogues were to the Temple of Jerusalem : yea, and these
Mother-Churches, they built them according to the similitude of the
Temple of Jerusalem ; for as the Temple had the most holy place,
holy place, and atrium, called the Court of the Temple, or Sol. Porch,
this for the people, the holy place for the Priests, and the most holy
place for the Lord of Hosts, to be as it were the place of His habitation,
to dwell between the wings of v the two cherubims, there to give His
oracle ; even so in the Christian Churches, there was a place appointed
for the people, another for Churchmen, the third as the most holy
place where the Sacrament of the Supper was celebrated, as the only
memorial of His presence left by Himself under the new Testament, as
the ark of the covenant was under the old. So then, since both the
Apostles and the Churches of Christ, in the primitive times, did
imitate the Jewish forms by way of analogy, it seems to me that in
so doing they followed the example of Christ, who kept an analogy
himself with the Jewish Church, in many things, but in special in
the number and degrees of Church Governors.
Now I would ask my author, by what reason he thinks Christ
should have diminished the number of Church Governors ? Was the
number of three typical, or was the Church Government typical ?
Truly neither ; the number of three is mystical indeed, but not
typical ; neither was the Government typical, but as necessary now
under the Gospel, as it was under the Law ; for as Christ did not
govern his Church immediately by his Spirit under the Law, so no
more doth he govern his Church immediately by his Spirit under the
Gospel ; but as he committed the government to certain governors
under the Law, so hath he committed it to certain governors under
the Gospel. But it may be answered, that he hath not committed
it to so many degrees of Church governors now under the Gospel as
he did under the Law : I persuade myself that my opponent shall
never be able to prove that Christ behoved to do this de jure, or shew
SERMON I. 93
joint testimony of all Christendom 7 for nearly 1 500
years ; whilst our opponents may be challenged to
me a reason why it behoved to be so : yes, he will say, of necessity the
first degree behoved to be taken away, because the High Priest was a
type and figure of Christ ; and all types and figures were abolished
by Christ's coming.
Reply. I grant all types and figures were abolished by Christ's
coming : but I deny that the High Priest was a type and figure of
Christ, as he was chief Governor of the Church : and that for these
reasons.
First, because then all Church Government should have been
abrogated by Christ's coming ; for, if Aaron's government was a type
and figure of Christ's government, then it will follow that Christ now
under the Gospel should govern his Church immediately by himself,
without any subordinate Governors ; for, if Church Government under
the law was typical, and all types abrogate, it follows necessarily
that there should be no Church Government now, but Christ's
only.
Secondly, if Aaron, as he was chief Governor under the law, was a
type and figure of Christ, then it will follow, that Christ was not
supreme Governor of his Church under the law : for types are of
things to come, and neither of things present nor by-past.
Thirdly, the High Priest, as he was Chief Governor, he could not
be a type and figure of Christ, because if there had been but two
ranks of Church Governors, one of them behoved to be chief, and so
still there should have been a Chief Governor.
And lastly, the order that was among Church Governors was not
ceremonial, but moral, and as necessary for the government of the
Christian Church as the Jewish ; for God is the God of order now, I
am sure, as well as he was then : now nothing that was moral was
typical, and therefore Aaron was not a type and figure of Christ, as
he was Chief Governor of the Jews.
Now I will show you in what respect he was a type and figure of
Christ. First, as the High Priest was one man, he did typify Christ as
the one High Priest of our profession, and therefore Christ would not
commit the chief Government of the Church to one any more, but to
many in one and the same rank and order. Next, the High Priest's
94 SERMON I.
produce one 8 instance of a valid ordination by any
other hands during that entire period 9 .
offering of one sacrifice once in the year within the veil, was a type of
that only one propitiatory sacrifice once offered up for the sins of the
quick and the dead, by our Saviour Christ : Thirdly, the High Priest's
once in the year only entering within the veil, was a type of our
Saviour's once entering into heaven, to make intercession for us ; for
these respects then, Aaron was a type and figure of Christ, but no
ways in relation to his Government, for the reasons before alleged.
I have another reason yet that moves me to think that there can
be no fewer than three ranks of Church Governors now under the
Gospel : and it is this. The number of three is mystical, as is evident
by many examples, both in Scripture, things above nature, natural
things, and spiritual things. In supernatural things we see the truth
of this assertion, and in the Divine JZssence, which subsists in the
number of three persons, which is the mystery of all mysteries : in the
Divine Essence also, there are three communicable properties, goodness,
power, and wisdom, to these three all the rest may be referred, as life,
love, justice, &c. ; three incommunicable properties, simplicity, eternity,
ubiquity, of these no creature is capable. According to this similitude,
the faculties of the soul were formed by God himself; for the soul
hath three chief faculties, judgment, memory, and will ; yea, the
renewed mind consisteth of three theological virtues, faith, hope, and
charity, which are the three dimensions of every Christian soul : the
bodily substances of all creatures are composed of three, longitude,
latitude, and profundity, without the which the creatures can have
no subsistence : there are also three degrees of life, vegetative,
sensitive, and rational, and all these in analogy to the three persons
of the Godhead; it were easy to shew you divers resemblances
between them, if it were necessary and to the purpose. It was more
than the light of nature that taught Aristotle to esteem the number
of three to be the perfectest number of all numbers, yea, to be all in
all ; ' Qui dicit tria (saith he,) dicit omnia, et qui dicit ter dicit omnifarium ;
He that saith three, sailh all, and he that saith thrice, saith always." 1
But to come to the Scriptures : saith not John (1 John v. 7, 8.) that
' there are three things that bear witness in Heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and these three are one :' and that ' there
SERMON I. 95
And now one word in conclusion. From the autho-
rity of the sacred writings we determine, that, where
are three things that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the Water, and
the Blood ; and these three agree in one.f Christ loved three disciples
above all the rest with whom he conversed most familiarly, Peter,
James, and John ; to them he shewed himself in his glory at the
transfiguration, and also in his greatest agony and humiliation in the
garden of Gethsemane. Our Saviour fulfilled his ministry in the
space of three years ; he lay three days in the grave ; three times
appeared to the eleven after his resurrection ; and many more than
these are to be found in the new Testament. In the old Testament
you shall find many numbers of three, wherein some mystery may be
found ; we read of three only that went to heaven bodily, Enoch,
Elias, and Christ : to teach us that salvation both in body and soul
is obtained under all the three kinds of Church government ; for
God hath governed his Church three several ways since the creation,
one way before the Law, another way under the Law, and a third
way under the Gospel. The worship of God hath been also of three
several forms, according to the several ages of the world ; three men
saved in the flood of Noah, of whom the world hath been replenished
the second time, Shem, Ham, and Japhet ; three great Patriarchs, out
of whose loins the Church of God did spring ; three great sabbaths,
the seven days sabbath, the seven years sabbath, and the year of
Jubilee ; three great feasts, the feast of Tabernacles, Easter, and
Pentecost ; three ranks of Church governors, the High Priest, inferior
Priests, and Levites, and a number more ; so that I say, if there be
any number mystical, it is the number of three ; we have not so great
reason to call seven mystical ; as for nine it is only thought mystical
because it contains thrice three" Episcopal Government instituted by
Christ, pp. 7, 13. See also Saravia's Treatise on the different degrees
of the Christian Priesthood, ch. 6, 8.
6 " This succession is preserved and derived only in the bishops ;
as the continuance of any society is deduced in the succession of the
chief governors of the society, not of the inferior officers. Thus, in
kingdoms we reckon by the succession of the kings, not of sheriffs
or constables ; and in corporations, by the succession of the mayors
96 SERMON I.
the Christian sacraments are duly administered by
persons regularly appointed to that sacred office 1 ,
or other chief officers, not of the inferior bailiffs or sergeants : so the
succession of the churches is computed in the succession of the bishops,
who are the chief governors of the churches, and not of presbyters,
who are but inferior officers under the bishops.
" And in this, the matter of fact is as clear and evident as the suc-
cession of any kings or corporations in the world.
" To begin with the Apostles : we find not only that they consti-
tuted Timothy bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete, as in the
subscriptions of St. Paul's Epistles to them, but in Eusebius and
other ecclesiastical historians, you have the bishops named who were
constituted by the Apostles themselves over the then famous Churches
of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria, and many other
churches, and the succession of them down all along.
" St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, was disciple to St. John the
Apostle, and St. Irenseus, who was disciple of St. Polycarp, was con-
stituted bishop of Lyons, in France." Leslie's Works, vol. vii. p. '102.
7 See Mason's Vindiciee Ecclesice Anglicanae ; Bishop Taylor's Epis-
copacy Asserted ; Hickes's Dignity of the Episcopal Order ; and
Madox's Vindication of the Government, Doctrine, and Worship of the
Church of England, p. 64, edit. 1733.
8 " We prove, that the Apostles had the right of ordaining ; that
this right was from them derived to their substitutes, and to their
successors ; to their substitutes, as to Timothy in Ephesus, and Titus
in Crete, to Mark at Alexandria, to Polycarpus at Smyrna, to Evodius
at Antioch, to Linus at Rome, &c. : to their successors, as to Simon
the son of Cleophas, the successor of St. James at Jerusalem, &c. ,
that from these substitutes and first successors of the Apostles, the
same was derived to their successors, which without all doubt were
the Bishops of the several churches. And hereunto we may add
the general consent of the Fathers and Councils ; many of them
affirming and confirming ; not one, I say not o?ie, denying the su-
periority of Bishops in ordaining, the perpetual practice of all true
Christian Churches, not one approved instance to be given to the
contrary ; and yet he (the refuter) shameth not to avouch the
SERMON I. 97
according to the plan laid down by Christ and
His Apostles, there we find the Church- of Christ,
Bishop's right in ordaining to be but usurpation. As touching
Presbyters, that they have right to ordain, we see no warrant in the
Word, biit rather the contrary ; no testimony of Fathers, no decree of
Councils for it, but many testimonies and decrees against it; no
approved example to warrant it ; how then could he say the Pres-
byters have as good right to ordain as Bishops? But, because he shall
not carry the matter without proofs, this I will offer him ; that if he
can bring any one pregnant testimony or example out of the Scriptures,
any approved authority or example out of the antient Fathers, Councils,
or Histories of the Church, proving that the Presbyters had, by and of
themselves, an ordinary power or right to ordain Ministers, I mean
Presbyters and Deacons, I will promise to subscribe to his assertion.
But if he cannot do this, an I know he cannot, then let him for shame give
place unto the Truth." Bishop Downame's Defence, book iii. cb. iv.
sect. 18.
9 The following testimonies of the most ancient Fathers upon this
subject may be read with interest.
" To begin with Ignatius, who suffered martyrdom about the tenth
year of Trajan, which was only four years or thereabouts after the death
of St. John the Apostle, at which time he had been forty years bishop
of Antioch, being promoted to that dignity, upon the death of
Evodius, the first bishop of that Church, by St. Peter; so that we
cannot suppose him unacquainted either with the state of the Church
in the first age after the Apostles, or with the doctrine and practice of
the Apostles.
" There are many passages in the epistles of this glorious saint which
shew, not only that the Christian Church was governed, in the age
wherein he lived, by the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons,
but that these were of Divine institution, and essential to the regular
constitution of any Church ; and that no religious acts could lawfully
be done in the Church without some of them, nor by the priests and
deacons without the bishop's consent; and that communion could not
be maintained with Christ, without adhering to the communion of the
bishop. And he calls Christ to witness that he spoke some part of this,
M
98 SERMON I.
From the same authority we learn, that this Church
is to continue to the "end of the world." The
namely, that ' nothing was to be done without the bishop/ by the im-
mediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
" St. Clement, bishop of Rome, the disciple of the Apostles, tells us,
that ' the Apostles, preaching through countries and cities, constituted
their first-fruits, (that is, the first of their disciples in any place,) when
they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those
who should believe.' He also tells us, that ' the Apostles, having it
revealed by our Lord Jesus Christ that contentions would arise about
Episcopacy or Church government, on this account ordained bishops
and deacons, and gave them this prescript, that upon their death,
other approved men should succeed in their ministry.' So that there
was to be a succession of Church officers after the death of those
whom the Apostles ordained, and consequently to the end of the world.
" But farther, Linus was ordained first bishop of Rome by St. Peter
and St. Paul together. Polycarp was constituted bishop of Smyrna
by St John, by whom several other Asian bishops were ordained.
Timothy was made bishop of Ephesus ; and there was an uninterrupted
succession of twenty-seven bishops from him, to the time of the great
Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, besides a constant succession of many
bishops for several ages after. Titus was ordained bishop of Crete by
St. Paul. James was ordained bishop of Jerusalem before the rest of
the Apostles left it ; and after his death, the surviving Apostles ordained
Simeon, the son of Cleophas, mentioned in St. John's Gospel, to be
his successor. Simeon presided in the Church till the time of Trajan.
And after Simeon Ihere succeeded bishops of the Jewish race, before
the final excision of the Jews by Adrian. Irenseus, who was a disciple
of Polycarp, was ordained bishop of Lyons in France, who tells us he
' could reckon up those whom the Apostles ordained to be bishops in
the several churches, and who they were that succeeded them down
to this time j' and moroever adds, that ' the Apostles themselves
committed the care of the churches into their hands, leaving them to
succeed not only in the place, but to the jurisdiction of the Apostles.'
At the same time lived Hegesippus, who travelled through a great part
of the world on purpose to learn the doctrine and traditions left by the
Apostles to the churches which they founded ; and he says he had ' con-
SERMON I. 99
unity, 3 consequently, of the Christian Church must
mean the same now as it ever did, and a separation*
versed with many bishops, and received the same doctrine from them
all, that there had been a succession of bishops in all churches.'
" Another who lived in this age was Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus,
who, in a Synodical Epistle to Victor, bishop of Rome, about the time
of keeping Easter, appeals to the tradition of former bishops and
martyrs ; among others, he mentions ' Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna ;
Traseus, bishop of Eumenia ; Sagaris, bishop of Laodicea ; and several
bishops of his own kindred, and great multitudes of bishops who
assembled with him to consult about the time of keeeping Easter;' and
he says, that ' when he wrote this Epistle, he had been sixty-five
years a Christian ;' so that here is a witness beyond exception, who
lived the greatest part of the next age after the death of the Apostles,
that bishops were settled in all churches about him. Contemporary
with these was Clemens of Alexandria, who speaks of ' the gradual
promotion of bishops, presbyters, and deacons ;' so that here are
manifestly three orders of ministers. In another place he reports that,
' St. John, returning from Patmos, the place of his banishment, to
Ephesus, went about the neighbouring nations, and in some places
ordained bishops, and in others established entire churches, and in
others set such apart for the clergy, as were pointed out to him by the
Spirit.' So that St. John the Apostle ordained bishops, and also
inferior clergymen, by the particular direction of the Holy Spirit, in
the countries about Ephesus.
"Another, who flourished about the same time, was Tertullian, from
whom it appears that bishops were universally settled in all churches
in a direct line from the Apostles to his time. And in his treatise of
Baptism he affirms, ' That the power of baptizing is lodged in the
bishop ; and that it may be also exercised by presbyters and deacons,
but not without the bishop's commission.' Which is a full evidence of
the superiority of bishops over the two lower orders in that age.
" In the beginning of the next century flourished Origen ; who,
speaking of the debts in the Lord's Prayer, says, ' There is a debt due
to deacons, another to presbyters, and another to bishops, which is the
greatest of all, and exacted by the Saviour of the whole Church, who
will secretly punish the non-payment of it.' So that he plainly makes
M 2
100 SERMON 1.
from it must be attended with consequences as
dangerous in the present day as at any former
bishops superior to presbyters and deacons, by the appointment of
Christ.
"In the same age flourished Cyprian, who affirms, ' that no Church
was without bishops.' Hence, as from an unquestionable matter of
fact, he argues against Novatian, that ' (here being only one Church
and one Episcopacy all the world over, and orthodox pious bishops
being already regularly ordained through all provinces of the Roman
empire, and in every city, he must needs be a schismatic who laboured
to set up false bishops in opposition to them.' In another place he
affirms, ' that bishops are of our Lord's appointment, and derive their
office by succession.'
" One of Cyprian's contemporaries was Firmilian, bishop of Csesarea,
in Cappadocia, who agrees with him in calling bishops the successors
of the Apostles, and affirms, ' that the power of remitting sins, which
our Lord conferred on His Aposlles, was derived from them to the
bishops, who succeeeded in their places.'
" In the declining part of the third century, and the beginning of
the fourth, flourished Eusebius, who, after a most diligent search into
the ancient records of the Church and the Christian writers who lived
before him, derives the bishops of all churches from the Apostles ; and
has given us such exact and authentic catalogues of the bishops who
presided in all the principal cities of the Roman empire, from the
Apostles down to his own time, that it is as impossible for an impartial
man who shall compare this historian with the rest of the primitive
Fathers, to doubt whether there was a succession of bishops from the
Apostles, as it would be to call in question the succession of Roman
emperors from Julius Caesar, or the succession of kings in any other
country." Excellency and Beauty of the Church of England, p. 312
The reader who is interested in the inquiry, will thank me for refer-
ring him to Leslie's " Authorities for Episcopacy, as distinct from, and
superior to, presbytery, taken out of the fathers . and councils in the
first four hundred and fifty years after Christ." Qualifications requi-
site to administer the Sacraments (Supplement :) " a detail (says
Archdeacon Daubeny) which appears to leave nothing undone, that
human evidence is capable of doing, for the satisfaction of every intelli-
SERMON I. 101
period ; for the Church of Christ is but one 5 , and
the promises of the gospel are made to that one
gent reader on this subject." Guide to the Church, p. 63. I would
also refer him to Bishop Sage's Reasonableness of a Toleration, Letter
4th, pages 133 190, and to Saravia on the Christian Priesthood,
chap. 20.
1 " I was made a minister," says St. Paul, " according to the gift of
the grace of God given unto me." (Eph. iii. 7-) " The Apostle,"
Bishop Andrewes observes, " is here speaking of his office, and nothing
else. The Apostleship was a grace, yet no saving grace, else should
Judas have been saved. Clearly, then, it is the grace of their calling
whereby they were sacred, and made persons public, and their acts
authenthical, 'and they enabled to do somewhat about the remission of
sins, that is not (of like avail) done by others, though perhaps more
learned and virtuous than they, in that they have not the like com-
mission. To speak with the least; as the act of one that is a public
notary is of more validity than of another that is none, though, it may
be, he writes a much fairer hand. This grace of an holy calling to the
ministry of the Gospel was conferred on the Apostles by Christ, has
been derived from them to us, and from us to others, to the world's
end." Bishop Andrewes' Sermon on John xx. 22.
2 " ' The Church', says Bishop Grove, in his discourse on Church
Communion, ' is a body of men separated from the rest of the world,
or called out of the world, (as the word ixxaXs"]/, ' to call out,' from
whence ecclesia is derived, signifies,) united to God and themselves by
a Divine covenant. The Church is united to God, for it is a religious
society instituted for the worship of God ; and they are united among
themselves and to each other, because it is but one body, which re-
quires an union of all its parts. This union with God and to each other,
which constitutes a Church, is made by Divine covenant ; for the
Christian Church is nothing else but such a society of men as is in
covenant with God through Christ.' Now as no covenant can
originally be made for God but by God Himself, it hence follows, that
God only can make or constitute a Church.
" From this description of the Church, as the body of Christ, the
term schism, in its application to it, denotes a division among the
102 SERMON I.
Church. In this one Church we have the sacra-
ments of Christ's appointment, as seals of that
members of which that body is composed, occasioned by a want of
obedience to the government, which Christ, by His Apostles, settled in
the Church, and a consequent separation from its communion, in con-
tradiction to the Divine plan of its establishment ; the design of which
was, that all Christians should be joined together in the same mind
and in the same worship ; ' continuing,' according to the primitive
pattern, ' in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of
bread, and in prayers.' (Acts ii. 42.)" Daubeny's Guide to the Church,
Discourse iii. p. 44. See also the present Bishop of Exeter's Ordination
Sermon, pp. 25. 38 ; (1843.)
3 " Ecclesia quoque una est." (Cyp. De Unit. Eccl.} " And therefore
doth not consist of many distinct independent congregations," &c.
(MarshaWs Notes.) I may refer the reader to Cyprian, and to the
Notes of his learned translator.
4 " Schism (writes Bishop Sage,} is not only condemned as naturally
tending to subvert our Lord's kingdom, (Matt. xii. 25.) ; it is not only
disgraced with the abominable name of being a work of the flesh,
(1 Cor. iii. 1, 3, 4. 2 Tim. iv. 3. 2 Pet. ii. 10. Jude v. 19.) ; such
a work of the flesh as is earthly, sensual, devilish, (Jas. iii. 15.); such a
work of the flesh as excludes from an inheritance in the kingdom of God,
(Gal. v. 20, 21.) ; it is not only by our Lord Himself, (John xv. 4, 5, 6.)
made such a crime as consigns the criminal to everlasting burnings ,--for,
that the ' abiding 1 mentioned there, signifies continuing in the unity of
the visible body of Christ, the one Communion of the one Church
Catholic, and that the separation mentioned there, is a separation
from the one communion of that one visible body, of necessity you
yourself must confess; unless you will say, (what your Confession of
Faith cannot allow you to say,) that the members of the invisible
church, that is, the elect themselves, may be severed or cut off from
Christ, become withered branches, and be cast into the fire ; Schism, I
say, is not only so noted in the New Testament, but also it is ex-
pressly made a sin against the Holy Ghost. (Heb. vi. 4, 5, 6, 7, and
Heb. x. 25, &c.) Nay, if we may believe St. Austin, 'tis the sin against
the Holy Ghost, mentioned Matt. xii. 32. I say St. Austin,for he insists
largely to this purpose in divers places, particularly in his eleventh
SERMON I. 103
covenant 6 by which fallen man obtains eternal life.
In this one Church we have the " ambassadors for
sermon on the words of our Lord. Such an hideous thing is schism.
In consequence of this, no sinners are more hideously represented in
Holy Writ than schismaticks. They are exotick plants, (Matt. xv. 13,
14:.} Withered branches, (John xv. Q.) False brethren, (2 Cor. xi.
26. Gal. ii. 4J False Apostles, (2 Cor. xi. 13 J False Prophets,
(Matt.vii. 15. Matt. xxiv. 11, 24. 1 Johniv. I.) False Christs,
(Matt. xxiv. 24.J Antichrists, (\ John ii. IS.) Grievous wolves,
(Acts xx. 29.J Murderers, (\ John iii. 15.) They are said to be
proud, knowing nothing, (1 Tim. vi. 4.) unruly, vain talkers, deceivers,
whose mouths must be stopped, (Tit. i. 10. 11.) without Christ, (Eph.
ii. 12.) without the Spirit, (Jude 19 1 .) Their prayers are not heard;
(1 John x. 14.) Dreadful woes are pronounced against them by our
Lord Himself; (Matt, xviii. 17. Mark ix. 42. Luke xv^i. 1, &c.)
Under all these, and perhaps many more hard censures, they fall,
either directly, or by clear analogy and consequence. And not only
so, but they are such as Catholic Christians are not so much as bound
to salute, (Phil. iv. 21. Tit. iii. 15. Heb. xiii. 24. 1 Pet. v. 13 J
or, rather, bound not to do it (2 John x.J. Now, sir, though there
were no more to be said, might not what I have said be sufficient to
shew the unlawfulness of joining with schismatical communions ?
But I have more to say Communion with schismatics is most plainly
forbidden. / wish they were cut off", (i. e. at least refused your com-
munion,) who trouble you, saith St. Paul, (Gal. v. 12.) / ams-mravTii v/*i,
those who endeavour to crumble you into factions, and divide your
unity. But perhaps you will say, this is but a wish. 'Tis no more.
But then 'tis St. Paid's wish ; and so a wish of weight ; and it must
import at least, that it is good not to communicate with schismatics.
But then let us hear him further. Now we command you, brethren, in
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from
every brother, (ever professor of Christianity,) that walketh otr<ixru>i dis-
orderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us, (2 Thcss. iii. 6.)
Now, who can walk more disorderly, than he that breaks the unity of
the Church, and sets up a separate communion in opposition to the one
Catholic communion ? By consequence, have we not here a plain
precept not to communicate with schismatics ? Hear him again, (v. 14,)
104 SERMON I.
Christ," whose sacred office is to administer, in the
name of Him whom they are commissioned 7 to re-
And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have
no company with Mm, (p.^ avmtaprmabt, do not mix with him, especially
in religious assemblies,) that he may be ashamed. And, 2 Pet. iii. 1 7,
we are commanded to beware of being led away with the errors of the
wicked. In short what can be a plainer precept than that, Rom. xvi. 17,
mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine,
which ye have heard, and avoid them ? Or that, Tit. iii. 10, a man that
is an heretick, after the first and second admonition, reject. 'Tis certain
that the word hfiretick, naturally means the same thing which we
mean by the word schismatic. 'Tis certain that in the Apostolic age, and
many after ages, heresy and schism were words indiscriminately used,
to signify any communion opposite to the one Catholic Communion.
This migLt be largely proved ; but 'tis needless. That heretick, in
the text mentioned, signifies schismatic, or separatist, is plain from
the next verse ; he is to be rejected ; why ? OT< \%ia-Tp.irT(u a To<o5Tef, x)
a/jiOifrivtt, he is turned out of the true way, he strays, forsakes the true
Christian way, the way of one Catholic Communion ; and thereby he
is self-condemned, o5 auToxaTaxpm? ; not that his own conscience con-
demns him, perhaps it does not; but he excommunicates himself:
he is in the same state those are in, who are deservedly excommuni-
cated by their lawful ecclesiastical superiors. (Vid. Cyp. epis. 69.
Hieron. in loc. Tertul. de Prescript, cap. 6.) And now, sir, will you
say, 'tis lawful to communicate with excommunicates ? With those
whom our Saviour Himself (Matt, xviii. 17,) has classed with heathens
and publicans ?" Bishop Sage's Reasonableness of a Toleration, p. 72.
5 D. Cyp. De Unit. Eccl. passim. Brett on Church Government,
chap. i. Sclater's Original Draught of the Primitive Church, ch. ix.
On the unity of the catholic Church, Bishop Sage thus writes, " What
is it then ? I answer, 'tis one communion ; or, to use other words, the
unity of the Catholic Church consists in this, that all who profess the
religion of Jems Christ, and are baptized in His name, in their respec-
tive stations and capacities, own all others who profess the same
religion, and are baptized in the same name, as their brethren ; and,
as they have occasion, communicate with them in all the public offices ;
SERMON I. 105
present, the sacraments of that covenant which God
on His part has promised to fulfil. In this one
in the same prayers, and the same praises, and the same sacraments,
&c., as becomes those who are united in the same body, under one
Head, by one common charter. Nothing less than one external visible
communion can unite all Christians in one external visible body. To
profess the same faith, or entertain the same hopes, or love one
another, as I have proved, is not enough. We must confirm one
another's faith, we must encourage one another's hope, we must pro-
voke one another's love, by communicating one with another in the same
religious offices ; but every man in his proper station ; Ecclesiastics in
their respective orders and subordinations, and private Christians in
their own rank. This, and nothing less, and nothing other, can unite
all Christians into one body, in one catholic society. If you would
have scripture comparisons, turn to Deut. i. 15. There Moses ranges
the children of Israel after this manner. He takes the chief of the
tribes, wise men, and known, and makes them heads over the people ;
captains over thousands, captains over hundreds, captains over fifties,
and captains over tens. So he distributes the whole people, about
six hundred thousand men, besides women and children, into greater
and lesser bodies, for order's sake, and for the easier administration of
government and discipline. And all these thus distinguished bodies,
of tens, fifties, hundreds, and thousands, continued united in one great
body. They made but one, not many nations ; but one, not many
churches. As they continued united in one civil, so did they in one
ecclesiastical body. They were all under one Chief Priest, and they
had all one common Altar. When, afterwards, they erected synagogues,
they did not thereby break their unity. Nothing did that but the
setting up of opposite Altars and opposite communions ; as first in the
days of Jeroboam, and next of Alexander the great ; when, as Jose-
phus (Antiq. Lib. xi. Cap. 8.) tells us, the opposite altar was erected in
the schismatical temple on Mount Gerizim. Just so, all Christians,
all the world over, by our Lord's institution, are but one chosen
generation, one Royal Priesthood, one holy nation, one peculiar people,
obliged, in the unity of one communion, with one heart and one mouth,
to shew forth the praises of Him who called them out of darkness into
His marvellous light. And 'tis for order only, and the easier exercise
N
106 SERMON I.
Church we have, moreover, the Spirit of Christ
accompanying His own ordinances, according to the
promise made at the original establishment of His
Church, that He would be " with it always, even to
the end of the world." When men leave the Church,
then, they leave the ministers, and the due adminis-
tration of the Sacraments 8 , behind them. They may,
of government and discipline, that they are distributed into districts,
provinces, dioceses, parishes, or so, under their respective particular
governors. Their being so distributed doth not at all divide them, nor
allow them to divide, as to communion ; nor deprive any particular
person, much less any particular collection of persons, of the common
rights and privileges of the general society." Bishop Sage's Reason-
ableness of a Toleration, p. 54 6. See also pp. 59 64.
6 "Whoever hopes to receive benefit from religious services, must
perform them according to God's will rather than his own ; for let
our religion be ever so right and good in our own estimation, it
cannot, on that account, have any covenanted title to those privileges
and blessings which are, by Divine authority, annexed to the Church
of Christ. In this sense the primitive Fathers are to be understood,
when they say that there is no salvation out of the Holy Catholic
Church ; by which is meant, that there is no covenanted plan of
salvation, save that which is addressed to man as a member of that
Church." Daubeny's Guide to the Church. See Dodwell's Separation
of Churches front Episcopal Government proved Schismatical, ch. 22.
7 To quote from Bishop Reynolds, (and I wish not better authority
on this subject,) " Necessary ordinances presuppose necessary officers
to administer them. Christ hath appointed necessary ordinances
to be to the end of the world administered ; therefore the officers who
are to administer them are necessary likewise. He did not appoint a
work to be done, and leave it to the wide world who should do it,
but committed ' the ministry of reconciliation' to stewards and ambas-
sadors by Him selected for that service." (1 Cor. iv. 1. 2 Cor. v. 19.)
s " The commission to administer the sacraments of the Church
SERMON I. 107
indeed, " heap to themselves teachers," (2 Tim. iv.
3.) and institute other ordinances ; (1 Kings xii. 26
was originally delivered by our Saviour to His Apostles, accompanied
with a power to invest others with the same important office. From
this Divine fountain all authority in this case must be derived. ' The
priest is ordained,' says the Apostle, ' for men in things pertaining to
God.' (Heb. v.) He then who is to act in things pertaining to God
in the affairs of His Church, must certainly have a commission from
God to authorize him so to do. ' No man,' the Apostle tells us,
'taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God.'
(Heb. v. 4.) And in the Church, as a visible society that must be
governed by some external polity, an outward and visible appointment
to the offices in it is necessary, because without such an appointment
no visible society could exist, and without the existence of such visible
society as the Church, the profession of Christianity would in time
be extinguished.
" ' It cannot but be observed,' says a judicious writer, (Rogers on
the Visible and Invisible Church,) who paid particular attention to this
subject, and whose work I take leave to recommend, ' that all the
sects and denominations of religion, whose names have been ever
heard of in the world, have appeared under the form of visible
societies ; and if any particular enthusiasts have pursued any chimeri-
cal scheme of an invisible Church, their project has perished with
them ; and if Christ had left His Church without any obligation to
external union as a visible society, His religion had had the same
fate, and been long since forgotten.'
" ' From whence it has followed, that a regular reception of the
Divine commission, through the channel appointed to convey it, has
been a circumstance which in every age of the Church, from the
times of the Apostles down to the present day, has been considered
essential to the validity of the ministerial office. For when Christ
said to His Disciples on the Mount, ' I am with you always, even to
the end of the world,' it has been understood that His Spirit and
authority were to be with them as governors of the Church, and their
appointed successors, in the due exercise of the commission with which
He then invested them, to the end of time. Now to suppose that
nothing on this occasion was exclusively promised, is to suppose that
N 2
108 SERMON I.
33.) but let it be observed, that such teachers are
not 9 the "ambassadors for Christ 1 ," nor are the
nothing was exclusively granted, and that the commission delivered
to particulars was designed to be exercised by mankind at large ; an
absurdity against which we presume it unnecessary to argue."
Appendix to Daubeny's Guide to the Church, 260, &c. See also
Dodwell's Separation of Churches from Episcopal Government proved
schismatical, ch. xix. &c., Edit. 1679.
9 Cyp. Epis ad Magnum.
1 " If I pretend to succeed any man in an honour or estate, I must
name him who had such an estate or honour before me, and the man
who had it before him, and who had it before him, and so up all the
way to him who first had it, and from whom all the rest do derive,
and how it was lawfully deduced from one to another.
" This the bishops have done, as I have shown, and can name all
the way backward, as far as history goes, from the present bishop of
London, for example, to the first plantation of Christianity in this
kingdom ; so from the present bishop of Lyons up to Irenseus, the
disciple of St. Polycarp, as before is told. The records are yet more
certain in the great bishopricks of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and
others, while they lasted in the world. And though the records may
not be extant of every small bishoprick, which was less taken notice
of, as the names of many kings are lost in obscure nations, of many
mayors or sheriffs, who notwithstanding have as certainly succeeded
one another as where the records are preserved ; I say, though every
bishop in the world cannot tell the names of all his predecessors
up to the Apostles, yet their succession is certain ; and in most
Christian nations there are bishops who can do it ; which is a sufficient
proof for the rest, all standing upon the same bottom, and being
derived in the same manner.
" Now to balance this, it is desired that the presbyterians would
show the succession of any one presbyter in the world, who was not
likewise a bishop, in our acceptation of the word, in the like manner
from the Apostles ; till when, their small criticisms upon the
etymology of the words bishop or presbyter, is as poor a plea as if
I should pretend to be heir to an estate, from the likeness of my name
to somebody who once had it." Leslie's Works, vol. vii. p. 110.
SERMON I. 109
ordinances which they administer the sacraments of
Christ ; for the essence of an ambassador's office is,
that he should be commissioned by the party whom
he represents, and in whose name he acts ; and the
essence of a covenant, of which the sacraments are
seals, is, that it should be binding upon the party in
whose name it is made. But ministers of the sepa-
ration are not ambassadors of Christ, because they
have never been sent by him 2 ; and with respect to
the benefit to be derived from the ordinances admin-
istered by them, their disciples must not look for the
promises annexed to the due administration of the
sacraments ordained by Christ Himself 3 . And
2 " Pastor haberi quo modo potest, qui (manente vero pastore,
et in Ecclesia Dei ordinatione succidanea prasidente) nemini succedens,
et a se ipso incipiens, alienus fit et prophanus dominicse pacis ac divinae
unitatis inimicus ?" Cyp. Epist. 76. ad Magnum.
3 " If it were put to our choice, (we ought) rather to die than lose
the sacred orders and offices of episcopacy, without which no priest,
no ordination, no consecration of the sacrament, no absolution, no rite
or sacrament, legitimately can be performed, in order to eternity."
Bishop Taylor's Episcopacy Asserted.
"I now proceed to show, that the validity of the sacraments depends
on the authority of the persons by whom they are administered. I
mean, that the benefit of such sacraments cannot be expected even by
communicants, in other regards worthy in respect of moral dispositions ;
for unworthy communicants cannot expect it even then when they are
administered validly. No one doubts of this, and I am not at present
concerned for it. By valid administrations I do not mean an accu-
rately justifiable administration in regard of all circumstances attending
it. It is not every little circumstance, that, if it fail, does disannul a
proceeding, otherwise legal, but only a substantial defect in point of
power. He who wants this power acts invalidly, so as to oblige to
110 SERMON I.
though I do not believe that it is essential to salva-
tion to be an episcopalian, yet I believe episcopacy
nothing, how punctual soever he may have been in the observation of
all legal circumstances. The receiver is not the better for what is
given him by such a person, and the law will not secure him any right
in such a donative. But he who has the power, if he fail in a circum-
stance not essential to the thing, may himself be to blame for his
failure, nay, may be obnoxious to the laws for it. But he who receives
from him what he had power to give him, is not responsible for his
personal faults, but has a just title to the thing conferred by him, and
such as will be secured to him by the law, by which he is empowered
to give it to him. And therefore by an invalid administration, I mean
such a one only as is performed by him who has no legal power of
administering the sacraments. From such a one the communicant
now described, may indeed receive the external symbols, but God is
not obliged by any act of his to confer the spiritual benefits signified
and intended to be legally conveyed by those symbols. And it is from
God that these spiritual benefits are to be received, if they be received
at all. And further yet, by this validity I mean such a one as may be
known and judged of by the communicant. That he who receives the
symbols from him whom he knows to have no legal power of adminis-
tering them, or whom he might know not to have that power, by such
rules as all societies take care of for deriving power to succession, and
which withal they all take care that they should be notorious to all,
even the meanest capacities who use their diligence to know them, (as
all are certainly obliged to do when their practice is concerned in
them,) for the preventing usurpations of power, and all the consequent
mischiefs which societies must suffer from such usurpations ; I mean,
that such a communicant, who, (by these means as they are contrived
for the settlement of Christian societies as Christians,) can know that
he from whom he receives these symbols, was never legally invested
with a power of administering them, can never rationally expect that
God should second such a ministry, by making good the spiritual bene-
fits which are symbolically conveyed by this ministry ; and that he
who knows this, or may know it, by the means now mentioned, cannot
rationally look on it otherwise than as a perfect nullity, obliging God
to nothing, and therefore cannot enjoy any rational solid comfort from
SERMON I. Ill
to be essential to an apostolic Church ; and while
I would extend the utmost allowance to those who,
such ordinances. Therefore the spiritual advantages of the sacraments
are not immediately conveyed in the external participation of them. And
all laws make a real difference between these two sorts of conveyances,
when the thing itself is immediately conveyed, and when only a right
to it is conveyed by which the receiver may recover it from him who
has it in possession. For example, he who is actually put in possession
of a piece of land by him "who has no authority to give him possession,
does however continue in possession till he be again legally dispossest.
And the nullity of such a giver's act does not appear in the immediate
effect, but only in this, that, because he can confer no legal right,
therefore he cannot secure the possession he has given whenever the
law shall take notice of what he has done. But he who has the same
land conveyed to him only by promises before witnesses, or by instru-
ments, or even by earnest, is not as yet put in possession of the land
itself, but is still left to the law, to recover the possession of the land so
conveyed, from him who is as yet possessed of it. And if the promise,
or instrument, or earnest be given by such a person, who has no legal
power to give them, the nullity of such a grant is such as will never be
likely so much as to gain him an actual possession. This is exactly the
case of the sacraments. The act of the minister does not give posses-
sion of the spiritual benefits of them ; but the giving of the symbols by
the Minister confers a legal right, and obliges God to put well-disposed
communicants in actual possession of those spiritual graces, where the
symbols themselves are validly administered, that is, where the person
who administers has received a power from God of acting in his name
in their administration. But on the contrary, where the person who
gives the symbols is not empowered by God to act in His name in
giving them, as they cannot convey the thing itself, so neither can they
have any right to it from God. They cannot oblige God to perform
what is further to be done by Him, but by acting in His name ; nor can
any acting in II is name oblige Him, but that which is by His own
appointment. So that such a gift as this is can have no effect in law,
seeing it confers neither the right nor the possession of the thing
designed by it. Which is that I mean by a perfect nullity." DodwelPs
112 SERMON I.
through some unavoidable necessity, have it not in
their power to place themselves under episcopal rule
and government, yet I cannot but fear for those who
wilfully abandon the privileges which are within
their reach, yea, who separate from a Church of
which they were once made members in holy bap-
tism. St. Ignatius, who wrote within a hundred
years after our Saviour, having enumerated the
three orders, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, ex-
pressly tells us, that " without these there can be no
Church, no congregation of saints, no holy assem-
blies." Again he says, " Whoever belongs to God
and Jesus Christ, must be in communion with the
bishop." " Be not deceived; he that joins himself
to those who make divisions, cannot inherit the
kingdom of God." And further, he assures us, that
" no one can do any thing that pertains to the
Church, without the bishop ;" and, that " none but
the bishop, and such as are constituted and ordained
by him, have authority* to administer the sacraments
of Baptism and the Lord's Supper," and, that "the
ministrations of all others are null and ineffectual."
Such is the voice of antiquity 5 .
Separation of Churches from Episcopal Government proved Schis-
matical, chap, xviii. page 405.
4 Bingham, vol. i. ch. iii. sect. 2. I shall be pardoned for suggest-
ing a perusal of Thorndike's Primitive Government of Churches ;
Bishop Sage's Principles of the Cyprianic age, with regard to Episcopal
Power and Jurisdiction, and Vindication of the same ; and Cawdwell's
Extent of the Primitive Churches, and The Order of the Primitive
Churches.
SERMON I. 113
Of course I am not ignorant of the cavils and ob-
jections which have been and are still made to the
2 " If the canons and sanctions apostolical ; if the decrees of eight
famous councils in Christendom, of Ancyra, of Antioch, of Sardis,
of Alexandria, two of Constantinople, the Arausican council, and that
of Hispalis ; if the constant successive acts of the famous martyr-
bishops of Rome making ordinations ; if the testimony of the whole
pontifical book ; if the dogmatical resolution of so many Fathers,
St. Denis, St. Cornelius, St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom,
St. Epiphanius, St. Austin, and divers others, all appropriating
ordinations to the bishop's hand ; if the constant voice of Christendom,
declaring ordination made by presbyters to be null and void in the
nature of the thing ; and never any act of ordination by a non-bishop
approved by any council, decretal, or single suffrage of any famous
man in Christendom ; if that ordinations of bishops were always
made, and they ever done by bishops, and no pretence of priests
joining with them in their consecrations, and after all this it was
declared heresy to communicate the power of giving orders to pres-
byters, either alone or in conjunction with bishops, as it was in the
case of Aerius ; if all this, that is, if whatsoever can be imagined, be
sufficient to make faith in this particular, then it is evident that
the power and order of bishops is greater than the power and order
of presbyters, to wit, in this great particular of ordination, and that
by this loud voice and united vote of Christendom." Bishop Taylor's
Episcopacy Asserted, sect. 32.
" I shall desire your patience to say a little more upon this head.
St. Ignatius (Epis. ad Magnes.) plainly denotes a superior order in
the Bishop, and distinguishes all three orders from each other, when
he tells us, that neither Presbyter, Deacon, or Layman, can do any
thing without the Bishop. Other Fathers assure us that heretofore
Presbyters could neither baptize, preach, nor administer sacraments,
without the Bishop's leave ; and that ordination was vested solely in
the Bishop by Scripture. (Tertul. de Baptis. Hieron. adv. Lucif.
Possidon. de vit. August. Leo. Epis. 88. Condi, Carth. 2. c. 9. Hier.
ad Evag. Chrys. Horn. 11.) And indeed we have a whole cloud of
witnesses to satisfy us of this truth, that all affairs of the Church were
under the sole and superior direction of the Bishop. (Canon Apos.
O
114 SERMON I.
position which I have endeavoured to support. Mere
sciolists, men whose theological knowledge is neces-
38. Ignat, Epis. ad Smyr. Condi Ancyr. c. 13. Laodic. c. 56.
Arlat. 1. c. 19. Tolet. 1. c. 20.} Timothy, as Bishop, has authority to
receive accusations against and to judge the Elders or Presbyters.
(1 Tim. v.) St. Paul asserts his Episcopal right of summoning, con-
vening and commanding the Presbyteries. (Acts xx.) St. Ignatius
makes the Bishop the head, and the Presbyters his council or senate,
and says, that the Presbyteries ought to obey him as the representative
of Christ. (Epis. ad Trail, ad Antioch. ad Smym. ad Philadel.) All
causes and complaints against Priests and Deacons, were to be heard
and determined by the Bishop. (Condi. Afric. c. 20.) The power of
confirmation is not only vested in the bishop, but expressly taken
away from the other two orders, and that agreeable to the sense of
Holy Scripture in the case of Philip. St. Jerome tells us that there
is the same difference between a bishop and a presbyter, as between
Aaron the High Priest, and his sons. (Adv. Lutif.) He elsewhere
lays it down for a rule, that bishop, priest, and deacon, are not names
of different deserts, but of offices and orders, (ad. Nep.) St. Ambrose
avers that Timothy was a presbyter before he was a bishop, and
thereby plainly distinguishes the two orders ; and he elsewhere
(1 Epis. ad Tim. c. 3.} says that every bishop is a presbyter, but not
every presbyter a bishop. Epiphanius (Hares. 75) proves from St.
Paul, that bishop and presbyter were as distinct by Scripture as the
Church could make them ; and Oecumenius adds, that the presbyters
could not ordain a bishop, (Cap. 9. 1 Tim. 4.) ; and the same is
confirmed by St. Ambrose, (1 ad Tim. c. 3.) ; nor could these orders be
otherwise than distinct, if, as the same Father, (in 3 cap. 1 ad Tim.)
together with Eusebius, informs us, there must always be a college or
a certain number of presbyters under one bishop. Imposition of
hands is by St. Chrysostom declared to belong only to the bishop, and
not to the presbyters ; so that when Colluthus, a presbyter of Alexan-
dria, revolting from his bishop, had ordained other presbyters, this
was declared null. (Horn. 13. 1 Tim. c. 4, et Horn. 1 in Epis. ad
Philip.) The presbyters that he had undertaken to ordain were
ordered to return to their former state, and presbyters in general
were pronounced incapable of giving orders even to presbyters. The
SERMON I. 115
sarily much confined, talk and write upon these
points, as if they had really been the subject of their
study and of their reflections. Far easier, however, is
it to cavil than to refute ; far easier to use harsh
terms', than to prove that such terms are appropriate.
same was also decreed in the case of Maximus at Constantinople, and
after that at the council of Hispalis ; though Tertullian and St.
Augustine both declare that this was obligatory long before councils
made it so, being of Apostolical institution. St. Ambrose places
bishops in the Apostles' stead, and the presbyters next to the bishop.
Irenceus, Geminus, Malchion, Diodorus, Heliodorus, Theodorus, Mochi-
nus, Pantenus, Clemens, Origen, Maximus, Dioscorus, Demetrius,
Lucinus, Fauotinus, Aquila, Tertullian, Cyprian, Cecilius, and Chrysos-
tom, with many others, were the Antistites, or Primi Presbyterorum,
at several times in several churches, yet all of them subject to the
bishop, and some of them succeeded in those sees where before they
had been presbyters. To bring back a bishop to the degree of a
presbyter was declared to be sacrilege. (Act. Synod. Chalced. de Photi.)
St. Augustine calls the bishops rulers of the church and clergy ; and
elsewhere they are styled Fathers, and sometimes Angels of the church,
as in the Revelations. The bishop, and only he, hath power to excom-
municate presbyters and to degrade them. St. Jerome asserts that the
bishop is without any equal in the church, and that the contrary notion
is schismatical. And St. Ambrose declares, that what powers the
apostle gave to Timothy, were for the good and direction of his
successors. Lastly, and to mention no more instances, in all presby-
teries, or colleges, or assemblies of presbyters, where the affairs of the
church were debated, the bishop not only sat as president or chairman,
but as ruler and sovereign, and without whose consent and authority
nothing could be transacted." Oldisworth's Timothy and Philatheus,
vol. 3. page 41.
The reader will find much interesting information on the above
subject in Archbishop Usher's Original of Bishops and Metropolitans
briefly laid down, and Chillingworth's Apostolical Institution of Epis-
copacy Demonstrated.
O 2
116 SERMON I.
Bigotry is sometimes a very convenient word in the
mouths of opponents, as Papist is in the mouths of
Protestants, and Arminian in the mouths of Cal-
vinists. Once apply the epithet to which reproach is
annexed by a party*, and the man becomes a mark for
3 " Nihil est tarn bonum quin dicendo malum efficipossit"
* " Those who in their mind, their principles, their designs, and all
their practice, appear void of that charity, that meekness, that calm-
ness, that gravity, that sincerity, that stability, which qualify worthy
and true guides ; who, in the disposition of their mind are froward,
fierce, and stubborn ; in their principles, loose and slippery ; in their
designs and behaviour, turbulent, disorderly, violent, deceitful ; who
regard not order or peace, but wantonly raise scandals and dissensions,
abet and foment disturbances in the Church ; who, under religious
appearances, indulge their passions, and serve their interests, using
a guise of devotion, and talk about holy things as instruments to vent
wrath, envy, and spleen, to drive forward schemes of ambition and
avarice ; who will not submit to any certain judgment or rule, will
like nothing but that which their fancy suggests, will acknowledge no
law but their own will; who for no just cause, and upon any slender
pretence, withdraw themselves, and seduce others from the Church in
which they were brought up, deserting its communion, impugning its lawn,
defaming its governors, endeavouring to subvert its establishment ;
who manage their discipline, (such as it is, of their own framing,)
unadvisedly and unsteadily, in no stable method, according to no
settled rule, but as present conceit, or humour, or advantage prompteth;
so that not being fixed in any certain judgment or practice, they soon
clash with themselves and divide from one another, incessantly roving
from one sect to another, ' being carried about with divers and strange
doctrines, like children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine :'
such persons as these, arrogating to themselves the office of guides, and
pretending to lead us, we must not follow nor regard, but are, in reason
and conscience, obliged to reject and shun them, as the ministers of
Satan, the pests of Christendom, the enemies of souls." Thus wrote
Dr. Isaac Barrow in the seventeenth century ! See Sermon xxiv.
SERMON I. 117
the shaft of ignorance and intolerance. This may be
good policy, but I doubt its being Christian charity.
Such is that " honour which no man taketh unto
himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron."
And when a minister calls to mind the commission
which he has received, the hand by which it was
originally imparted, the employment to which he has
been consecrated, and the divine end for which his
office has been instituted by God, will it be possible
that he should fail to cultivate, with unceasing ear-
nestness and zeal, the purity which should adorn the
ministerial character? Can he fail to "watch there-
unto with all perseverance;" Will he not bow his
knees daily to the Father of all mercies, for wisdom to
direct him, and grace to help him in time of need ?
Will he not " seek for it as for silver, and search for
it as for hidden treasure ?" Purity is the seasoning of
his ministry, the sweetness and amiableness of his
character, and the means, under God, of preserving
his flock from ruin and corruption. " Ye," says our
Lord, " are the salt of the earth." And what minis-
ter would not watch, and strive, and pray unceasingly,
that, in an office so sacred, with a distinction so dig-
nified, and in a cause so momentous, he may walk
worthy of his high calling, to the edification of the
people confided to his care, and to his own " great
and endless comfort?" At the same time, let every
minister and every congregation strongly realize the
excellence as well as the importance of this sacred
office. To a minister labouring diligently to perform
118 SERMON I.
the duties of an office, instituted, approved, and
commanded by God, sustained by the glorious Re-
deemer while He tabernacled in the flesh, so honour-
able in itself, destined only to the most benevolent
and most holy purposes, the means of preserving this
great world from absolute destruction, and the chief
instrument of restoring to mankind righteousness,
truth, peace, and immortality, the members of
every congregation are bound, however unpalatable
the assertion, both by the authority of God, and
for their own supreme good, to lend continually
their countenance and their support. By these
solemn obligations they are required to receive and
welcome the doctrines of the Church which he
delivers ; to assist all his benevolent efforts to pro-
mote the common good as well as that of individuals ;
meekly to receive his reproofs and exhortations ;
generally to render his life useful and pleasing, and
his weight and influence as a minister as effectual as
they can. " We beseech you, brethren to know
them which labour among you, and are over you in
the Lord, and admonish you ; and to esteem them
very highly in love for their work's sake." (1 Thess.
v. 12.) The best minister is but a man, and of course
surrounded by human imperfections. St. Peter has
taught us, what he well knew by unhappy experience,
that, in the language of his " beloved brother
Paul," "we have this treasure in earthen vessels,"
made of humble materials, frequently defective in
their structure, and easily broken. A congregation,
SERMON I. 119
therefore, is required, both by reason and revelation,
to regard the imperfections of a minister with lenity
and tenderness. And, while the minister is indispen-
sably bound to labour diligently and faithfully in the
performance of his high functions, his flock are equally
bound to perform their part ; to regard him kindly
in all his exertions on their behalf ; to remember his
work and labour of love ; to consider the difficulties
with which he is surrounded ; and to keep in view
the numerous imperfections within, and discourage-
ments without, with which he is obliged to struggle.
Even St. Paul could not help exclaiming, "Who is
sufficient for these things ?" And most of the prin-
cipal obstacles which he had to encounter, scarcely
even excepting persecution itself, still remain, and
are still attached to the ministerial office. If the
flock would remember this, and consider its impor-
tance, if they would regard their pastor with Christian
affection, if they would treat him with Christian
kindness, if they would aid him with continual and
fervent prayers to God, he and they would be
mutually blessed in this present world, and become
to each other " a crown of rejoicing" in another and
a better world, in the day of Jesus Christ.
SERMON II.
COLOSSIANS ii. 5.
" Though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit,
joying and beholding your order, ' and the stedfastness of your
faith in Christ."
IT is a very common assertion in the present day,
made by those who reject the doctrine of the apos-
tolical succession, and who question the necessity of
episcopal ordination, that " the doctrine was un-
known to, or unnoticed by, our Protestant Fathers,
that is, the Divines, who, in the sixteenth century,
opposed the Church of Rome ; and therefore we
Protestants need not concern ourselves about it."
Now it might be sufficient to reply to this objection,
in the language of the author 2 whose words I have
1 rw T&^IV fytJv, id est t lira^iav, intellige ' Disciplinam TScclesiasticam
lene ordinatam ;' nam. T<|; denotat ' cohortem militum instructam et
ordine apto conglobatam.' 1 Poli. Syn. Grit.
2 Perceval on Apostolical Succession.
P
122 SERMON II.
quoted in stating the assertion, that " the Divines
of the sixteenth century were neither the founders
of the Christian Church, nor the writers of the sacred
Scriptures ; and therefore, neither the Scriptures nor
the Church are to be tried by them, but they and
their doctrine are to be tried by the testimony of
the Scriptures, and by the voice of the Church."
This reply, I say, would be sufficient to test the force
of the objection ; especially as the Reformers them-
selves appealed to the " primitive Church" in proof of
their sentiments being in unison with " the word of
God." To " the most holy word of God ;" to " the
holy Catholic Church of Christ ;" to the usage of
the primitive Church ;" to the " verity of God's
word," and to "the consent of the Catholic
Church ;" we find Cranmer, and Ridley, and Cover-
dale appealing, with a host of other martyrs, during
the Marian persecution, in proof of the soundness
and Catholic character of the doctrines of the
Anglican Church. Our Reformers did that which the
Canon of 1571 requires all preachers to do, viz. to
" take heed that they teach nothing in their preach-
ings which they would have the people religiously
to observe and believe, but that which is agreeable
to the doctrine of the Old -or New Testament, and
that which the Catholic Fathers and ancient bishops
have gathered out of that same doctrine." But this
is not the extent of my reply. It will be my endea-
vour, by God's blessing, in my present discourse,
to show, that the Divines of the sixteenth century,
SERMON II. 123
the Reformers of the English Church 3 , men who
had no sympathy with Rome or Romish doctrines
men to whom the Church of England is so much
indebted for her formularies, did clearly, dis-
tinctly, and unreservedly, promulge the doctrine
of the apostolical succession, maintain the necessity
3 " Having thus explained those texts of Scripture which speak
of episcopacy, by the concurrent sense of those who lived with the
Apostles, and were taught the faith from their mouths, who lived
zealous confessors, and died -glorious martyrs of Christ, and who
succeeded the Apostles in those very Churches where themselves
had sat bishops ; and having deduced their testimonies, and of
those who succeeded them, down for four hundred and fifty years
after Christ, (from which time there is no doubt raised against the
universal reception of episcopacy,) and this not only from their
writings apart, but by their canons and laws when assembled together
in council ; which one would think sufficient evidence against none
at all on the other side, that is for the succession of Churches in the
presbyterian form, of which no one instance can be given, so much as
any one Church in the world so deduced, not only from the days of
the Apostles, (as is shown for episcopacy,) but before Calvin, and
those who reformed with him, about one hundred and sixty years last
past ; I say, though what is done is sufficient to satisfy any indifferent
and unbiassed judgment, yet there is one topic yet behind, which
with our Dissenters weighs more than all fathers and councils, and
that is the late reformation, from whence some date their very Chris-
tianity. And if even by this, too, episcopacy should be witnessed
and approved, then is there nothing at all in the world left to the
opposers of episcopacy, nothing of antiquity, precedent, or any autho-
rity, but their own wilful will against all ages of the whole Catholic
Church, even that of the Reformation, as well as all the rest.
" Let us then examine : first for the Church of England ; that is
thrown off clearly by our Dissenters, for that was reformed under
episcopacy, and continues so to this day." Leslie's Works, vol. vii.
p. 177.
P 2
124 SERMON II.
of a commission to administer the Word and Sacra-
ments, from the hands of those duly qualified and
empowered to communicate the same, and held, in
the language of Bishop Beveridge, that " nothing
can be more necessary to establish the means of
grace, than that they who administer be rightly
ordained and authorized to do it, according to the
institution and command of Him who established
these means of grace;" and moreover, that "unless
these means be rightly and duly administered, they
lose their force and energy, and so can never attain
the end wherefore they were established." These
were the sentiments of our Reformers 4 , and the
doctrines of our Church, as expressed in her for-
mularies, from the earliest dawn of the Reformation
by the Church in 1537, to the final review of the
Prayer Book in 1662. I shall, however, confine
4 "Let the clergy teach their flocks from whom bishops have their
axithority over priests, and both bishops and priests their authority
over the people, and in whose name and place they absolve them, and
preach, and minister sacraments to them, and that they are Christ's
messengers, Christ's Ambassadors, Christ's Ministers, and Christ's
Spiritual Governors to them, and over them, in His kingdom
upon earth Let them preach and teach the same principles
which Archbishop Cranmer taught King Edward 6th, in his sermon
of the Power of the Keys ; and which, as it is evident from that
sermon, worthy of his great name as a bishop, a reformer, and a
martyr, were not only his principles, but, as is also evident from the
Preface of the Reformers before our own Ordinal, the principles of the
Reformation, upon which it began, and proceeded, and upon which,
I trust, it will ever continue and subsist." Dr. Hickes' Preface to-
The Divine Right of Episcopacy asserted, page 52.
SERMON II. 125
myself to the first twenty-five years of this period ;
the writings of our divines from Elizabeth's time to
our own day, in support of my position, being too
well known and acknowledged to require any
especial reference to be made to them. In proving
my assertion, I must have more frequent recource to
dates and documents than is usual, or perhaps in
general desirable, in the pulpit; but the subject
requires it ; and I have only to ask the exercise of
your patience, and to solicit your attention, if you
are interested in the investigation of a subject
which is of great moment, and on which, at the
present time, so many unguarded opinions are
expressed.
The first authority to which I shall refer is that of
The Institution of a Christian Man ; a book published
in the year 1537, at the first dawn of the Reforma-
tion, and called the Bishops' Book, as having been
composed by Archbishop Cranmer, and several
other prelates, and subscribed by the two arch-
bishops, nineteen bishops, and twenty five archdea-
cons, and professors of ecclesiastical and civil
law. "It passed also," as Collier tells us, "the
test of the Court, and was published by the King's
printer;" and, according to Strype, "established
by Act of Parliament." And what are the opinions
expressed in this formulary respecting Apostolical
succession? "We think it convenient," (that
is, proper and right,) "that all bishops and preach-
ers shall instruct and teach the people committed
126 SERMON II.
unto their spiritual charge : 1st, How that Christ
and His Apostles did institute and ordain in
the New Testament, that, besides the civil powers
and governance of kings and princes, which is
called potestas gladii, 'the power of the sword,'
there should also be continually in the Church
militant certain other ministers or officers, which
should have special power, authority, and commis-
sion, under Christ, to preach and teach the word of
God unto His people ; to dispense and administer
the sacraments of God unto them, and by the same
to confer and give the graces of the Holy Ghost ;
to consecrate the blessed body of Christ in the
sacrament of the altar ; to loose and absolve from
sin all persons which be duly penitent and sorry
for the same ; to bind and to excommunicate such
as be guilty in manifest crimes and sins, and will
not amend their defaults ; to order and consecrate
others in the same room, order, and office, where-
unto they be called and admitted themselves. It
appeareth evidently that this power, office, and
administration, is necessaiy to be preserved here
in earth for three special and principal causes : 1st,
For that it is the commandment of God it should
be so, as it appeareth in sundry places of Scripture.
2nd, For that God hath instituted and ordained
none other ordinary mean or instrument whereby
He will make us partakers of the reconciliation
which is by Christ, and confer and give the graces
of His Holy Spirit unto us, and make us the right
SERMON II. 127
inheritors of everlasting life, there to reign with
Him for ever in glory, but only His word and
sacraments. And therefore the office and power
to minister the said word and sacraments may in
no wise be suffered to perish, or to be abolished.
3rd, Because the said power and office, or function,
hath annexed unto it assured promises of excellent
and inestimable things; for thereby is conferred and
given the Holy Ghost with all His graces, and
finally our justification and everlasting life." Again,
" Tlus office, this power and authority, was com-
mitted and given by Christ and His Apostles unto
certain persons only ; that is to say, unto priests
or bishops, whom they did elect, call, and admit
thereunto, by their prayer and imposition of their
hands . . Orders is a holy rite or ceremony instituted
by Christ and His Apostles in the New Testament,
and doth consist of two parts ; that is to say, of
a spiritual and invisible grace, and also of an out-
ward and a visible sign. The invisible gift or grace
conferred in the sacrament is nothing else but the
power, the office, and the authority before men-
tioned. The visible and outward sign is the prayer
and imposition of the bishop's hands upon the person
that receiveth the said gift or grace. And to the
intent the Church of Christ should never be desti-
tute of such ministers as should have and execute
the said power of the keys, it was also ordained and
commanded by the Apostles, that the same sacra-
ments should be applied and administered by the
128 SERMON II.
bishop, from time to time, unto such other persons as
had the qualities necessarily required thereunto ;
which said qualities the Apostles did also very
diligently describe, as it appeareth evidently in the
third chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy, and
the first chapter of his Epistle to Titus." 5
In the year 1543, we have another formulary from
the pen of our earliest Reformers, published with
the royal sanction, under the title of A necessary
Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man, and
usually termed the King's Book. Before its publica-
tion it was approved by the Convocation then sit-
ting, in which it was examined in parts, as appears
evident from the minutes of that assembly in Wil-
kins' Concilia. This book certainly proves, that those
who drew it up had obtained much more just and
clear views of several important doctrines than they
possessed at the date of the former publication,
in the year 1 537 ; showing, as Glocester Ridley
observes, 6 " what a good step the Reformation of
religion had made ;" yet, as regarded the doctrine
of Apostolical succession, and the necessity of epis-
copal ordination, for the due administration of the
sacraments, their sentiments remained perfectly un-
changed, as may be learnt from the following brief
extracts : " Order 7 is a gift or grace of ministration in
Christ's Church given of God to Christian men, by
the consecration and imposition of the bishop's hands
5 Formularies of Faith, p. 101 5. 6 Life of Bishop Ridley.
? Formularies of Faith, p. 277.
SERMON II. 129
upon them ; and this was conferred and given by
the Apostles, as it appeareth in the Epistle of St.
Paul to Timothy, whom he had ordained and con-
secrated priest, when he saith thus : ' I do exhort
thee that thbu do stir up the grace of God, the
which is given thee by the imposition of my hands.'
(2 Tim. i. 6.) And in another place he doth monish
the same Timothy, and put him in remembrance of
the room and ministry that he was called unto, in
these words : ' Do not neglect the grace which thou
hast in thee, and the which is given thee through
prophecy and with imposition of hands, by the
authority of priesthood ;' (1 Tim. iv. 14.) whereby
it appeareth that St. Paul did consecrate and order
priests and bishops by the imposition of his hands.
And as the Apostles themselves, in the beginning of
the Church, did order priests and bishops, so they
appointed and willed the other bishops after them
to do the like, as St. Paul manifestly showeth in
his Epistle to Titus, saying thus : ' For this cause
left I thee in* Crete, that thou shouldest ordain elders
in every city, according as I have appointed thee.'
(Titus i. 5.) And to Timothy he saith, ' See that thou
be not hasty to put thy hands upon any man.' '
(1 Tim. v. 22.)
Now, I need not be told, that these documents can-
not pretend to any authority, in the legal sense of
the word, in the present day ; I am, of course, aware
that nothing antecedent to the reign of Edward the
Sixth has any title to that character. It was then
Q
130 SERMON II.
only that the errors of popery were formally re-
nounced, and the pure doctrines of our Church au-
thoritatively established in this kingdom ; yet it must
be remembered, that these formularies were drawn
up after the secession 8 of Henry the Eighth from
8 Perhaps, after all, the term "secession" is erroneous. "I affirm"
says Archbishop Bramhall, " that neither the king of England, nor
the Church of England, nor convocation, nor parliament, did break
the two necessary bonds of Christian unity, or either of them, or any
part of them ; but that the very breakers and violaters of these rules
were the pope and court of Rome ; they did break the ride of faith,
by adding new points to the necessary doctrine of saving truth, which
were not the legacies of Christ and His Apostles, nor delivered unto
us by universal and perpetual tradition. The pope and court of
Rome did break the second rule of unity of discipline, by obtruding
their excessive and intolerable usurpations upon the Christian world,
and particularly upon the Church of England, as necessary conditions
of their communion." Schism Guarded, sect. i. cap. 4. Again
Bramhall says, (Defence of Protestant Ordination,') " I deny that the
Protestant bishops did revolt from the Catholic Church ; nay, they
are more catholic in that than the Roman Catholics themselves, main-
taining a communion for the foundations and principles of Christian
religion, both with the western and eastern churches, whom the
Church of Rome excommunicates from the society of *he mystical body
of Christ, limiting the Church to Rome, and such places as depend
upon it, as the Donatists did of old to Africk. It is true, the Pro-
testants separated themselves from the communion of the Roman
Church, yet not absolutely, nor in such fundamentals, and other
truths which she retains, but respectively in her errors, superstructions,
and innovations. And they left it with the same mind that one would
leave his father's or his brother's house, when it is infected with the
plague, with prayers for their recovery, and with desire to return
again, so soon as it is free, and that may be done with safety. This was
not to forsake the Church of Rome, but to provide for themselves.
' Come out of her, my people, lest ye be partakers of her sins, and
taste of her plagues.' It is truly called the grand imposture of the
SERMON II. 131
the Church of Rome, and that, in fact, the original
publication of these formularies was altogether owing
to this secession. And any one who wishes for
information, and will peruse these important docu-
ments, will learn, that whilst the writers speak of
" orders being continued in the Church by succession
from the Apostles," they, in the same page 9 , reject
as unscriptural the five orders in the Church of
Rome, which are subordinate to that of deacon. The
fact is, that, although in both the before-mentioned
treatises, viz. The Institution of a Christian Man, and
The Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Chris-
world, to obtrude upon us the Roman Church for the Catholic
Church." Tom. iv. dis. 7. See also, The grounds on which the Church
of England separated from the Church of Rome considered, by the
Bishop of Durham ; Field on the Church, App. ch. iii. ; Stillingfleet's
Protestants no Schismatics; Jones on the British Church, sect. 12;
Chillingworth's Works, ch. iii. sect. 1. and Twisden's Historical Vin-
dication of the Church of Ungland in point of Schism, as it stands
separated from the Roman.
9 Bishop Burnet tells us, that " after this, (the publication of these
documents,) I do never find the inferior degrees under a deacon men-
tioned in this Church (of England ;) so it seems at this time they
were laid aside." And moreover they speak of the pope thus :
" Whereas the bishop of Home hath heretofore claimed and usurped
to be head and governor of all priests and bishops of the whole Ca-
tholic Church of Christ, by the laws of God ; it is evident, that the
same power is utterly feigned and untrue, and was neither given to
him by God in His holy Scripture, nor allowed by the holy Fathers
in the ancient general Councils, nor yet by the consent of the whole
Catholic Church." And yet we are told, that the doctrine of Apos-
tolical succession, as maintained by the Church of England, is
popery !
Q 2
132 SERMON II.
tian Man, some superstitious tenets maybe discovered,
which were afterwards rejected ; yet, as Bishop Lloyd
remarks 1 , "the attentive reader will not fail to ob-
serve, that, in many points, the name only of the
doctrine appears to be retained, while the principle
is, in fact, surrendered ; and every portion of those
doctrines which had been found by experience to
be productive of evil, and of dangerous influence on
the moral or religious practice of mankind, is miti-
gated and explained away." The bishop adds, " these
documents are of great importance to all, who are
anxious to acquaint themselves with the rise and
progress of the Protestant opinions in this country,
or who would examine critically into the history and
intention of those formularies which were afterwards
established, and which are still of primary authority
in the Church of England." " Indeed," to quote the
language of Dr. Laurence 2 , " the Reformation of the
succeeding reign ought not to be considered as dis-
tinct from that which had been effected in this, but
rather as a continuation and completion of it." And
Fox, the martyrologist, in his Life of Cranmer, re-
marks respecting The Institution of a Christian Man,
that it was " a godly book of religion, not much un-
like the book set forth by king Edward the Sixth."
I would only add, that the name of Latimer, as
bishop of Worcester, is subscribed to these docu-
ments.
1 Formularies of Faith. 2 Hampton Lecture.
SERMON II. 133
I would now refer you to another important
document, which you will find in the Appendix to
Bishop Burnet's History of the Reformation, viz.
"The resolutions of several bishops and divines, of
some questions concerning the sacraments; by which
it will appear," (I am quoting the language of Bishop
Burnet,) " with what maturity and care they pro-
ceeded in the Reformation ; taken from the origi-
nals, under their own hands." Time will not
permit me to give the quotations 3 . I am quite
3 The date of this paper is about A. D. 1540. To the tenth question,
" Whether bishops'or priests were first ?" The Archbishop of York
said, " We think that the Apostles were priests before they were
bishops, and that the divine power which made them priests, made
them also bishops; and that they had both visible and invisible
sanctification, we may gather from the Gospel, where it is written, ' As
my Father hath sent Me, even so send I you,' &c. and we may well
think that then they were made bishops, when they had not only a
flock, but also shepherds appointed to them to overlook, and a gover-
nance committed to them by the Holy Ghost to oversee both." " I
find," said the bishop of Rochester, " in Scripture, that Christ being
both a priest and bishop, ordained his Apostles, who were both priests
and bishops ; and the same Apostles did afterwards ordain bishops,
and commanded them to ordain others." Dr. Symmons said, " Christ
is and was the Great High Bishop, and made all His Apostles bishops ;
and they made bishops and priests after Him, and so hath it evermore
continued hitherto." To the eleventh question* " Whether a bishop
hath authority to make a priest by the Scripture or no ; and whether
any other but only a bishop may make a priest ?" The Archbishop
of York said, " That a bishop may make a priest, may be deduced
from Scripture ; for so much as they have all authority for the order-
ing of Christ's Church, derived from the Apostles, who made bishops
and priests, and not without authority ; and that any other than
bishops or priests may make a priest, we neither find in Scripture nor
134 SERMON II.
aware that the divines who were consulted on
the occasion referred to, were not unanimous
in their replies to the questions propounded 4 ; but
this want of complete unanimity appears to have
arisen, not so much from any difference of opinion
out of Scripture.'. The Bishop of Carlisle said, " It appears that a
bishop, by Scripture, may make deacons and priests, and that we have
no example otherwise." " A bishop," said Dr. Edgworth, " hath
authority by Scripture to make a priest, and that any other ever made
a priest since Christ's time I read not." This was also the expressed
opinion of Drs. Cox, Redmayn, Symmons, Tresham, Leyghton, and
others, to whom these questions were propounded. On the question
of consecration and ordination of bishops and priests, we find the
following sentiments expressed, "The appointing to the office per
manuum impositionem, is in Scripture ; and the consecration of them
hath of long time continued in the Church." Again, " There is a cer-
tain kind of consecration required, which is imposition of the bishop's
hands, with prayer ; and the appointing only is not sufficient." I will
adduce one other authority, that of the Bishop of Carlisle, who
answered the question in the language of Archbishop Anslem, " The
imposition of hands is that by the which Timothy was ordained and
received his office. Let bishops, therefore, who have power to make
priests, consider well under what law the order of ecclesiastical consti-
tution is bounden ; and let them not think those words of the Apostle
to be his, but rather the words of Christ Himself." The reader will
find a full examination of The resolutions of the Bishops and Divines
in 1540, in the Postscript of my Succession of Bishops in the Church
of England unbroken, "pp. 76 85.
4 See some interesting and important remarks on the opinions ex-
pressed in the reply of Archbishop Cranmer, by Dr. Hickes, in his
Preface to the Divine Right of Episcopacy asserted, page 41, which
are given in a subsequent note ; (see page 140,) and also in Dr.
Durell's Vindicia Ecclesice Anglicana, cap. 28, p. 326. See also the
Postscript of my Succession of Bishops in the Church of England Un-
broken, pp. 93 7.
SERMON II. 135
respecting a ministerial succession, as from the idea
of bishops being a higher rank in the priesthood,
rather than a distinct order from elders. " In this
writing," says Bishop Burnet, "and in The Necessary
Erudition of a Christian Man, bishops and priests
are spoken of as one and the same office. In the
ancient Church they knew none of those subtleties
which were found out in the latter ages. It was
then thought enough that a bishop was to be dedi-
cated to his function by a new imposition of hands,
and that several offices could not be performed with-
out bishops, such as ordination, confirmation 5 ," &c.
5 Burnet thus continues, " They did not refine in these matters, so
much as to inquire whether bishops and priests differed in order and
office, or only in degree. But after the schoolmen fell to examine
matters of divinity with logical and unintelligible niceties, and the
canonists began to comment upon the rules of the ancient Church,
they studied to make bishops and priests seem very near one another,
so that the difference was but small. They did it with different de-
signs. The schoolmen having set up the grand mystery of transub-
stantiation, were to exalt the priestly office as much as was possible :
for the turning the Host into God was so great an action, that they
reckoned there could be no office higher than that which qualified a
man to so mighty a performance. Therefore, as they changed the
form of ordination from what it was anciently believed to consist in,
to a delivering of the sacred vessels, and held that a priest had his
orders by that rite, and not by the imposition of hands ; so they raised
their order or office so high as to make it equal with the order of a
bishop*. But as they designed to extol the order of priesthood, so the
* " Though most of the schoolmen asserted bishops and priests to be
of the same order, for the reason here specified, their being equally ap-
pointed to the consecration of the Eucharist, which they thought to be
the highest and most perfect function ; yet they allowed the bishops a
136 SERMON II.
I need hardly add, that, in this respect, the
Church of England differs from the Church of
canonists had as great a mind to depress the episcopal order. They
generally wrote for preferment, and the way to it was to exalt the
papacy. Nothing could do that so effectually as to bring down the
power of bishops. This only could justify the exemptions of the
monks and friars, the popes setting up legatine courts, and receiving
at first appeals, and then original causes, before them ; together with
many other encroachments on their jurisdiction : all which were
unlawful, if the bishops had, by Divine right, jurisdiction in their
dioceses : therefore, it was necessary to lay them as low as could be,
and to make them think that the power they held was rather as de-
legates of the apostolic see, than by a commission from Christ or His
Apostles. So that they looked on the declaring episcopal authority
to be of Divine right, as a blow that would be fatal to the court of
Rome ; and therefore they did after this at Trent use all possible
endeavours to hinder any such decision. It having been then the
common style of that age, to reckon bishops and priests as the same
office, it is no wonder if at this time the clergy of this Church, the
greatest part of them being still leavened with the old superstition,
and the rest of them not having enough of spare time to examine
lesser matters, retained still the former phrases in this particular.
" On this I have insisted the more, that it may appear how little
they have considered things, who are so far carried with their zeal
against the established government of this Church, as to make much
use of some passages of the schoolmen and canonists, that deny
them to be distinct offices ; for these are the very dregs of Popery,
the one raising the priests higher for the sake of transubstantiation,
the other pulling the bishops lower for the sake of the Pope's supre-
macy, and by such means bringing them almost to an equality. So
partial are some men to their particular conceits, that they make use
of the most mischievous topics when they can serve their turn, not
superiority of jurisdiction, which some of them were content to call a
superior order ; as the canonists did also generally, notwithstanding their
endeavours to depress the episcopal authority for the advancement of the
papal." Granger's Corrections.
SERMON II. 137
Rome 6 . We maintain, that " from the Apostles'
time there have been three orders of ministers in
Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons 7 ;" the
considering how much further these arguments will run, if they ever
admit them." Burnet's History of the Reformation, vol. i. p. 346.
6 " The learned amongst the Papists themselves confess, that that
wherein a bishop excelleth a presbyter is not a distinct order or
power of order, but a kind of dignity or office and employment only.
' Episcopacy is not another order distinct from the priesthood,' says
Capreolus. ' No prelate hath more concerning sacramental power, or
of order, than simple priests.' So Armachames, ' as concerning
sacerdotal order, and things that pertain to order, they are equal.'
Thus Bellarmin himself, ' Although a bishop and presbyter are dis-
tinguished, yet as concerning sacrifice they exercise the same ministry,
and therefore they make one order, not two.' Cusanus goes farther,
' All bishops, and haply also presbyters, are of equal power in respect
of jurisdiction, though not of execution ; which executive exercise is
shut up and restrained by certain positive laws.' A nd Johannes de
Parisiis, (de Potest. Regal, et Papal., cap. 10.) ' Some say the pres-
byter hath the same power in his parish that a bishop hath in his
diocese.' " Brown's Answer to Cox. " The priesthood has two
degrees, the presbytery and the episcopate. In the first degree are
the minor priests, called presbyters ; in the other, the greater priests,
who are the bishops ; and these, by Divine institution, are superior
both in dignity and in authority to simple priests ; and to assert to
the contrary is condemned by the sacred council of Trent." (Sess. xxiii.,
can. 6, 7.) Moral Instructions on Christian Doctrine, by P. Idelfonso
de Bressanvido, ch. Ixii. See also Dodwell's Separation proved schis-
matical, ch. 23.
7 See Bishop Taylor's Episcopacy Asserted, sect. 28. 34. " It is
true that some Popish writers make Bishops and Presbyters to be
but one order ; but you must withal take, the reason of that Popish
conceit : They hold, that the Sacrament of the Altar, (as they call
it,) is the Sacrament of Sacraments, whereunto the Sacrament of
Orders is subordinate ; all their orders of clerks being ordained to the
ministry of the Altar ; and that ever}' one of their seven orders, (all
R
138 SERMON II.
Church of Rome declares, " that," (I quote the Trent
Catechism 8 ,) " the order of priesthood is essentially
which they call sacraments,) is only to be counted a sacrament, as it
hath reference to the eucharist : to which purpose Thomas Aquinas
doth somewhat ridiculously distinguish their seven orders, according
to their divers offices referred to that Sacrament. And forasmuch
as in the whole power of order this is the Supreme act, by pronouncing
the words of Consecration to make the very body of Christ, which
is as well performed by a Priest as a Bishop, therefore they teach,
that Bishops and Priests are both of one order ; and that the order
of Bishops, as it is a Sacrament, is not superior to that of Presbyters,
but only as it is an office, in respect of certain sacred actions ; and
in this sense, saith Thomas, that the bishop hath power in Sacred and
hierarchical actions in respect of Christ's mystical body above the
Priest, the office of Bishop is an order. For you must understand
that they make all Ecclesiastical power to have reference to the body
of Christ, either verum, his true body in the Sacrament of the Altar,
which they call the power of order ; or mysticum, mystical, (that is
the Church and the members thereof,) which they call the power
of jurisdiction.
This new popish conceit, therefore, of confounding Bishops and
Presbyters into one order, ariseth from their idol of the mass,
and their doctrine of transubstantiation, whereby every Priest is as
able to make his Maker, as the Pope himself. I call it new, because
all the ancient writers do confess, (as before hath been shown,) Bishops,
Presbyters, and Deacons to be three distinct degrees, and consequently
orders of the ministry : for what is an order, but that degree, which,
among things or persons which are subordinate one with another,
some being higher, some lower, any one hath obtained ?
Wherefore, laying aside these popish conceits, let us consider what is
to be determined concerning this matter, according to the truth."
Downame's Defence, Sfc., p. 103, book iii. ch. iv. See also Bingham,
book ii. c. i. sec. 1.
8 " Quamvis unus sit sacerdotii ordo, non tamen unus est sacerdotum
gradus. Qui tametsi units est, varios tamen dignitatis et potestatis gradus
habet. Primus est eorum, qui sacerdotes simpliciter vocantur, quorum
SERMON II. 139
one, though it has different degrees of dignity and
power. The first is confined to those who are simply
called priests, and whose functions we have now
explained. The second is that of bishops, who
are placed over their respective sees, to govern not
only the other ministers of the Church, but also the
faithful ; and with sleepless vigilance and unwearied
care, to watch over and promote their salvation."
That " to the bishop belongs exclusively the con-
ferring of holy orders," is equally allowed by both
Churches, and I should imagine that it will be
readily granted, in the language of the Catechism of
the Council of Trent, that " this is a matter of
certainty, and is easily proved by the authority of
Scripture, by traditional evidence the most un-
equivocal, by the unanimous attestation of all the
holy Fathers, by the decrees of councils, and by the
practice of the universal Church."
My next authority is that of Archbishop Cran-
mer's Catechism, a work which, though " first framed
in Germany, 9 and translated into Latin by Justus
Jonas," who lived with the Archbishop, " was by
functiones hactenus declaratce sunt. Secundus est episcoporum, qui
singulis episcopatibus prcepositi sunt, ut non solum ceteros ecclesite minis-
tros, sed fdelem populum regant, et eorum saluti summa cum vigilantia
et euro, prospiciant." Cat. Con. Tri. pars ii. cap. 7, quses. 25. See also
Le Blanc's Theses Theologiaz, De membris Ecclesice Militantis, cap.
2, 3, 4.
9 Bishop Burnet affirms it to have been entirely composed by the
zealous and indefatigable archbishop, " without the concurrence of
any other." History of the Reformation, vol. ii. book i. pt. 2.
R *
140 SERMON II.
Cranmer himself, or by his special order, turned
into English, published in his own name, and owned
as his own book." In this Catechism, as Bishop
Burnet has remarked, and as we shall presently
learn, Cranmer " fully owns the Divine institution
of bishops and priests 1 ." It was published in the
1 " I have (says Dr. Hickes) made this sermon public again, because
I think the doctrines set forth in it are as beneficial to the Church
now, as when they were published one hundred and sixty years ago.
I say the doctrines, for in order to explain the power of the Keys, he
hath treated of the sacerdotal mission of God's ministers, to whom the
power of the Keys is committed, and delivered his doctrine about it
in several propositions, as, 1st. That it is necessary to have preachers,
or ministers of God's most Holy Word. 2nd. That they must not
aspire to that high office, before they are called, ordained, and ap-
pointed to it, and sent to us by God. 3rd, That except they be so
called, and sent, they cannot fruitfully teach, because God doth not
work with the preacher, whom he hath not sent, &c. I have set all
this in the reader's view, for the honour of Archbishop Crammer's
memory, to show that when he wrote this book, he could not be of
the opinion, that ' the form of Church Government is mutable, that there
is no distinction between a Bishop and a Priest, and that a man appointed
to be a Bishop, or a Priest, needs no consecration by the Scripture ;
election, or appointment, being sufficient thereunto, as is said of him, with
great triumph, in the 178 page of the book of Rights*. These loose
opinions, which are so apparently contrary to what the Archbishop
published in this sermon, that fraudulent writer took from a manuscript
as cited by Dr. Stillingfleet in the 8th ch. of the 2nd book of his
Irenicum; though Dr. Durel, who saw the manuscript afterwards,
told the world how it was manifest from it, that the Archbishop
changed his opinion, and came over to that of Z>r.f Leyghton, who, in
answer to the llth question, asserted that 'a Bishop had authority
* By Matthew Tindal, answered by Turner, in his Vindication of the
Rights of the Christian Church, and by Hickes, in his Christian Priesthood,
and Dignify of the Episcopal Order, see Preface.
t Collection of Records in the 3rd Book of the Bishop of Sarum's His-
tory of the Reformation, page 227.
SKRMON II. 141
year 1548, and dedicated to King Edward VI. I ex-
tract the following from the sermon on the Authority
from God in Scripture, as His minister, to make a Priest, andthat he had
not read that any other man had authority to make a Priest by Scripture,
or knew any example thereof? And, in answer to the 12th he said,
' I suppose that there is a consecration required, as by imposition of hands,
for so we be taught by the ensample of the Apostles ; who, in answer to
the 10th question, he had said 'were made Bishops and Priests by
Christ' and that ' after them the seventy two * Disciples were made
Priests? This account of the Archbishop changing his opinion as to
the point of Church Government, Dr. Durel, afterwards Dean of
Windsor, gave f from the manuscript itself, wherein it appeared that
Th. Cantuariensis was written with the Archbishop's own hand under-
neath Lcyghtoris opinion, to signify his approbation of it; and his
sermon, which I have here reprinted, shews that it was his final
opinion, and that he thought the people were to be instructed in it,
as part of the erudition of a Christian man. Dr. Stillingjleet, after-
ward Bishop of Worcester, never wrote, or, that I heard, said any thing
to contradict Dr. DureTs account of his manuscript, all his life long.
And the Bishop of Sarum also acknowledges, that the Archbishop
did retract his opinion, though he printed his manuscript in another
order and method than the original is written in, contrary to the
advice of Dr. Stillingfleet, as Dr. Grove told the world in his shuffling
answer to Dr. Lowth's letter to Dr. Stillingfleet ; which was a fancy,
or rather a liberty in his Lordship, which perhaps he would censure
in another historian. I am sure it cannot be justified in any, and, in
matters of law, it would be called altering a record. I must also
observe, that Archbishop Cranmer's book must be written in 1547,
or some time before, because it was printed in 1548. Which also
further shews the great mistake of Bishop Stillingfleet, when he wrote
his Irenicum, in dating the birth of his manuscript from the first
settlement of King Edward vi., as a paper containing the principles
upon which the Reformation proceeded in 1547,{ to the great dishonor
* On the Number of Disciples, whether 70 or 72, see Heylyn's His. of
Epis. p. 19. t VindicitB Ecclesia Anglicanae, cap. xxvi. p. 326.
J It may be added that Edward, Archbishop of York, who subscribed the
Paper of Questions, died in 1544.
142 SERMON II.
of the Keys : " By the words ' How shall they call on
him on whom they believe not ? How shall they be-
lieve on him of whom they have not heard ? How
shall they hear without a preacher ? How shall they
preach except they be sent ?' (Rom. x. 14.) St.
Paul evidently declares unto us two lessons : the
first is, that it is necessary to our salvation to have
preachers and ministers of God's most holy word, to
instruct us in the true faith and knowledge. The
second is, that preachers must not run to this high
honour before they be called thereto ; but they
must be ordained and appointed to this office, and
sent to us by God. Again, the teachers, except they
be called and sent, cannot fruitfully teach ; for the
seed of God's word doth never bring forth fruit,
unless the Lord of the harvest doth give increase,
and by His Holy Spirit do work with the sowers.
But God doth not work with the preacher w T hom
He hath not sent, as St. Paul saith, ' How shall
they preach if they be not sent ?' Wherefore it is
requisite, that preachers should be called and sent
of our Reformers, and the disgrace of our Reformation, and giving
our adversaries of Rome great occasion to misrepresent our Church
to be Erastian in its foundation, as giving the Prince the power of the
Apostles, and other unconsecrate laymen authority to ordain Bishops
and Priests, and to excommunicate, and administer the Sacraments, if
the law of any kingdom alloweth thereunto." Dr. Hickes' Preface to
the Divine Right of Episcopacy Asserted, pp. 38 41. The reader will
find the opinions of Archbishop Cranmer considered at length in the
Postscript of my Succession of Bishops in the Church of England
Unbroken pp. 85 79.
SERMON II. 143
of God ; and they must preach according to the
authority and commission of God granted unto
them. ' ' And to the intent that we may know to whom
this commission is granted, the Archbishop adds,
that " Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath both
ordained and appointed ministers and preachers to
teach us His holy word, and to minister His sacra-
ments ; and also hath appointed them what they shall
teach in His name, and what they shall do unto us.
He called and chose His twelve Apostles. And
after Christ's ascension, the Apostles gave autho-
rity to other godly and holy men to minister
God's word, chiefly in those places where there
were Christian men already which lacked preachers,
and the Apostles themselves could not longer
abide with them. Wherefore, when they found
godly men, and meet to preach God's word, they
laid their hands upon them, and gave them the
Holy Ghost, as they themselves received of Christ
the same Holy Ghost to execute their office. And
they that were so ordained, were indeed, and
also were called, the ministers of God, as the
Apostles themselves were, as St. Paul saith unto
Timothy : and so the ministration of God's word,
which our Lord Jesus Christ did first institute, was
derived from the Apostles unto other after them, by
imposition of hands and giving the Holy Ghost,
from the Apostles' time to our own days ; and
this was the consecration, and orders, and unction
of the Apostles, whereby they, at the beginning,
144 SERMON II.
made bishops and priests ; and this shall con-
tinue in the Church unto the world's end. And
whatsoever they do to you, as when they baptize
you, when they give you absolution, and dis-
tribute to you the body and blood of our Lord
Jesus Christ, these you shall so esteem as if
Christ Himself, in His own person, did speak and
minister to you ; for Christ hath commanded His
ministers to do this unto you, and He Himself,
although you see Him not with your bodily eyes,
is present with His ministers, and worketh by the
Holy Ghost in the administration of the sacraments.
And," adds the Archbishop, " on the other side,
you shall take good heed and beware of false and
privy preachers, which privily creep into cities, and
preach in corners, having none authority, nor being
called to this office ; for Christ is not present with
such preachers, and therefore doth not the Holy
Ghost work by their preaching ; but they, no doubt
of it, do err, and sow abroad heresy and naughty
doctrine." Such is the testimony of one of our
Protestant martyrs in favour of the Divine right of
Episcopacy 3 .
2 Bishop Burnet remarks, with reference to Crammer's Catechism,
that, " it is plain that he had now quite laid aside those singular
opinions which he formerly held of the ecclesiastical functions ; for
now, in a work which was wholly his own, without the concurrence
of any others, he fully sets forth their Divine institution." History
of the Reformation, vol. ii. book i. pt. 2. See a previous note
page 140.
SERMON II. 145
Let me now direct your attention to the Preface
to the Ordination Service, as contained in our own
Prayer-book.- This office 3 was drawn up in the
year 1549, under the authority of King Edward
VI., by six archbishops and bishops, and six other
eminent Reformers, Cranmer being the chief. The
act of Parliament, under which this Ordinal was
framed, runs thus: "It is requisite to have one
uniform fashion and manner for making and Con-
secrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Be it,
therefore, enacted by the King's Highness, with the
assent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and the
Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and
by authority of the same, that such form and manner
of making and Consecrating Archbishops, Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons, be devised, and set forth," &c.:
whereby it is evident, that different offices were
contemplated and actually framed for different or-
ders. Now mark the opinions * expressed in the
3 See Mason's Vindicice Ecclesice Anglicance, pp. 183 198. and my
Succession of Bishops, &c. p. 76.
4 " To which may be added," says Daubeny, (Appendix, p. 465,)
" the judicious remark on this subject of that learned divine, Bishop
Stillingfleet ; together with the demonstration of that acute rcasoner,
Mr. Chillingworth. ' The universal consent of the Church being
proved, there is as great reason to believe the Apostolical succession
to be of Divine institution, as the canon of Scripture, or the observa-
tion of the Lord's day. We do not doubt but it is unlawful to add
to, or to diminish from, the canon of Scripture, and yet there is no
plain text for it, with respect to all the books contained in it ; and
some of the books were a long time disputed in some Churches : but
the Churches coming at last to a full agreement in this matter, upon
S
146 SERMON II.
preface 5 : "It is evident unto all men diligently
reading the Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that
due search and inquiry, hath been thought sufficient to bind all after-
ages to make no alterations in it. And as to the Divine institution
of the Lord's day, we do not go about to lessen it, but only to show
that some examples in Scripture, being joined with the universal
practice of the Church in its purest ages, hath been allowed to be
sufficient ground, not only for following ages to observe it, but to look
on it as at least an Apostolical institution. Now it cannot but seem
unequal, not to allow the same force where there is the same evidence ;
and therefore our Church hath wisely and truly determined, that,
" since the Apostles' times, there have been three orders of bishops,
priests, and deacons," and in a regular well- constituted Church, are
to continue to the world's end.' ' Episcopal government,' says Mr.
Chilling worth, at the end of his demonstration, (The Apostolical
Institution of Episcopacy demonstrated^ 'is acknowledged to have
been received universally in the Church presently after the times of
the Apostles ; between the Apostles and this presently after, there
was not time enough for, nor possibility of so great an alteration ;
and therefore there was no such alteration as was pretended.' From
whence it follows, that ' Episcopacy, being confessed to be so ancient
and catholic, must be also granted to be Apostolic.' q.e.d. ' For so
great a change as between Presbyterian government and Episcopal,
could not possibly have prevailed all the world over in a little time.
Had episcopal government been an aberration from, or a corruption
of, the government left in the Churches by the Apostles, it had been
very strange that it should have been received in any one Church so
suddenly, or that it should have prevailed in all for many ages after.
Variasse debuerat error ecclesiarum ; quod autem apud omnes unum est,
non est erratum, sed traditum. Had the Churches erred, they would
have varied ; what, therefore, is one and the same among all, came
not sure by error, but by tradition. Thus Tertullian argues, very
probably, from the consent of the Churches of his time ; and that, in
matter of opinion, much more subject to unobserved alteration. But
that in the frame and substance of the necessary government of the
Church a thing always in use and practice there should be so
sudden a change as presently after the Apostles' times, and so univer-
SERMON II. 147
from the Apostles' time there have been these
orders of ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops,
sally as received in all Churches, this is clearly impossible.' " See
Stillingfleef s Ordination Sermon, preached in 1684 ; and ChillingwortK 's
Works, p. 389.
5 " That our Church did believe our bishops to succeed the Apostles
in those parts of their office, I shall make appear by these things.
In the preface before the book of Ordination, it is said, that ' it is
evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient
authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these orders of
ministers' in Christ's Church, bishops, priests, and deacons.' What is
the reason that they express it thus, 'from the Apostles' time,' rather
than l in the Apostles' time,' but that they believed while the Apostles
lived, they managed the affairs of government themselves ; but as
they withdrew, they did in some Churches sooner, and in some later,
as .their own continuance, the condition of the Churches, and the
qualification of persons were, commit the care and government of
Churches to such persons whom they appointed thereto ? Of which
we have an uncontrollable evidence in the instances of Timothy and
Titus ; for the care of government was a distinct thing from the
office of an evangelist ; and all their removes do not invalidate this,
because while the Apostles lived it is probable there were no fixed
bishops, or but few. But as they went off, so they came to be settled
in their several Churches. And as this is most agreeable to the sense
of our Church, so it is the fairest hypothesis for reconciling the dif-
ferent testimonies of antiquity ; for hereby the succession of bishops
is secure from the Apostles' times, for which the testimonies of
Irenasus, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and others, are so plain ; hereby
room is left to make good all that St. Jerome hath said, and what
Epiphanius delivers concerning the differing settlements of Churches
at first ; so that we may allow for the community of names between
bishop and presbyter for a while in the Church ; i. e. while the Apos-
tles governed the Churches themselves ; but afterwards, that which
was then part of the apostolical office, became the episcopal, which
hath continued from that time to this by a constant succession in the
Church." Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation, p. 269.
148 SERMON II.
Priests, and Deacons ; which offices were evermore
had in such reverent estimation, that no man, by
his own private authority, 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, approved and ad-
mitted thereunto. And, therefore, to the intent these
orders should be continued and reverently used and
esteemed in the Church of England, it is requisite
that no man, (not being at this present Bishop,
Priest, nor Deacon,) shall execute any of them, ex-
cept he be called, tried, examined, and admitted,
according to the form hereafter following 6 . ' ' Now, the
Divine appointment of the several orders is expressly
declared in the first and subsequent Ordinals. " Al-
mighty God, giver of all good things, who by Thy
Holy Spirit hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers
in Thy Church ; mercifully behold this Thy servant,
now called to the work and ministry of a Bishop," or
Priest, or Deacon, as the case may be. The preface
remained the same, and the forms, with one or two
trifling alterations, in the Prayer-book of 1552 ; and
the slight variations in the preface, and the altera-
tions in the forms themselves, adopted at the last
review, in 1662, tend to develope more clearly the
views of our Church in favour of Episcopacy and the
doctrine of the Apostolical Succession. The objec-
6 See the present Bishop of Exeter's Ordination Sermon, (1843), p. 27.
SERMON II. 149
tion, that the words for conveying the bishops' and
priests' character are the same in the Ordinal set
forth in King Edward's reign, (which, in fact, they
are not,) has been ably refuted by Collier, 7 Bishop
Madox, and others.
7 I subjoin the remark of Collier . " The objection that the words
for conveying the bishops' and priests' character are the same in the
ordinal set forth in King Edward's reign, goes partly upon a mistake ;
for at the ordination of a priest, the words run thus : ' Receive the
Holy Ghost, &c. ; take thou authority to preach the word of God,
and to minister the holy sacraments in the congregation, where thou
shalt be so appointed.' But at the consecration of a bishop, the form
stands as follows : ' Remember that thou stir up the grace of God,
which is in thee, by imposition of hands : for God has not given us
the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and of soberness.'
" I grant there is some resemblance in these forms, but then there
is a plain distinction in other parts of the office. For instance, there
is an express declaration of two bishops, that the person presented is
to be consecrated to their own order. There are more questions put
to him by the archbishop than are mentioned in the office for ordain-
ing priests ; some of which suppose a superior authority in his
character ; and that the exercise of discipline, and the government of
a diocese, are branches of his function. The archbishop and two
other bishops lay their hands upon the head of the elect ; whereas at
the ordaining of a priest, this ceremony is performed only by the
diocesan, with some priests assisting. These short remarks may be
sufficient to discover the weakness of the exception against this
ordinal." Collier, vol. v., p. 383.
Dr. Chandler also observes, that " in the ordination of presbyters,
a distinction of their office from that of bishop immediately follows.
They are declared to have, and the declaration implies that they have,
in virtue of that ordination, only the power of absolving penitents
and of dispensing the word and sacraments ; and that in such congre-
gations as they should be appointed unto. There is not the least
appearance of episcopal powers, nor of any authority which is not at
this day given by the Church of England to presbyters ; but in the
150 SERMON II.
The 23rd and 36th Articles of our Church next
demand our attention. I need hardly state, that
these articles were drawn up by Cranmer and certain
bishops and other divines, in the year 1552 ; they
were revised in 1562, under Archbishop Parker; and,
ordination of bishops there is not the least restraint ; the words are left
general as they were used by Christ in ordaining his Apostles, and all
the ordinary authority which they were originally intended to express
is conveyed by them without diminution : so that in one case there is
only a limited commission given, but in the other a commission with-
out any restriction or limitation, and, consequently, extending to all
ecclesiastical offices, which, in fact, is also intended." Appeal further
defended, pp. 42, 43.
Bishop Burnet also argues correctly and forcibly upon this point :
" It is to be considered, that ecclesiastical orders being from the in-
fluence and operation of the Holy Ghost, which being one, yet hath
different operations for the different administrations, therefore the
concomitant actions, words, and circumstances must show, for which
administration the Holy Ghost is prayed for, since that general prayer
is made for all ; but the functions being different, the same Holy
Ghost works differently in them all. Therefore, it is plain from the
practice of our Saviour, that there is no need of expressing, in the
very words of ordination, what power is thereby given, since our
Saviour did not express it, but what He said both before and after did
determine the sense of those general words to the Apostolical function.
The whole office of consecrating bishops (for instance) shows very
formally and expressly what power is given in those (general) words ;
so that a priest being presented to be made a bishop, the king's
mandate being read for that effect, he swearing canonical obedience
as bishop elect, prayers being put up for him as such, together with
other circumstances which make it plain what they are about, those
general words are by these qualified and restrained to that sense."
Vindication, &c. p. 64. See also Madox's Vindication of the Govern-
ment, Doctrine, and Worship of the Church of England; pages 58 63.
Edit. 1733. The above point is more fully considered in my
Succession of Bishops, &c. pp. 4268.
SERMON II. 151
"when decreed, were," in the language of Strype,
" mostwhat the same with those made and consti-
tuted in the year 1552." The 23rd, which I am
now about to quote, was precisely the same : " It is
not lawful for any man to take upon him the office
of public preaching or ministering the Sacraments
in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called
and sent to execute the same ; and those we ought
to judge lawfully" (that is, according to the law of
God ; for the judges, not the clergy, are the proper
expositors of the law of the landj " 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." The 36th article, as revised in
1562, says: " The Book of Consecration of Arch-
bishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and
Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward VI.,
and confirmed at the same time by authority of
Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to
such Consecration and Ordering ; neither hath it
anything that of itself is superstitious and ungodly ;
and therefore whosoever are consecrated and
ordered according to the rites of that book, since
the second year of the afore-named King Edward
unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated
or ordered according to the same rites ; we decree
all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully con-
secrated and ordered." This declaration of the
Church was afterwards confirmed by act of Parlia-
152 SERMON II.
ment in the eighth year of Elizabeth. Let any
man compare these Articles with the " Preface to
the Ordination Service," where he will read, that
"to the intent these Orders of Bishop, Priest, and
Deacon, which have been from the Apostles' time
in Christ's Church, should be continued, and reve-
rently used and esteemed in this Church of England,
it is requisite, that no man, (not being at this present
Bishop, Priest, nor Deacon,) shall execute any of
them, except he be called, tried, examined, and
admitted, according to the form hereafter following : "
let a man, I say, compare these " Articles" with
the " Preface to the Ordination Service," and the
service itself all drawn up under the same archie-
piscopal head and I think that he will not doubt
the sentiments of our Reformers on the question of
Episcopacy and the necessity of a Divine Commission.
The " Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum" is ano-
ther document w r hich developes the views of the
Reformers on the subject before us. This body of
ecclesiastical laws was drawn up under an act of
parliament, by thirty-two commissioners, who w r ere
divided into four sub-commissions, consisting each
of two bishops, two divines, two canon and civil,
and two common-law lawyers ; and what was con-
cluded by each class was to be transmitted to the
rest, and examined by them. The principal matter
was furnished by archbishop Cranmer, and the date
of the work is 1552. In the third, fourth, tenth,
and subsequent chapters of the twentieth title, we
SERMON II. 153
have the offices of Deacon, Priest, and Bishop,
clearly and specifically stated. The Deacon was
to preach and administer the sacraments, " modo
episcopi permissione," " only by permission of the
Bishop ;" and unless his zeal and assiduity should be
attested by presbyters who were cognizant of his
conduct, the Bishops were not to ordain him into the
higher order of priesthood. The chapter on the office
of presbyter refers us to the third chapter of St. Paul's
first epistle to Timothy, and to the first chapter of
his epistle to Titus, for an elucidation of their official
character, and speaks of the flock of God committed
to them ; which commission we learn from the Ordi-
nation Service which was drawn up under the
same authority was imparted by the imposition of
the Bishop's hands. The chapter on the order and
dignity of Bishops, and the subsequent chapters on
the obedience due to them, are still more explicit.
The first speaks of the Bishops as holding the chief
place among the ministers of Christ's Church, and
gives them authority to govern the inferior orders of
the clergy " inferior es or dines cleri;" the others
allude to the ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction
of the Bishops ; and declare that the whole diocese,
both clergy and laity "omnia Christi membra ejus
CUTCB commissa," "all the members of Christ com-
mitted to his care," were to be under the Bishop,
and to be governed by his discipline and direction ;
not only on those points which are clearly specified
in the word of God, but on such as appertain to the
T
154 SERMON II.
maintenance of Church discipline, and the carrying
out the requirements of the ecclesiastical laws. A
subsequent chapter speaks of the Bishops as confer-
ring the sacred orders ; and alludes to the imposition
of the Bishop's hands as the mode of conferring these
orders. A reference to the work itself will show
that I have not mis-stated the sentiments of our
Reformers 8 .
8 I subjoin the chapters referred to in the original, as the work is
somewhat scarce. Tit. " De Ecclesia, et Ministris ejus, illorumque
qffidis." Cap. 3. De Diaconis. "Diaconus erit patronus pauperum,
ut languidos confirmet, soletur vinctos, inopes juvet, eritque pater
orphanis, patronus viduis, et solatium afflictis et miseris, quantum in
illo est, omnibus. Nomina etiam pauperum Parocho diligenter deferet,
ut ejus suasu ecclesia tola permota necessitatibus illorum prospiciat,
ne mendicantes late fratres obambulent, eodem et coslesti patre nati et
pretio redempti. Pastoribus suis, a quibus adsciti fuerint, in sacris
precationibus et officiis perpetuo adsint. Lectiones ex verbo Domini
quotidianas populo recitabunt, et, si quando necessitas incumbat,
concionabuntur. et sacramenta (modo id episcopi aut ordinarii permis-
sione faciant) administrabunt. His officiis nisi diligenter eos invigilasse
per presbyteros ecclesiae demonstratum sit, episcopi illos ad altiorem
gradum non promoveant."
De Presbyteris, cap. 4 " In presbytero mores eluceant a D. Paulo
descripti ad Tim. iii. et ad Titum primo. Gregem Dei sibi commissum
verbo vitse subinde nutriant, et ad sinceram turn Deo turn magistratui
ac in dignitate positis obedientiam assidue eliciant, et ad benevolentiam
mutuam Christianos omnes sedulb invitent. Non sint compotores,
non aleatores, non aucupes, non venatores, non sycophantse, non
otiosi, aut supini, sed sacrarum literarum studiis et praedicationi verbi
et orationibus pro ecclesia ad Dominum diligenter incumbant. Nullus
expers conjugii, mulierem sexaginta annis natu minorem in aedibus
sinat diversari, nisi sit ejus mater, aut amita, aut matertera, aut soror.
Presbyter quivis Biblia sacra habeat propria, non Anglice modo, verum
SERMON II. 1 ;">.">
Time will permit me to refer to one more do-
cument only in favour of the transmission of apos-
etiam Latine ; vestis sit decens, et gravis, quae ministrum deceat, non
militem, juxta arbitrium episcopi."
De Episcoporurn gradu, ac dignitate in Ecclesia, cap. 10. " Epis-
copi, quoniam inter caeteros ecclesiae ministros locum principem tenent,
ideo sana doctrina, gravi authoritate, atque provido concilio, debent
inferiores ordines cleri, universumque populum Dei, regere ac pascere,
non sane ut dominentur eorum fidei, sed ut seipsos vere servos servorum
Dei exhibeant, sciantque authoritatem et jurisdictionem ecclesiasticam
non alia de causa sibi praecipue creditam esse, nisi ut suo ministerio et
assiduitate homines quam plurimi Christo jungantur ; quique jamChristi
sunt, in eo crescant et exaedificantur ; atque si nonulli deficiant, ad
pastorem Christum Dominum reducantur, et per salutarem poenitentiam
instaurentur."
De obedientia Episcopis exhibenda, cap. 11. " Oranes in ecclesia
cum pacem sectari debeant, et ad concordiam quantum licet incumbere,
episcopo qui ecclesia? praeficitur, non solum decanus, archidiaconus,
archipresbyter, et reliqui ministri parebunt, sed omnia etiam Christi
membra ejus curse coinmissa sic ad ejus se voluntatem accotnmodabunt,
ut et in his quae juxta verbum Dei praecipiunt, et in illis etiam quae
mandabunt ad Christianam disciplinam, et ad nostras ecclesiasticas
leges pertinentia, paratissime morem gerent."
De variis et multiplicibus Episcopi muneribus, cap. 12. " Verbi
Dei sanam doctrinam cum primis turn per seipsum, turn per nlios,
episcopus tradat in sua ecclesia, quanta diligentia et sedulitate fieri
potest : sacros ordines opportune tempore conferat ; sed nemini, vel
mercede conductus, vel temere rnanus imponat ; idoneos ministros ad
ecclesiastica beneficia instituat ; indignos vero, ubi graves causae ac
morum perversitas id requisierint, submoveat, et ab ecclesia; adminis-
tratione dejiciat ; ecclesia) testimonia et querelas de suis pastoribus
audiat ; rixas inter ministros et ecclesias subortas componat j vilia, et
contaminates mores, censuris ecclesiasticis corrigat ; edicta ad meliorem
vivendi formam praescribat ; eos qui pertinaciter et obstinate reluc-
tantur, excommunicet ; poenitentes vero in gratiam recipiat; diocesim
totam, tarn in locis exemptis quam non, tertio quoque anno visitet,
et consuetas procurationes accipiat : ut vero aliis temporibus, quoties
T 8
156 SERMON II.
tolical authority to the bishops, as the successors
of the Apostles, having been a doctrine held by
our reformers. In the year 1 559, at a disputation
between the Papists and Protestants at Westminster,
the latter maintained against the former, who were
anxious to lower the episcopal in favour of the
papal dignity, that "the Apostles' authority is de-
rived upon after ages, and conveyed to the Bishops,
their successors." The eminent names of Scory,
Grindal, Cox, Aylmer, Guest, Jewel, and Horn,
may be mentioned as the Protestant disputants who
maintained the above proposition. And yet we are
told that to maintain the apostolical succession is
popery ! !
It would be an easy task, and to me a pleasing
one, to give you a catena of the writings of our
reformers, and of other eminent divines, "famous in
the congregation, men of renown," on this subject;
but time forbids my doing so. 9 I would only add,
visum fuerit, visitet propter novos casus qui incidere possint, ei liberum
esto ; modo suis impensis id faciat, et nova cmera stipendiorum aut
procurationutu ab ecclesiis non exigat; statis temporibus annuatim
synodos habeat ; illi quoque sit curae ut in Catechismo instructos certo
anni tempore confirmet; testamenta quoque approbet. Et demum
orania et singula episcopis curae sunto, qua? ad eos ex Dei praescripto
spectant, et nostrse leges ecclesiasticse illorum cognitioni et judiciis
commiserunt."
9 I shall be pardoned for referring the reader to the Postscript of my
Succession of Bishops in the Church of England Unbroken, for much
additional information connected with the several documents above
quoted, pp. 69100.
SERMON II. 157
that the opinions expressed in favour of episcopacy,
clear, distinct, undeniable opinions, declarative, in
the language of archbishop Hutton, of "bishops
having their authority, not by any custom or decree
of man, but from the Apostles themselves;" that
these opinions, I say, expressed by such men as
Whitgift l , and Hutton 2 , and Bancroft 3 , and Jewel *,
1 Strype thus records the sentiments of Whitgift on the discipline of
the Church of England as set forth in her formularies : " Our
doctor, towards the latter end of his answer, gave his judgment of
this new (presbyterian) platform, (that such a stir was made to in-
troduce,) set down by the authors in the second ' admonition ;' where
they prescribe the manner of electing ministers, where they treat of
their exercises, of their equality, of the government of the Church,
&c. ' This surely,' writeth he, ' being well considered, will appear
not only a confused platform, without any sound warrant of God's
word ; but also a fantastical device, tending to the overthrow of
learning, religion, yea, the whole state of the government of the
commonwealth.' " Strype's Life of Whitgift, vol. i. p. 84. Again,
Dr. Bowden (in his letters to Miller) remarks, that " The first attack
made upon it (episcopacy) was by Cartwright and his associates, in
the year 1572, twenty-four years after the Reformation. They
published a book entitled, An Admonition to the Parliament ; the design
of which was to subvert the government of bishops. An answer was
given to this book by Dr. Whitgift, then vice-chancellor of the Uni-
versity of Cambridge. Strype says of this book, that ' it contained a
very learned and satisfactory vindication of the Church of England,
and especially of the government of it by bishops.' Some years
afterwards, Sir F. Knollys, a great puritan, complains of Whitgift,
that in this book he ' had claimed, in the right of bishops, a superi-
ority belonging to them over all the inferior clergy, from God's own
ordinance.' In 1593, Whitgift, when promoted to the see of Canter-
bury, wrote a letter to Beza, in which he expostulates with him for
intermeddling in the dispute between the Church and the puritans.
In that letter he says, ' We make no doubt, but the episcopal degree,
158 SERMON II.
and those to whom I have previously referred as
taking an active part in drawing up our existing
which we bear, is an institution apostolic and divine ; and so hath
always been held by a continual course of times, from the Apostles to
this very age of ours.' Again, ' You may remember, learned Sir,
the beginnings of that episcopacy, which you make to be only of
human institution, are referred by the Fathers, with one mouth, to
the Apostles, as the authors thereof; and that the bishops were ap-
pointed as successors of the Apostles ; especially in certain points of
their function. And what Aaron was to his sons and to the Levites,
this the bishops were to the priests and deacons ; and so esteemed of
the Fathers to be by Divine institution.' " Bowden's Apostolic Origin
of Episcopacy asserted, p. 58.
2 The following is extracted from Strype's Life of Archbishop
Whitgift: "In this interim (A.D. 1589,) while the calling of bishops
and their authority, as founded upon Scripture, was so much opposed
as contrary thereunto ; a very learned discourse was seasonably made,
in conference with the lord- treasurer and secretary Walsingham, the
Queen's two great counsellors of state, at their motion, by Hutton,
bishop of Durham, a man well studied in divinity, and sometime the
public professor of that faculty in Cambridge immediately before
Whitgift ; and for whom the said Whitgift, now archbishop, had a
great esteem for his learning. Those two great men, for their own
satisfaction, heard that bishop discourse accurately this and some other
points, mightily now-a-days insisted on by puritans. An account
whereof the said bishop wrote soon after, in the month of October,
to his friend the said archbishop, which is well worthy the recording
in history. This discourse consisted of three heads. 1 . Concerning
the judicial law of Moses. 2. The authority of a prince in causes
ecclesiastical. 3. The authority and lawfulness of bishops. This
bishop being at court, the lord-treasurer had his company in his
private chamber to dinner ; where none was present but himself, the
secretary, and the bishop. There designedly these two statesmen, for
their better satisfaction, desired to hear what that well-learned and
grave man could say on those greatly contested arguments. His
resolutions whereof, as himself penned them down in his letter, dated
from York to the archbishop, being somewhat long, I have reposited
SERMON II. 159
formularies, together with those of Bucer 3 , and
Beza 6 , and Calvin 7 , and Luther 8 , and Melancthon 9 ,
in the Appendix. Wherein we may see and understand what were
the judgments of the bishops of the realm, and the learnedest divines
in those times nearest the reformation of this Church ; and so best
knew the true constitution of it." Book iii. ch. 24.
In the Appendix of Records and Originals, no. 44, book iii., we
have an account of this ' discourse ' in a letter from Bishop Hutton to
archbishop Whitgift. The following extract refers to the question
before us : " The third question was, of the authority and warrant
of a bishop. My answer was, Hujus rei gratia reliqui te in Creta, ut
quce desuut pergas corrigere, &c. Tit. i. Also, Adversus presbyterum ne
accipias accusationem, &c. 1 Tim. v. Here is the chief office of a bishop
set down ; to appoint and constitute priests in parishes, and to amend
things amiss in the Church. Whereby it appears, that both Titus and
Timothy did exercise the office of bishops. Therefore both Hierom
and Eusebius affirm that they were bishops, the one of Crete, and the
other of Ephesus. And, albeit, that it cannot be denied, but that
these names, episcopus and presbyter, in the New Testament, are often
used for one thing, for priests and ministers of the word and sacraments ;
as, Acts xx. St Paul sent from Miletus for the priests that were at
Ephesus ; and speaking unto them, he called them bishops ; Attendite
vobis, et universo gregi, in quo vos posuit Spiritus Sanctus episcopos.
Whom before St. Luke calleth elders or priests, St. Paul calleth
bishops. Likewise, Tit. i., first he calls them priests ; Ut constituas
oppidatim presbyteros : then he calls them bishops ; Oportet enim
episcopum irreprehensibilem esse ; also in the first to the Philippians,
he saluteth ' the saints at Philippi,' together with ' the bishops and
deacons.' Bishops in this place do signify elders or priests. For it is
not like that there were many bishops in that one city at that time,
as the word doth now signify. Yet it is certain, that there was an
office in the Apostles' time, which Titus and Timothy did exercise,
which was distinct from the office of them who had only authority
to preach and minister the sacraments, but not to appoint priests and
censure offenders. No ; by a general Council of all the Church,
they which do execute the same office which Titus and Timothy did,
by the appointment of the Apostles, are called episcopi, the other are
160 SERMON II.
and Fox 1 , and other eminent divines 2 , in the earlier
period of the Reformation ; and of similar opinions
called presbytery or sacerdotes ; and since the Apostles' times, have
been distinct, both name and office. And this was done in schismatis
remedium, as Hierom said upon the epistle to Titus, and in an epistle
that he writeth to Evagrius. In which, albeit he confoundeth the
names, yet liketh he well of the distinction of the offices. For as
Christ is apostolus, Heb. iii. ; and episcopus, 1 Pet. ii. ; and St. Peter
doth call himself presbyter, 1 Pet. v. ; and St. Hierom saith, that St.
John the Evangelist and Apostle calleth himself presbyter in his two
last epistles, (for there he seemeth to ascribe those epistles to John
the Apostle,) yet may we not confound the offices of elder or priest,
bishop and apostle.
"I alleged, last of all, that Epiphanius, writing against Aerius,
concludeth it for a heresy to say, Idem est episcopus et presbyter.
And he allegeth against that heretic and that heresy, some of those
places I cited before, to prove that they are distinct offices. He
addeth, furthermore, that presbyter gignit filios, meaning, by preach-
ing the Gospel ; but episcopus gignit patres, meaning, that he doth
appoint presbyters unto the Church, which were Fathers."
Again, we have " The opinion of Matthew Hutton, archbishop of
York, touching certain matters, like to be brought in question before
the King's most excellent Majesty, at the conference at court," written,
October 9, Imo. Jacobi, to the archbishop of Canterbury: "Whereas
indeed bishops have their authority, not by any custom or decree of
man, but from the Apostles themselves, as Epiphanius proveth
plainly against Aerius the heretic ; who, being a proud man, because
he could not get to be bishop himself, thought that idem est episcopus
et presbyter. With this opinion St. Augustine doth charge that
heretic, in his book De Hceresibun, Ad quod vult Deum. But Epipha-
nius doth show the difference to be, not only because the bishop hath
authority over the priests, but because the presbyter begetteth children
to the Church by preaching and baptizing ; the bishop begetteth
fathers to the Church by giving of orders. Hujus rei gratia reliqui te
in Creta, ut qua desunt pergas corrigere ; covstituas oppidatim presby-
teros, &c. And so it hath continued in the Church ever since."
Appendix, no. 44. book iv.
SERMON II. 161
maintained by such giant theologians as Bilson, and
Hooker, and Andrews, and Hall, and Bramhall, and
3 That Bancroft maintained the Divine right of Episcopacy, may
be learned from the following extract : " About this time (A.D. 1588,)
the better to complete the work for throwing down bishops, a written
tract, (for I think it was not printed,) was cunningly framed by some
of the party against the superiority of bishops over other ministers ;
built upon a political foundation, as striking at the Queen's authority :
this book was put into Sir Francis Knollys' hands, a privy-councillor,
to manage at court for the party. It bore this title, Touching the
Superiority of Bishops, with a Syllogism , and an Answer to the same,
and a Reply thereunto.
"This tract was occasioned by a sermon preached January 12th,
1588, in the city [and, as it seems, at St. Paul's] by Dr. Bancroft, the
archbishop's chaplain, the author of England's Scottizing, and of
A Survey of the Pretended Discipline, a notable antagonist of the
disciplinarians. In which sermon the preacher was charged to maintain,
that the bishops of England had superiority over their inferior
brethren, jure divino, and directly from God. For the preaching of
this sermon, I am apt to believe he had the instructions of the arch-
bishop, to meet with these loud clamours that were now-a-days made
against the sacred calling of the English bishops." Strype's Life of
Whitgift, vol. i. p. 558.
4 The following is " the judgment of that reverend Father, Jewel,
some time bishop of Sarum, on this assertion, Archiepiscoporum et
archidiaconorum nomina, simul cum muneribus et officiis suis, sunt abolenda.
How know you that the fourth chapter ad Ephes. is a perfect pattern
of all ecclesiastical government ? We have now neither Apostles, nor
evangelists, nor prophets, and yet are they the chief in that pattern.
Neither have we there either bishop or presbyter, or diaconus, or
catechista, or lector. And yet are these necessary parts in ecclesias-
tical government. Therefore that pattern is not perfect to hold for
ever. The Church is not governed by names but by offices. Every
bishop then was called papa. And Anacletus, that was next after
Peter, (if there be any weight in his words,) nameth archbishops."
Again, " In the primitive Church God raised up Apostles and pro-
U
162 SERMON II.
Mede, and Hammond, and Taylor, and Beveridge,
and by numerous other "burning and shining lights,"
phets, and gave them power extraordinary, as the gift of tongues, the
gift of healing, the gift of government, &c., in place whereof, He hath
given now bishops, archbishops, &c." Bishop Jewel was also one of
the disputants on the Protestant side at the controversy at Westmin-
ster, in 1559, to which I have already referred. (See p. 156.)
5 Speaking of Sampson's allusion to Bucer in his letter to the lord-
treasurer, praying for a reformation in Church government, Strype
says, " If he meant (as he seemeth to do) that the regiment of the
Church was to be reformed by laying aside bishops and their superi-
ority, and setting in the room thereof an equality of ministers, Bucer
is evidently against him : who, in the said book, (De Regno Christi,*)
propounding to King Edward VI. that religion might be restored, and
the Church of Christ be planted and watered with fit ministers, writes
thus : ' Nunc ex perpetua ecclesiarum observatione, ab ipsis jam
apostolis, videmus, visum et hoc esse Spiritui Sancto, ut inter
presbyteros, quibus ecclesiarum procuratio est commissa, unus
ecclesiarum, et totras sacri ministerii curam gerat singularem ;
eaque cura et solicitudine cunctis praeeat aliis. Qua de causa epis-
copi nomen hujusmodi summis ecclesiarum curatoribus est pe-
culiariter attributum.' (De Regno Christi, cap. 12. p. 98.) And
again, ' Hi enim, sicut dignitate et demandata primaria ecclesiarum
solicitudine, reliquos omnes sacri ministerii ordines antecedunt, ita
debent etiam voluntate et studio,' &c. (Ibid. p. 99.) He speaks also
in the same chapter in approbation of the three orders in the ministry,
viz. of bishops, priests, and deacons. Nor hath he a word of laying
aside the episcopal and ecclesiastical officers, viz. chancellors, officials,
commissaries, proctors, &c., only advising, (that the bishops might not
be distracted with other business, but that they might wholly give them-
selves to the promoting of religion,) that they should have vicars and
others of their clergy to assist them, and to take care of other necessary
affairs belonging to them." Annals of the Ref. vol. ii. pt. l.p. 395.
" He who I conceive may be suffered to speak next is one very well
known in England, and England likewise was very well known to
him ; one whom Calvin judged capable of doing great service to this
Church, and whom therefore he will gladly hear upon the question
propounded ; and that is Martin Bucer, the German, a person of much.
SERMON II. 163
are not to be rejected on account of the ignorant
sneer of any modern theological tyro ; and well
learning, of exemplary piety, and of great wisdom and moderation.
" A part of clerical discipline is the special subjection of clergymen,
" by which those that are of an inferior degree and ministry do submit
" themselves to them who are of an higher order and place. This part
" of discipline our Lord hath taught us, and that by his own exam-
" pie ; who intending to make his disciples the doctors of the elect of
" God throughout all the world, gave them a peculiar power for the
" execution of that office, having first fitted them for it, as it were,
" by a domestical discipline. The Apostles likewise, in imitation of
" their Master, had each of them their own Disciples, which they did
" teach and prepare for the right performing of the sacred ministry.
" For every profession, or peculiar manner of living with more strict-
" ness than others, doth require likewise a peculiar doctrine, institution,
" and oversight, as may be seen in the very study of Philosophy and
" Military Discipline : which Lycurgus considering, he so ordered the
"commonwealth of Sparta, as Xenophon witnesseth, that there was no
" rank or order in it but had its proper and peculiar Magistracy. Plato
"likewise requireth in his Book, "De legibus et Republicd" that by no
" means Citizens be suffered without some power over them to keep
" them in order. Hence it is also that our Lord, requiring His Dis-
" ciples to join together and adhere to each other in the same
" manner that the members of the Body are joined and knit toge-
" ther, doth subject every one of his to some other, to be by them
" kept, moved and governed, as by members of ampler and greater
" power and efficacy. The Holy Ghost giveth the same rule, " Submit
"yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Eph. v. "Wherefore
" the Holy Fathers, taking all these things into consideration, did
" institute of old such an order among the Clergy, that by means
" thereof, all other Clerks were to be under the special tuition and
"government of the Presbytery. And among the Priests, as the
" Consul among the Senators of the Commonwealth, so the Bishop
" had the chiefest care of and power over, not only that whole Church,
" but more specially all the Clergy of what order or degree soever :
" and Bishops they set up in all those Churches that were numerous.
" And they committed to the charge of every one of such Churches
U 9
164 SERMON II.
may we say, in the language of Whitgift to Cart-
wright, " now let the indifferent reader judge,
" the neighbour congregations that were in less towns and villages,
" ordering the Priests and Curates thereof, whom they called Chorepis-
" copi, to obey all and every of them, the Bishop and Presbytery, that
" were nearest unto them. And those chiefest Bishops did use to call
" them together, from time to time, with their whole clergy, giving them
" instruction, and exhorting them to be careful in performing the duty
" of their place and calling. Moreover they ordered that Metropo-
" litans, (these were the Bishops of the chief city in every Province,)
" should call Synods, and be the Presidents of them ; wherefore they
" committed to these Metropolitan Bishops in a manner the charge of
" all the Churches of their Provinces ; to the end that, if they knew
" any thing to be done or ordered amiss, either by the Ministers of the
" churches or the people, they might admonish them thereof in due
" time ; and if they could not prevail to have those things mended
" by their admonitions, that then they should call a synod of bishops
" to see them corrected. For they had no authority to exercise any
"jurisdiction of themselves in those churches which had their own
'bishops. For the bishop and presbytery of every church hadallman-
" ner of jurisdiction over the people and clergy ; and as for the bishops
" themselves they were judged by the synod. Wherefore, when any
" were to be ordained bishops of churches, it was appointed, that the
" metropolitan, together with all the bishops of his province, (if that
" could be done with the conveniency of the churches,) or with some
" of them, at least two or three, should resort to the church where
" the new bishop was to be ordained ; there to order and direct the
" election of the bishop, (if it was yet to be done,) or to confirm the
" same, if it were made before, and to enquire with all possible ex-
"actness into the life and doctrine of the bishop elect; and then,
" lastly, after all that, to consecrate him to the office of a bishop.
" Further, when the world was filled with Christian churches, and
" even the metropolitans themselves stood in need that some should
" take the charge of them ; for when they became many in number,
" they had not all of them that wisdom and vigilance which belonged
" to their place (there being always but few that are choice and
" excellent in every order of men) ; the charge of a certain number
SERMON II. 165
whether these offices of Bishop, Priest and Deacon,
be strange and unheard of 3 in the Church of
"of provinces was committed to some bishop, viz: to those of the
" chiefest churches, as to the bishop of Rome, and to those of Con-
" stantinople,Antioch, Alexandria, and after to the Bishop of Neoccesarea,
" and some others, as the exigencies of the churches did seem to re-
" quire it, according as they did grow in number and were multiplied.
" At last, the Bishop of Rome obtained the title of Universal Bishop,
" under the Empire of Phocas, which title the Bishops of that See
" did by little and little begin to abuse daily more and more ; till
" finding an opportunity (first by the division of the Empire under
" Charlemaine, and afterwards by the dissensions of princes and
" nations, through which they broke the power of the emperors of the
"west and other kings) they raised themselves to that height of
" antichristian power, wherein they so much pride themselves at this
" day ; having depressed the lawful power, first of other bishops, and
" afterwards of all kings and emperors themselves. Thus therefore
" was it that the devil overthrew all wholesome subjection and
" government in the clergy. But being it is altogether necessary
" that every one of the clergy have their keepers and governors, the
" authority, power, and also the vigilancy and discipline, not only
" of bishops, but likewise of archdeacons, and also of all others, by
" what name soever they be called, who have any part in the over-
" sight and government of the clergy, is to be restored ; that so there
" may be none whatsoever in that order, without some superior to
" have an eye over him and to keep him in obedience."
"Thus much Bucer of Church- Government. Do but give him
audience, and you will hear him speak as much to the purpose in all
the rest, and he will hardly leave untouched any of the questions in
debate." Durel's Government in the Reformed Churches beyond the
&?05,Tpp. 21520, &c.
G " Beza, supposes as positively as Calvin had done, that there were
none who did oppose the episcopal hierarchy without such an uni-
versal head now upon earth, or that opposed the order of episcopacy ;
and condemns them as madmen, if any such could be found. For
thus says he, ' If there .be any (which you shall hardly persuade me
166 SERMON II.
Christ:" fearlessly may we assert, in the language
of Mosheim, that the Church of England 4 has
to believe) who reject the whole order of episcopacy, God forbid that
any man in his wits should assent to the madness of such men.'
" And particularly as to the Church of England, and her hierarchy
of archbishops and bishops, he says, that he never meant to oppugn
any thing of that, but calls it a ' singular blessing of God, and wishes
that she may ever enjoy it.'
" So that our modern presbyterians are disarmed of the precedent of
Calvin, Beza, and all the reformers abroad, by whose sentence they
are anathematized, and counted as madmen." Leslie's Works, vol. vii.
p. 181.
" Let Beza be heard, a man of as great ability and fame as ever
Geneva had, Calvin only excepted ; who, notwithstanding his writings
against Hadrianus Saravia about episcopacy, accounts it no less than
madness to reject all the order of Bishops ; and ' God forbid, 11 (saith
he,) ' that any man, who is not distracted, should be of that mind. 1 Nay,
he did not believe that there were any such men to be found ; which
shews what opinion he would have had of them, who of late years
set up in Churches, instead of the Ten Commandments, Public Tables,
upon which was written a Covenant for abolishing all the Hierarchy
of the Church of England, with Texts of Scripture and remarkable
passages and examples of God's judgments against Covenant-breakers :
as if a conjuration against the Ministers of Christ were the covenan t
of God, which the godly are bound to keep and maintain upon pain
of the eternal damnation of their souls. In the same treatise he hath
these words. ' If the Church of England after her restoration, doth
maintain itself, and is upheld by the authority of her Bishops and Arch-
bishops ; as we remember that she hath had not only signal Martyrs of
God, but likewise most excellent Pastors and Doctors amongst the
persons of that order, let her enjoy, by all means, that singular benefit
of God, and God grant it be perpetual unto her.' This was written by
him after the death of Queen Mary. And in a letter to Archbishop
Whitgift, as is related in his Grace's life written by Sir George Paul,
Comptroller of his household, printed by Thomas Snodham, London,
anno 1612, he speaks thus. 'In my writings touching the Church
SERMON II. 167
" constantly insisted on the Divine origin of its
government and discipline."
Government, I ever impugned the Romish hierarchy, but never intended
to touch or impugn the Ecclesiastical Polity of the Church of England,
nor to exact of you to frame yourselves or your church to the pattern of
our presbyterian discipline.
l As long as the substance of doctrine is uniform in the Church of
Christ, we may lawfully vary in other matters, as the circumstance of
time, place, and persons requireth, and as prescriptions of antiquity
may warrant. And to that end I wish and hope that the sacred and
holy college of your bishops will for ever continue, and maintain such
their right and title in the Church Government, with all equity and
Christian moderation.''
" This he wrote from Geneva, March 8, anno 1591.
" By the way, I will give this caution on these words of Beza, to all
them of this church and nation of what persuasion soever they be j
that when they read any book of controversy written by the foreign
divines of the reformed churches against the church of Rome, they
do not suffer themselves to be deceived by this fallacy, A dicto se-
cundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter, by which an author is thought
simply and absolutely to approve or condemn, what he doth condemn
or approve in part, and only in relation to some abuse or other thing.
For example, you will find in the writings of some of them many
things against holy days ; unless you take heed of the fallacy, if you
are an obedient son of the Church of England, you will be scandalized ;
and if you are one of the new reformation, you will catch at that as
if they did altogether reject holy days, as simply evil and unlawful
in themselves ; whereas they mean only to impugn the abuses of them,
viz. the praying to saints, the opinion of meriting by keeping holy
days, &c. So of Episcopacy, the point 1 treat of now, you will see
most of them inveigh against prelates ; and here again you will be
affected according to the pre-occupation of your mind. But observe
what Beza saith of himself, that he impugneth only the Romish
Hierarchy, but never intended to touch or impugn the ecclesiastical
polity of the Church of England ; and take it as if said by all others :
or if you find anything by them written, that may be thought to thwart
our church government, which you will never or very seldom find, be
168 SERMON II.
And " how much are we of the Church of Eng-
land bound," (in the language of Bishop Beveridge, 5 )
sure it is either upon mis-information, or only out of some particular
caprice, in both which they deserve to be very much blamed, as indeed
they are by all other moderate understanding men amongst them.
Durel's Government in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, p.
167.
7 " How Calvin stood affected in the said point of episcopacy, and
how readily and gladly he and other heads of the reformed Churches
would have received it, is evident enough from his writings and
epistles. In his book, Of the Necessity of reforming the Church, he
hath these words : Talem nobis hierarchiam exhibeant, &c. ' Let them
give us such an hierarchy, in which bishops may be so above the rest,
as they refuse not to be under Christ, and depend upon Him as their
only Head ; that they maintain a brotherly society, &c. If there be
any that do not behave themselves with all reverence and obedience
towards them, there is no anathema, but I confess them worthy of it.'
But especially his opinion of episcopacy is manifested from a letter
he and Bullinger and others, learned men of that sort, wrote, anno
1549, to King Edward the Sixth, offering to make him their defender,
and to have bishops in their Churches, for better unity and concord
among them : as may be seen in Archbishop Cranmer's memorials ;
and likewise by a writing of Archbishop Abbot, found among the
MSS. of Archbishop Usher ; which for the remarkableness of it, and
the mention of archbishop Parker's papers, I shall here set down.
" ' Perusing some papers of our predecessor, Matthew Parker, we
find that John Calvin, and others of the Protestant Churches of Ger-
many and elsewhere, would have had episcopacy, if permitted : but
could not upon several accounts ; partly fearing the other princes of
the Roman Catholic faith would have joined with the emperor and the
rest of the popish bishops, to have depressed the same j partly being
newly reformed, and not settled, they had not sufficient wealth to
support episcopacy, by reason of their daily persecutions. Another
and a main cause was, they would not have any popish hands laid over
their clergy. And whereas John Calvin had sent a letter in King
Edward the Sixth's reign, to have conferred with the clergy of England
SERMON II. 169
to acknowledge the goodness, and to praise, mag-
nify, and adore the name of the most High God,
about some things to this effect, two bishops, viz. Gardiner and Boner'
intercepted the same : whereby Mr. Calvin's offerture perished. And
he received an answer, as if it had been from the reformed divines of
those times ; wherein they checked him, and slighted his proposals :
from which time John Calvin and (he Church of England were at
variance in several points ; which otherwise, through God's mercy,
had been qualified, if those papers of his proposals had been discovered
unto the Queen's Majesty during John Calvin's life. But being not
discovered until or about the sixth year of her Majesty's reign, her
Majesty much lamented they were not found sooner : which she
expressed before her Council at the same time, in the presence of her
great friends, Sir Henry Sidney, and Sir William Cecil.' " Strype's
Life of Archbishop Parker, vol. i. p. 139. As the opinions of Calvin
are frequently adduced by the opponents to episcopacy, in support of
their own views, I beg the reader's attention to the following important
and interesting extract from Durel's View of the Government and
public worship of God in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas,
(page 161) in which he proves that Calvin was no enemy to episcopacy.
" I must confess that for a time, hearing some men among us speak of
Calvin as if he were entirely theirs, and as if he consented altogether
with them about Church-government, I was in the same error with
those that take him to be the great champion of presbyterian parity,
against hierarchical subordination. But having perused most of his
works, specially those where it is most likely that he should treat of
this point, I have been otherwise persuaded, not finding anywhere the
least word against the office of a bishop. And for all that I have
either read of or in him, or seen produced out of his writings, I am of
this mind, that episcopacy was the government that he approved most, and
that he took it to be, as it is undoubtedly, of Apostolical Institution ;
though his opinion was that the Church, according to her exigencies in
relation to places, times, and other circumstances, may dispense with it.
This passage of his in that epistle he writ to Cardinal Sadolet, I con-
ceive to be to that purpose. " We deny not that we want a discipline,
such as the ancient Church had. But can they in justice accuse us to
have overthrown the discipline of the Church, who are the only men that
X
170 SERMON II.
in that we are born, and bred, and still live in a
Church wherein the apostolical line hath, through
have altogether abolished it, and who, when we endeavoured to restore
the same, have hitherto opposed that work ? But as for doctrine we
are willing to be tried by the ancient church." In these words he
grants that the presbyterian discipline is new, which the lovers of it
amongst us deny. And that, whereas he and his colleagues were willing
to restore the same discipline that was in use in the primitive church
(which can be no other than the episcopal, if the presbyterian be
not it) the church of Rome, by her oppositions and persecutions, put
an obstacle to that good work.
" Calvin writes another epistle, which is to be found in the volume
of his Opuscula, to an old friend of his who was become a bishop in the
church of Rome. In which epistle, though it is very prolix, he doth
not speak one word against the office of a bishop, but only against the
sundry abuses thereof in the Romish Church. Nay, he is so far from
blaming it, that it appears he did rather hold it not only lawful, but (as
I said even now) of Apostolical and Divine Institution. He telleth
him in one place, that ' episcopacy itself proceeded from God,' that it
was ' constituted by the authority of God,' and ' ordered by God's laws.'
' Art thou,' saith he, ' created a bishop ? The Apostle Paul is presently
upon thee with his exhortation ; Take heed to thyself and to thy
ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.,
And aaain, f Since thou holdest both the name and the place of a bishop ,
thou hast engaged thy faith to the ohurch. If thou askest me what
opinion I have of thee and of thy place and order, I will answer, that I
take thee for any thing rather than for a bishop, seeing upon thee not
one of those colours which set forth at least in some part a true bishop.
But nevertheless, saith he, thou art not free from that promise which
thou hast made before God and men, upon thy oath.' He tells him
again, in another place, that as Paul did think himself a debtor to all
those to whom he was sent an Apostle, he doth not see but that he was
as much engaged unto them whose bishop he was. And so all along. And
after he hath represented unto him the office of a bishop, he concludes
with these words, ' Wherefore thou oughtest either to do that which
thouseest to be the duty of a bishop, or thou must quit the place of a
bishop.' Certainly, if Calvin had been an enemy to episcopacy, and that
SERMON II.
171
all ages, been preserved entire ; there having been a
constant succession of such Bishops in it as were
he had held it for an office not to be suffered in the church of Christ, the
only good and Christian-like advice he would have given to this ancient
friend should have been this, to leave forthwith his bishoprick, and give
over his episcopal power as unlawful, and not compatible with true piety.
In his ' Institution of Christian Religion likewise, where according to
his design he was to speak against episcopacy, if he had thought it
unlawful, he hath not one word, out of which one may guess that he
did so much as dislike it. And were it not very strange that Calvin,
writing against all the corruptions and abuses that he saw and conceived
to be crept into the Christian church, should not so much as touch
that of episcopacy, if he had been of the same opinion with Smectymnuus
and other Presbyterians, who declared, " that they may not lawfully
any longer be subject unto bishops, nor obey their injunctions?
" In his epistle to the king of Poland, he not obscurely approves of
all the degrees of the hierarchy of the ancient Church, even to Patri-
archs ; and he giveth the king to understand, that he would be well
satisfied if his Majesty should establish the same hierarchical subordi-
nation in his dominions. ' The ancient Church, saith he, did institute
patriarchs, and attributed also certain Primacies to each province, to the
end that bishops might better preserve union among themselves by this
bond of concord', as if now there were an Archbishop over the whole
illustrious kingdom of Poland, not to lord it over the other bishops,
or to take away their right from them and assume it to himself, but
who, for order's sake, should hold the first place in Synods, and main-
tain an holy unity between his colleagues and brethren. And besides if
there were bishops over the provinces or towns, Sfc.'
" In one of his epistles, where he satisfieth them who propounded this
question, ' What is to be done with a bishop that shall join himself to
the reformed churches ; Si Episcopus vel curatus ad Ecclesiam se ad-
junxerit ;" his answer is, not that he must give over his authority and
episcopal jurisdiction, and become as one of the meanest priests and
persons of his diocese ; but ' that such a bishop's part is to do his
utmost, that all the parishes that belong to his bishoprick be purged
from all manner of errors and idolatrous worship, shewing himself a
pattern to all the curates of his diocese, and inducing them to admit
172 SERMON II.
truly and properly successors to the Apostles, by
virtue of that apostolical imposition of hands, which,
that Reformation to which we are invited by the word of God; and
which altogether correspondeth to the state and practice of the primitive
Church.' That is, he must continue still to be a bishop as formerly.
In another of his epistles, he speaks of the prebends and clergy of
Collen, as blaming them for their endeavouring to put their arch-
bishop out of his place, who had declared for reformation ; and
writing to Johannes Ithavius, a Polonian bishop, whom he calleth
Illustrious, and Reverend Lord Bishop, he doth not advise him to leave
his episcopacy, but to consider what place he holdeth, and what
burden is imposed upon him. ' Cogita quern locum occupes, et quod
onus tibi sit impositum.'
" Now I hope it will not be expected that Calvin, who would have
bishops and archbishops in Poland, in Germany, and other countries,
wheresoever any shall profess true Christianity, should be so unjust
to those of the Church of England, as to wish them cut off root and
branch (as the saying was of some men not long since) to requite
their pains and sufferings for the work of reformation amongst us.
Calvin was a man of better nature and of a more Christian disposition,
and he hath more kindness and respect for our prelates, than to
use them so hardly. There is extant in the collection of his epistles,
a very long one directed to the Duke of Somerset, Lord Protector
of England, in King Edward the Sixth's minority. The Protector
had consulted him about reformation of religion in this church of
ours. Had Calvin been an enemy to episcopal government ; had
his intention been to propagate the Geneva discipline in other
Churches and countries ; had he been a zealot of presbyterian parity ;
had he but judged it more conducible to true piety and good order
in the Church ; the occasion offered itself very fair for him to speak
his mind, and to do the Church of Christ service. And we all know
what a Scotch or English Covenanter would have done, having such
an opportunity of propagating the Solemn League. But it seems
that Calvin had never taken the Covenant. For though he speaks
very freely his mind, according to his custom, on every thing that he
is not satisfied with, he hath not one word against bishops: But
supposing that they ought to continue and to keep their place and
SERMON II. 173
being begun by the Apostles, hath been con-
tinued from one to another ever since their time
degree (as well as other inferior ministers,) in this Church, when tho-
roughly reformed, he saith only, ' That they must all of them be
sworn, the bishops themselves as well as the rectors of every parish, to
deliver no other doctrine in their sermons but such as is contained in the
Articles of religion ; and that none, whether bishops or curates, must be
admitted to the functions of their ecclesiastical office, but such as take
that oath.' 1 And as for a certain sort of unruly men (whom he doth
not name, but only describes as 'seditious and heady, who did rise against
the King and the established orders of the kingdom, endeavouring to
bring a confusion into all things, under the pretence of the gospel ,' and
which are easily known who they were by this description) he saith,
' It is Jit they should be kept under obedience with the avenging sword,
as well as the Papists who were their confederates in sedition. 1 Calvin's
Epistles to Archbishop Cranmer, and other bishops of the church of
England, are known, where he gives them their ordinary titles. He
calleth the Archbishop, ' Reverend Lord,' ' most Illustrious Prelate,'
and ' a person by him to be reverenced' And he speaks to ' his Grace,'
as to a person whom God hath set in an high place, so that it is re-
quired that he should take a greater care of the Church than others.
' Tibi prcesertim, ornatissime Prcesul, quo altiore in specula sedes, in hanc
curam, ut fads, incumbere nccesse est.' He telleth him in another place,
that though all such as are to govern the Church, ought to endeavour
speedily to settle ecclesiastical affairs, yet he must remember that his
part is to be the chiefest; ' Oportet ut tamen precipuce sint tuce partes,'
because he was the Primate. ' You see,' saith he, ' what your place
requireth of you, or rather what God doth justly require of, you, by
reason of the office he hath put upon you.' ' Vides quid locus isle
postulet, vel magis quid, pro muneris quod tibi injunxit ratione, abs te
suo jure exigat Deus. Summa est in te authoritas, you have the greatest
authority.' If this be not a full acknowledgment of Episcopal pre-
eminence, I know not what it is. But this one passage of his in the
' Treatise of the necessity of Church Reformation,' is more than suf-
ficient to convince the world that he was no enemy to Episcopacy,
against all those who either think or would have him to be so.
" Talcm nobis hierarchiam si exhibeant, in qua sic emincant episcopi,
174 SERMON II.
down to ours 6 . By which means the same Spirit
which was breathed by our Lord into His Apostles
ut Christo subesse non recusent; ut ab illo tanquam unico capite
pendeant, et ad ipsum referantur; in qua sic inter se fraternam
societatem colant, ut non olio modo quam ejus veritate sint colligati :
turn vero nullo non anathemate dignos fatear, siqui erunt qui non earn
revereantur, summaque obedientia observent.' ' If they will give MS,'
(saith he,) ' such an Hierarchy, in which the Bishops have such a
pre-eminence, as that they do not refuse to be subject unto Christ, and
depend on him, and be referred unto him, as their only head : in which
they entertain such a brotherly fellowship, as that the bond of their union
be the truth of Christ ; then surely if any be found who do not reverence
that Hierarchy, and subject themselves unto the same ivith the lowest
obedience, I will confess that there is no Anathema whereof they are not
worthy." Now judge impartially, and say, whether Calvin be a Pres-
byterian ; and whether the Reformed Church of Geneva, that speaks
by his mouth, is an enemy to Reformed Bishops, such as are the
Bishops of England. Durel's Government in the Reformed Churches
beyond the Seas,pip. 161-6.
8 (Page 159) " As to Luther, he professes, that if the ' popish bishops
would cease to persecute the Gospel,' he and those of his communion
' would acknowledge them as their fathers, and willingly obey their
authority, which, (says he,) we find supported by the word of God.
Consequently, ha his and their opinion, episcopacy was an apostolic
institution," See Bowden on Episcopacy, p. 66.
In connection with Luther's name the following extract from Durel
may be interesting. " It is said that the reformed Churches beyond
the seas, take those things in which they differ from the reformed
Church of England to be sinful, and that therefore they would have
her conform to them. This I deny. And first of all, I demand of them
that say so, what proof they have for what they thus give out ? Can
they bring any article of the public Confession of Faith of any reformed
Church, whether of the Bohemians, or Poles and Lithuanians ; or of
Hungaria, and Transylvania ; or of the cities of Bremen and Embdem ;
or of Hessen, or the Palatinate ; or of the reformed Churches that
are in the Elector of Brandenburgh his dominions ; or in either of the
Silesias, or of the Cantons of Switzerland ; or of Holland, France,
SERMON II. 175
is, together with their office, transmitted to their
lawful successors, the pastors and governors of our
Geneva, and the Grisons ? Can they shew us any of their Ecclesias-
tical Injunctions, or any Rubrick of their books of Common Prayer, or
of any other of their Libri Symbolici, wherein the received opinions
of the several Churches of the aforenamed countries are contained and
made public to the world ; by which it appears that they would have
us conform to them in those things in which we differ from them, as
they do themselves one from another, and that they take conformity
therein with us to be a sin ? If no such thing can be produced out
of any public record whatsoever, upon what ground do they presume
so to say, and so to write in so many printed books, to the great
prejudice of peace and truth, and of their own credit and honesty ?"
Durel's Government in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, p. 61.
9 (Page 159) "And Melancthon, one of the greatest characters among
the reformed, ' lays the blame on the cruelty of the popish bishops, that
that canonical polity was destroyed, which (saith he) we so earnestly
desire to preserve :' and bids the papists consider ' what account they
will render to God for thus scattering His Church.' " Bowden, p. 67.
" Would to heaven (again says Melancthon) that I could not only
not enfeeble the power of bishops, but establish their dominion ; for I
see but too well what sort of a Church we are likely to have, if we
demolish ecclesiastical government ; I am sure that the tyranny we
have escaped (viz. that of Rome) will then be nothing to that which
we shall see established." (Seward, vol. iii. p. 129.) "How truly
(remarks Archdeacon Daubeny) this prophecy of Melancthon was
verified in the succeeding century in this country, when, as the late
amiable and pious Bishop Home has expressed it, ' the little finger of
presbytery proved to be thicker than the loins of prelacy,' forms too
conspicuous a page in our history to require being pointed out. " Now
hear Melancthon and the prince of Anhalt for the Churches which
follow the Confession of Augsburgh. Melancthon is known to be the
author of that confession ; there he professes that the churches which
had subscribed to it, did not desire that the Bishops should lose their
dignity for peace-sake : " Non petunt Ecclesice ut Episcopi Honoris sui
jacturd sarciant concordiam." And again, " Nunc non id agitur, ut
dominatio eripiatur Episcopis, sed hoc unum petitur, ut patientur Evan-
176 SERMON II.
Church at this time ; and acts, moves, and assists
at the administration of the several parts of the
gelium pure doceri, et relaxent paucas quasdam observationes quce sine
peccato servari non possunt." " The business in agitation now is not
that the authority be taken from the bishops, but only this one thing
is demanded, that they suffer the gospel to be purely taught, and that
they dispense with some observations which cannot be kept without
sin." But let no man catch at these words, as if it were the only
thing now demanded here by some. For hear him speak his mind,
and tell us what these things are, " Facile possent Episcopi legitimam
obedientiam retinere, si non urgerent servare traditiones, quce bona consci-
entia servari non possunt. Nam imperant ccelibatum, nullos recipiunt nisi
jurent se puram Evangelii doctrinam nolle docere" " Bishops," saith
he, " might well retain the lawful obedience due to them, if they did
not urge the keeping of traditions, which cannot be observed with
a good conscience. For they impose single life, and admit none
but such as swear they will not teach the pure doctrine of the gospel."
There is no such thing here among us, where, on the contrary, none
is admitted to the ministry, but those who renounce popery, and swear
to teach the true doctrine of the gospel, according to the Thirty
Nine Articles, which have the approbation of all the reformed
Churches in the world. And it is known that Malancthon observed
all those very things which here are scrupled at, and many more of
that kind. So that it must be said that he reckoned them not amongst
things which could not then digest well with Protestants. He also
declares, " Quod liceat Episcopis sen Pastoribus facere ordinationes,
ut res ordine gerentur in Ecclesia, non ut per Ulan mereamur remissionem
peccatorum, out satisfaciamus pro peccatis, fyc" " That it is lawful
for Bishops or Pastors to make ordinances, to the end that things be
done in the Church orderly, not to merit thereby remission of sins,
or satisfie for sins, &c. And of such ordinances, (amongst which he
reckoned the keeping of the Lord's day, Easter, Pentecost, and other
Festivals,) and of Rites he saith, " Quod eas convenit Ecclesias propter
charitatem et tranquillitatem servare eatenus, ne alius alium qffendat, ut
ordine et sine tumultu omnia fiant in Ecclesiis" " That it behoveth
the Church for love and peace sake to keep the same, so far as to give
no scandal one to another ; that so all things be done in the Church
SERMON II. 177
apostolical office in our days as much as ever.
From whence it follows, that the means of grace are
orderly and without tumult." What he saith to Camerarius and to
Luther about restoring bishops in those churches where they had
been outed, and what a confusion he feared, if that should not be
done, hath been observed by many others, and is commonly known.
George, Prince of Anhalt, in the name of Protestants, speaks of the
bishops of the church of Rome as followeth, " Ac utinam ipsi sicut
nomina gerunt et tilulos, ita se reipsd prcustarent episcopos ecclesice.
Utinam sicut in ipsorum ordinations evangeliorum liber traditus et
humeris impositus est, ita huic docerent consona, ipsoque fideliter ecclesias
regerent. O quam libenter, quantaque cum cordis Icetitid, pro episcopis
ipsos habere, revereri, morem gerere, debitam jurisdictionem et ordina-
tionem eis favere, eaque sine ulla recusatione frui vellcmus" "And
would to God, that, as they bear the names and titles, so they would
shew themselves indeed bishops of the church. Would to God,
that, as in their ordination the book of the Gospel is delivered unto
them, and put upon their shoulders, so they would teach according
to the contents thereof, and by that means govern their churches
faithfully. O how willingly, and with what gladness of heart, should
we acknowledge them for bishops, reverence, and obey them, main-
tain them in their jurisdiction and ordination, and in the possession
and enjoyment of the same." And a little after, he shews how
solicitous he was to be ordained by a true orthodox bishop. " Ego
certe pium episcopum Brandeburgensem Reverendum Dominum Matthiam
de Jagau, qui puram turn doctrinam, Dei beneficio, norat et prqfitebatur,
et verum sacramentorum usumjam receperat, et manifestos in ordinatione
abusus aboleverat, per sacellanum meum D. Jacobum Styrium, ad or-
dinandum me rogavi ; ac prcsstitisset is mini officium, sicut summd cum
voluntate jam ante promiserat, nisi misericors Dcus ante tempus eum
ex Jidc evocassct vita. Nee enim erat turn in his terris, qui hoc presstaret,
Episcopus alius" "As for me, I intreated, (by my chaplain Mr. James
Styrius), the pious bishop of Brandenburg, the Reverend Lord
Matthias de Jagau, (who then knew and professed, through God's
favour, the pure doctrine, and had embraced the true use of the
sacraments, and had abolished the manifest abuses of ordination,)
that he would ordain me ; and he would have done that office for
Y
178 SERMON II.
in themselves as powerful and effectual as they were
in the Apostles' days." The Bishops and pastors of
me, as he promised before most willingly, if the merciful God had
not called him out of this life before the time. For there was then
never another Bishop in this country to do that office." Durel's
Government of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, pp. 293 5.
1 (Page 160) The following extract from Strype's Annals, will tend to
develope the opinions both of Fox and Whitgift on the subject of epis-
copacy: "I shall insert here one passage out of this book, (theMar-
tyrology,~) cited by Dr. Whitgift, occasioned by a controversy between
Dr. Cartwright and him, about the government of this Church by
archbishops and bishops, alleging Fox's judgment in that point : ' I
conclude,' saith Whitgift, ' with the very words of that worthy man,
(who hath so well deserved of this Church of England), Master Fox :
' In the ecclesiastical state we take not away the distinction of ordinary
degrees, such as by the Scripture be appointed, or by the primitive
Church allowed ; as patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, ministers, and
deacons. For of these four we especially read as chief. In which
four degrees, as we grant diversity of office, so we admit in the same
also diversity of dignity, neither denying that which is due to each
degree, neither yet maintaining the ambition of any singular person.
For, as we give to the minister place above the deacon, to the bishop
above the minister, to the archbishop above the bishop, so we
see no cause of inequality, why one minister should be above
another minister, one bishop in his degree above another bishop,
to deal in his diocese, or an archbishop above another archbishop.
And this is to keep an order duly and truly in the Church, according
to the truth, nature, and definition of order, by the authority of
Augustine ; Ordo est parium dispariumque rerum, sua cuique loca
tribuens, disposition Hitherto Mr. Fox.' And then Whitgift applies
the above period (which is found in tome i. p. 20,) unto his adversary
in these words, ' Now let the indifferent reader judge whether these
offices be strange and unheard of in the Church of Christ, as T.
Cartwright and his accomplices had affirmed in their Admonition to
the Parliament." 1 " Strype's Annals, vol. iii. part i. p. 738. See also
Fox's letter to a reverend bishop in Fuller's Church History, book ix.
page 106, in which he says, complaining of his son having been
SERMON II.
179
our Church have derived their commission by an
uninterrupted succession and imposition of hands,
' expelled from his fellowship at Magdalene College, as a papist, by
a faction of people,' ' Quod si enira is essem, qui perbacchari cum
eis contra Episcopos et Archi-Episcopos, aut scribam me praebere
illorum ordine, hoc est, insanire cum illis voluissem, nunquam istos
in me aculeos exacuissent.'
2 (Page 160) Amongst whom we may include those of Germany.
" The German orators being now here (A.D. 1539,) fell upon their
business in adjusting the points of religion with the king's divines.
They drew up at this time a copy of such things as Martin Luther,
Philip Melancthon, with certain cities and princes of Germany, their
adherents, had admitted." The first was as follows : and " the reader
must excuse the ill English, which I write as I find in the MS." " 1st,
We confess that there ought to be a policy in the Church and a regime.
In the which there must be bishops who shall have the power of the
examine, and ordinance of the ministration of the same, for to exercise
the jurisdiction of the same, who shall diligently see that the Churches
committed unto them may be truly instructed with pure and sincere
doctrine." Strype's Memorials, vol. i. part i. p. 526. See also Bishop
Hall's Judgment of the German Reformers, concerning the retaining of
Episcopacy, vol. x. page 149, edit. 1837, and Durel's View of the
Government and public Worship of God in the Reformed Churches
beyond the Seas ; passim. The reader will find some very interesting
information on this head in Marshall's Notes on the Episcopal Polity
of the Holy Catholic Church, pp. 255357.
Though referring to a much later period, the following is worthy
of perusal :
The foreign divines at the synod of Dort, (A.D. 1618), in answer
to what our English clergy had urged on the necessity of Episcopal
government in the Church, according to the apostolical plan, said,
' That they had a great honour for the good order and discipline of
the Church of England, and heartily wished that they could establish
themselves upon this model ; lamenting that they had no prospect of
such a happiness ; and since the civil government had made their
desires impracticable, they hoped God would be merciful to them.'
Y 2
180 SERMON II.
begun by the Apostles r ; and their order has been
continued and preserved entire in our Church
It may be interesting to learn that the thirty-first article in the Belgic
Confession, which maintained ministerial parity, was opposed by the
British divines who had been sent to that synod, viz. Bishop Hall,
Bishop Carleton, Bishop Davenant, and Dr. Ward. Bishop Carleton,
in his own name and that of his colleagues, publicly protested against
it, as we learn from his declaration published on his return. His
words are these : ' When we were to yield our consent to the Belgic
Confession at Dort, I made open protestation in the synod, that
whereas in the Confession there was inserted a strange conceit of the
parity of ministers to be instituted by Christ, I declared our dissent
utterly in that point. I showed that by Christ a parity was never
in the Church ; that He ordained twelve Apostles, as also seventy
disciples ; that the authority of the twelve was above the other ; that
the Church preserved this order left by our Saviour. And therefore
when the extraordinary power of the Apostles ceased, yet this
ordinary authority continued in bishops who succeeded them, who
were by the Apostles left in the government of the Church, to ordain
ministers, and to see that they who were so ordained should preach
no other doctrine ; that in an inferior degree the ministers who were
governed by bishops succeeded the seventy disciples ; that this order
hath been maintained in the Church from the times of the Apostles.
And herein I appealed to the judgment of antiquity, and to the judg-
ment of any learned man now living : and craved herein to be satis-
fied, if any man of learning could speak to the contrary. My lord
of Salisbury (Bishop Devenant) is my witness, and so are all the
rest of our company, who spake also in the cause.' See Collier,
book viii.
" But to proceed in the hearing of the witnesses, who depose for
Geneva on behalf of our Prelates ; Jacobus Lectius may very well be
produced here. It is true that he was no divine, but he was a
magistrate of the city, a grave senator, a doctor of the laws, and
public reader in the university. If you please you may look upon
him as a lay-elder. However a Geneva man he is, and writing
at Geneva a book dictated to the Syndicks and Senate, after he
hath spoken of the abuses of popish prelacy ; ' but, (saith he) we
SERMON II. 181
through all ages, from the Apostles' days to this
present time ; and so they are truly and properly
maintain that those are true and lawful bishops, whom St. Paul
describes in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus ; and we do not deny but
that there were such formerly in that great kingdom of Great Britain,
and that at this very day there are such bishops there, and that such are
chosen there from time to time.' Behold a senator of Geneva that
acknowledges the bishops of England for true and lawful bishops,
scripture bishops, such as are described by St. Paul in his epistles to
Timothy and Titus ; so far is he from ' unbishoping Timothy' himself,
as one* of the same profession with him would have done lately. And
it must not be objected that it is but Jacobus Lectius his private
judgment. For do but hear what he saith further himself in the
same book ; ' Neither was there any of our divines, I think, who ever
denied it to be a most ancient custom in the Church from the very times
of the apostles, (to wit, that one should have the chief care of the Church,
sitting, as it were, at the helm of the sacred ship.) And they did so treat
of the limitation of that pre-eminence, according to the word of God, that
they have professed by their publick writings, that it was mad-like to think
meanly of the order of orthodox bishops, to whom therefore our men, and
amongst them Calvin, Bucer, Beza, Sadeel, and others, have deferred
all manner of honour and affection. Three witnesses are sufficient to
prove any thing, but we have yet more to produce, and those very
eminent of these later times, to shew that Geneva hath changed neither
her mind nor her language in behalf of the Protestant Prelacy of
Great Britain.
" I mentioned at the beginning of the section, an epistle of Frederi-
cus Spanhemius, preacher and divinity reader at Geneva, inscribed to
Doctor Usher, the late Lord Primate of Ireland, to the Earl of
Pemroke that now is, to the Earl of Angus, son of the Marquis of
Douglas, and to the Earl of Lauderdale, at present his Majesty's
secretary of state for the kingdom of Scotland. Spanhemius gives
Doctor Usher the titles of Most Reverend, and Right Honorable
Prelate, Archbishop of Armagh, and Primate of all Ireland. He puts,
* Referring to Prynne's Unbishoping of Timothy and Titus, published in
the year 1636.
182 SERMON II.
their lawful successors, so far as relates to us : for
all histories, that give us any account of Christianity
My Lord Archbishop, his Grace, before all those noble and great men,
according to the place our kings have been pleased to give to those
chief Fathers of the Church. He says, l lt is God who hath preferred
him to that sacred office which he enjoyeth ;' he speaks of 'the great
affection the Genevans bear to all the British Churches, the great
prelates whereof they reverence and love? He adds, that ' they always
pray to God for the prosperity of these kingdoms, and of all them that
sit at the helm, as well in the Church as in the Commonwealth, that God
may ever have his due glory, the king his right, the prelates of our
Churches their authority,' &c. This was written in the year 1638, in
the month of October, and publickly printed at Geneva. And this
one testimony alone would be evidence enough to convince the world
that the reformed Church of Geneva is no enemy to the bishops of
the Church of England." Durel's Government in the Reformed
Churches beyond the Seas, p. 169.
See also Wells' Testimony of Foreign Reformed Churches in
favour of Episcopacy, page 15. Of Dr. Wells' 1 Letters Dr. Hickes
remarks, " It was to maintain the Church upon this fundamental
doctrine (The Divine Right of Episcopacy) that I suppose Dr. Wells
of late took the pains to write so many excellent Letters, full of learn-
ing and reason, to defend the government and orders of the Church
of England, and shew the novelty and invalidity of the Presbyterian
model and mission." Preface to the Divine Right of Episcopacy
asserted, page 7.
3 (Page 165) We have already learnt the sentiments of our English
reformers : I will now refer the reader, in the language of Leslie, " To
our neighbour nation of Scotland, where the Presbyterians do boast
that the Reformation was made by presbyters ; that is most clearly
and authentically confuted by a late learned and worthy author,
already mentioned, (Bishop Sage,) in his Fundamental Charter of
Presbytery, printed 1695, so as to stop the mouths of the most
perverse, who will not be persuaded, though they are persuaded.
" Go we then abroad and see the state of the reformed churches
there.
SERMON II. 183
in this island 8 , as those of Dugdale, and Godwin, and
Stillingfleet, record a succession of Bishops, from
" The Lutherans are all cut off, as the Church of England ; for
they still retain Episcopacy, as in Denmark, Sweden, &c.
" There remains now only the Calvinists ; here it is the Pres-
byterians set up their rest ! this is their strong foundation !
"And this will fail them as much as all the other; for be it
known unto them, (however they will receive it,) that Calvin
himself, and Beza, and the rest of the learned reformers of their
part, did give their opinion for Episcopacy as much as any. They
counted it a most unjust reproach upon them to think that they
condemned Episcopacy, which they say they did not throw off,
but could not have it there, in Geneva, without coming under
the episcopal hierarchy; they highly applauded and congratulated
the episcopal hierarchy of the Church of England, as in their
several letters to Queen Elizabeth, to the Archbishop of Canter-
bury, and others of our English bishops ; they prayed heartily to
God for the continuance and well-being of it; bemoaned their
own unhappy circumstances, that they could not have the like,
because they had no magistrate to protect them; and wished for
Episcopacy in their Churches, the want of which they owned as a
great defect, but called it their misfortune rather than their fault ;
as the learned of the French Hugonots have likewise pleaded on
their behalf.
" As for their excuse, I do not now meddle with it, for I think
it was not a good one. They might have had bishops from other
places, though there were none among themselves, but those who
were popish ; and they might as well have had bishops as presbyters
without the countenance of the civil magistrate. It might have
raised a greater persecution against them : but that is nothing as
to the truth of the thing, and if they thought it a truth, they ought
to have suffered for it.
" But whatever becomes of their excuse, here it is plain, that they
gave their suffrage for Episcopacy, which whoso pleases may see at
large in Dr. Durel's View of the Government and Worship in the
Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, (who was himself one of them,)
printed 1662.
184 SERMON II.
the first planting of the Christian religion in this
kingdom, (some centuries prior to the mission of
" So that our modern Presbyterians have departed from Calvin as
well as from Luther, in their abhorrence of Episcopacy, from all the
Christian world in all ages, and particularly from all our late refor-
mers, both of one sort and other.
" Calvin would have anathematized all of them had he lived in
our times. He says there were none such to be found in his time
who opposed the episcopal hierarchy, but only the papal, which
aspired to an universal supremacy in the see of Rome over the whole
Catholic Church, which is the prerogative of Christ alone. But, says
he, ' If they would give us such a hierarchy, in which the bishops
should so excel as that they did not refuse to be subject to Christ,
and to depend upon Him as their only head, and refer all to Him,
then I will confess that they are worthy of all anathemas, if any such
shall be found who will not reverence it, and submit themselves to
it with the utmost obedience.
" See, he says, si qui erunt, ' if there shall be any such,' which
supposes that he knew none such, and that he owned none such
amongst his reformers ; and that if ever any such should arise, he
thought there were no anathemas which they did not deserve who
should refuse to submit to the episcopal hierarchy, without such
an universal head as excludes Christ from being the only universal
head ; for if there be another (though substitute) he is not only.
Thus he is called the ' chief bishop,' but never ' the only bishop,'
because there are others deputed under him ; but he calls no bishop
the universal bishop, or head of the Catholic Church, because he has
appointed no substitute in that supreme office ; as not of universal
king, so neither of universal bishop." Leslie's Works, vol. vii. p. 178.
4 Vide ' Joh. Duretti Sanctce Ecclesice Anglicance adversus iniquas atque
inverecundas schismaticorum criminationes vindicice ;' especially the
28th cap. where the question is discussed 'An semper a prima
Reformatione episcoporum ordinem Jure Divino Presbyteris superiorem
esse tenuerit ecelesia Anglicana.' See also Dr. Hickes' Preface to the
Divine Right of Episcopacy Asserted, page 52.
SERMON II. 185
St. Austin,) down to our own time. If these are
matters of fact 9 , and the real truth of the case
5 Bishop Beveridge's Sermon on Christ's Presence with His Minis-
ters. See also Field's Book of the Church, b. ii. ch. vi.
6 " Bishop Sage thus writes to Mr, Meldrum. ' Ordination (you
say) is but a formality, a circumstance, a mode ;' ' Tis not necessary ;'
and the same you say of ' uninterrupted succession? Sir, to find you
so frankly granting my first two propositions, so often mentioned,
and withal talking so concerning ordination and succession, I confess
surprises me. How easy were it to prove the necessity of ordination
from the holy Scriptures ? Your friends of the Provincial Assembly
of London, in their Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici, have proved
it pretty fully. At present I think it is enough to refer you to them.
Only in a few words, let me shew that all the reason in the world
pleads for it. What can be more evident than that we cannot be obli-
ged in conscience to own any for our spiritual governors, and pay them
suitable regards of obedience or submission, if they have not our Lord's
commission to govern us ? Whosoever pretends to act as a magistrate
in any temporal kingdom, without the king's commission, is reckoned
an usurper, and invader of the royal prerogative, and as such is ob-
noxious to the laws. Pray, shall the peace, and the order, and the
establishment of temporal kingdoms make regular commissions so
necessary ; and shall not the peace, the order, the establishment, the
unity, the preservation, all the weighty interests of our Lord's king-
dom here on earth do it? If the standing of all other societies
requires that subordinate governors should have authentic commissions
from the supreme, the head, how much more must the standing of
the church require it ? Church governors are God's representatives;
they preach in His name ; they make covenants and append seals to
them in His name ; in His name they receive into and thrust out of
the communion of His Church. In a word, in His name they must
do every thing, if they would do it warrantably. But how can they
do any thing in His name f How can they represent Him any
manner of way ? How can they in any sense be called His ambas-
sadors, His proxies, His vicegerents, without His commission ? And
now he gives no commissions immediately. How then can they have
Z
186 SERMON II.
as they certainly are what is the reason that this
truth must be so carefully suppressed ? Is it because
His commission without receiving it from those He has enabled to
give commissions to act in His name ? Now, as I take it, to grant
such commissions is to ordain ; and to receive them is to be ordained.
And whatsoever proves the necessity of ordination does likewise
conclude the as great necessity of an uninterrupted succession of
persons empowered to ordain, authorized by our Lord to give
commissions to act in His name. For if such a succession is once
interrupted, how shall it begin again ? How shall commissions be
had ? Who is authorized to give them ? There is" a necessity of
having them, and they are not to be expected immediately from
heaven. Nay more, you shall not have travelled far in this road of
thinking and reckoning on the great interests of the Church, and the
concerns of souls, when you shall clearly see that few things can be
more necessary than that all possible care be taken that ordinations be
performed regularly and canonically" Bishop Sage's Reasonableness
of a Toleration of those of the Episcopal Persuasion, p. 208.
7 Vide. Dr. R. Mocket's Tractatus de Politia Ecclesice Anglicanee,
cap. v. p. 37. The reader will be amply repaid by a careful perusal of
Heylyn's History of Episcopacy.
8 " In all other churches throughout the whole world wherever
Christianity was planted, Episcopacy was every where established
without one exception, as is evident from all their records.
"And so it is with us in England, whither it is generally supposed,
and with vety good grounds, that St. Paul first brought the Christian
faith. Clemens Romanus, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, v.
says, that St. Paul went preaching the Gospel ' to the furthest bounds
of the West,' \v\ rl rep/** TJJ? M<retu;, by which term Britain was then
understood ; and Theodoret expressly names the Britains among the
nations converted by the Apostles, (torn. iv. Serm. ix. p. 610,) and
Eusebius, in his Evangelical Demonstration, (lib. iii. c. 7, p. 113,)
names likewise the Britains as then converted.
" But whether St. Paul, or, as some conjecture, Joseph of Arimathea,
or any other apostolical person, was the first who preached Christ in
England, it matters not as to our present purpose, who inquire only
SERMON II. 187
the doctrine of the apostolical succession is of a
light and trivial nature, and affects the condition of
no one, whether it be true or false ? This indeed
concerning Episcopacy ; and it is certain by all our histories, that as
far up as they give us any account of Christianity in this island, they
tell us likewise of bishops; and the succession of this Church of
England has been deduced in the succession of bishops, and not of
presbyters ; and particularly in the diocese of London, which was the
first archiepiscopal see before Augusfin the Monk came hither, after
which it was established in Canterbury. And the Saxon writers have
transmitted the succession of their bishops in Canterbury, Rochester,
London,"&c. Leslie's Works, vol. vii. pp. 103, &c. See also Bramhall's
Just Vindication of the Church of England, torn. i. dis. iii. sec. 4 ;
Mason's Vindicice Ecclesice Anglicance, p. 49 ; Oxlee's 3rd Sermon
On the Power, Origin, and Succession of the Christian Hierarchy,
and especially that of the Church of England; and Hales on the
Prim, Ch. of the British Isles.
9 " This the bishops have done as I have shown, and can name all
the way backward as far as history goes, from the present bishop of
London, for example, to the first plantation of Christianity in this
kingdom ; so from the present bishop of Lyons up to Irenseus, the
disciple of St. Polycarp, as before is told. The records are yet more
certain in the great bishoprics of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and
others, while they lasted in the world. And though the records may
not be extant of every small bishopric, which was less taken notice of,
as the names of many kings are lost in obscure nations, of many mayors
or sheriffs, who notwithstanding have as certainly succeeded one
another, as where the records are preserved ; I say, though every
bishop in the world cannot tell the names of all his predecessors up to
the Apostles, yet their succession is certain ; and in most Christian
nations there are bishops who can do it ; which is a sufficient proof for
the rest, all standing upon the same bottom, and being derived in the
same manner.
" Now to balance this, it is desired that the Presbyterians would
show the succession of any one presbyter in the world, who was not
likewise a bishop, in our acceptation of the word, in the like manner
from the Apostles." Leslie's Works, vol. vii. p. 110.
Z*
188 SERMON II.
would be a plausible reason for such a manner of
proceeding ; but this, it seems, is not the reason.
No ; the doctrine is of too great importance to be
publicly declared, and great numbers of men are
so deeply concerned in the consequences of it, that
it must not be believed. It unchurches, it is said,
all those who are not Episcopalians ; and therefore
the principle cannot be good, as being attended
with a consequence so evil. But does the order
of Bishops cease to be a Divine institution merely
upon this Account ? And must the necessity of
episcopal ordination be given up, purely to com-
pliment those who have wilfully abandoned it, and
who, perhaps, have gone so far as presumptuously
to despise it ' ? No ; the positive injunctions of the
i " I know it will be objected, that by this doctrine I condemn all
the churches that are governed after that (the Presbyterian) manner.
Now I condemn not the churches, but the government. Some perhaps
may reply, that since I make episcopal government to be Christ's
institution, I charge them with a very gross error. I answer, let them
see to that ; I cannot call evil good nor good evil, unless I make myself
liable to the curse pronounced ; neither will anything excuse them
except necessity, for both God's law and man's law doth dispense with
it ; but because there is no necessity, let men beware. Ego liberavi
animam meam." Episcopal Government Instituted by Christ.
Again, Dr. Hickes observes, in his Preface to the Divine Right of
Episcopacy Asserted, " Let me ask these men, if the clergy must not
preach up the Episcopal form of Church-Government, as a perpetual
ordinance of Christ, and the necessity of an episcopal mission and
ministry, without respect to persons, or churches, be they never so
many, which have rejected the Divine Institution, and still wilfully
continue in the want of it, and thereby involve themselves in con-
sequences, which too many learned and worthy men, under the pretence
SERMON II. 189
Gospel do not become unnecessary, because great
numbers are involved in the sin which attends a dis-
obedience to them ; nor is a doctrine the less true,
although it were the interest of the whole world to
have it false 2 . Truth must not be obstructed that
of charity, have too much endeavoured to palliate and soften, or evade
for them ; whereas it is much greater and truer charity, to let those
consequences fall in their full weight upon them, that they may see
their error, and the danger of it, by those consequences, and be there-
upon effectually moved to reunite themselves to the catholick Church ;
from whose doctrines they have departed in every thing that relates to
it as a society of Christ's framing, and thereby justly brought their
call and mission into question ; giving as good and learned men as any
are in the world occasion to doubt of their mission, whether it is valid
or no ; and by consequence, whether their ministers are truly God's
ministers and messengers, such ministers as the archbishop (Cranmer)
speaks of in his sermon, who have the true sacerdotal mission, and au-
thority of God to minister his word and sacraments to the people, in
Christ's place, and the acts of whose ministry are as valid as if Christ
himself should minister unto them ; as being made so by the same conse-
cration, orders, and unction, by which bishops and priests were made
at the beginning, and are to be made God's ministers by His appoint-
ment, unto the end of the world." Dr. Hickes' Preface to The Divine
Right of Episcopacy Asserted, page 49.
2 " If the apostolical, or episcopal form was ordained by Christ, for
the perpetual and unalterable polity of his church, as all Christianity
in all ages believed for fifteen hundred years, then let all the clergy
write for it, as this worthy author has done, expecting the protection
of their great Lord here, and their reward from Him hereafter, when
they must give an account of their stewardship, and the authority
he hath committed to them for the government of his people. It
is their duty to teach their flocks this fundamental doctrine of Church-
Government, and those which depend upon it, let the consequences
of them fall upon what persons or churches soever; and therefore
let them teach them, without fearing to be reproached as high-flyers,
and men of rigid principles, who have no charity, but are for damning
190 SERMON II.
evil consequences may not ensue ; for if it may, then
the whole Christian dispensation must be taken away
as hurtful, by reason of the sad consequences which
it denounces against wilful, slothful, and wicked
men. If, then, an authority to administer the Word
and Sacraments can no otherwise be had 3 , than by
all but themselves. These are slanders and persecutions, which
those who will preach the truths, or commandments of God, must
be content to bear from those who cannot endure sound principles,
because they make themselves obnoxious to the consequences of them ;
and then say, that they who preach them, preach damnation to the
greatest part of mankind, and to Christians as good as themselves.
But I would ask those, who are wont to talk after this loose manner,
if I must not preach up the Being and Providence of God, because
Atheists, and Epicureans, who now are no small number, involve
themselves in the consequences of a doctrine, which concludes them
all under damning unbelief? Must I not assert the authority of
the Scriptures, and the certainty of revealed religion, because it falls
heavy upon the vast number of Deists and Scepticks among us, and
puts them all in a state of damnation ? Must I not preach up the
union of the Divine and human nature in the Person of Christ,
because the consequences of it are severe upon so many Arians,
Socinians, and other Unitarians ? Or, not to mention the moral
doctrines of Christianity, must I not preach up the perpetual in-
stitution of the Lord's Day, or of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper,
because so many neglect, or despise, and reject the use of them, to
their own destruction ?" Dr. Hickes' Preface to the Divine Right
of Episcopacy Asserted, p. 48.
3 "No other ministers have this authority of administering the
Sacraments, but only they who receive their orders in the Episcopal
communion. This 1 shall endeavour to prove by these degrees;
1st, That the authority of administering the sacraments must be
derived from God. 2nd, That though it be derived from him, yet
it is not so derived without the mediation of those men to whom
it was at first committed. 3rd, That it cannot be so derived from
SERMON II. 191
an uninterrupted succession * of men from Christ,
empowered to qualify others, then I desire to be
those men to whom it was first committed, without a continued
succession of persons orderly receiving authority from those who had
authority to give it them, from those first times of the Apostles to
ours at present. 4th That this authority is to be expected no where
now, but in the Episcopal communion. 1st, The authority of ad-
ministering the Sacraments must be derived from God. I do not
mean that it must be derived from God, as all other things as well as
authorities are derived from Him, who is not only the supreme Prince,
but the first cause of all things. Nor do I mean only that it must
be derived from God the same way as all other, even secular authority
must be derived from Him. at least Providentially, though the power
of government were originally never so much at the disposal of the
persons to be governed. For whatever the creature has originally
the disposal of, it must be supposed at first derived from God. But
yet, in a way of Providence, God does also frequently dispose of
governments, which had been otherwise in the creature's liberty to
dispose of, as fh those rights which are gotten by just conquest and
prescription, where the rights of government are certainly disposed
of by Providence without any possible pretence of consent in the
persons obliged to submit to it. For the right of the creature, where-
ever it has any, is not to be understood so as to derogate from the
right of God to dispose of them as He pleases, whatever right they
have, as it must necessarily be derived from Him, if indeed it be any
right at all : so that derivation does not rob Him of any of that
which He had before. It is to be understood not privatively, as they
say, but accumulatively. My meaning therefore is, that this power
of administering the Sacraments must be so derived from God, not
as to exclude the mediation of such men who have received it in a
succession from Him, but so as to exclude all right originally derived
from the creature, as far as the creature is capable of such a right
originally in contradistinction to God. That is, that no men have a
right to government in ecclesiastical affairs but by a particular do-
nation from God; not by virtue of that general right which God
has given every one, by His general providence, to take care of
himself, and which therefore every individual person may for himself,
192 SERMON II.
informed how any layman, or number of laymen,
considered as such, can any more make a priest, or
and much more whole multitudes may, by common consent, commit
to others. The consequent whereof will be, that all ordinations, and
the administration of the sacraments, derived from any multitudes
or persons on account of their general right of governing themselves,
without an express donation from God, are not only irregular, but
invalid, and such as can neither, in conscience, oblige any subjects
to submit to them, nor encourage any, who are otherwise willing to
submit, to expect any benefit from them." The reader will see this
argument continued in Chaps. 20, 21, 22, 23. See also Notei. p. 197-
Dodwell's Separation of Churches from Episcopal Government proved
Schismatical, ch. xix. p. 424.
4 " How necessary this succession was to the very being of a Church
the Fathers do abundantly testify, (Irenes. Lib, 4 cap. 63); that this is
the only method to know the true state of the ancient Church, and to
preserve the doctrine of the apostles ; that Christianity is rooted and
founded in the succession, (August. Epis. 42); and that this is the way
to keep out heresies, and to discern a false Church from*, true, (Tertul.
de Prcsser.} or to keep religion entire and consonant to the scriptures,
(Ire. Lib. 3. c. 3.) And the breach of this was by many assigned as
the cause of the ruin of several Churches, as, on the other hand, the
preservation of it always contributed to the propagation of Christianity.
(Egesip. ap. Euseb. Lib. 4, c. 22. Dionysi. ap. Euseb. Lib. 4.
Clemens ap. Euseb. Lib. 3. Methodi. apud Scot. an. 72, 74.) The
Episcopal succession being thus established, it may not be improper to
say a word or two of its duration and unity. That this was not an
annual or short lived office, stinted to a few years, is plain from many
and good authorities. There is no pretence for a continued election of
this nature, in all the records of antiquity. In Alexandria the successor
of St. Mark sat 22 years, (Euseb. Lib. 3, c. 13), and his successor 13
years, (Euseb. Lib. 3, c. 21), St. John being yet alive. At Antioch
Evodius was made bishop 25 years before the death of Peter and
Paul, and survived them one year. (Euseb. an. 45). His successor
Ignatius (Euseb. an. 71) outlived St. John, and died in the 1 1th year
of Trajan. Polycarp sat at Smyrna 70 years, as some aver 86. (Euseb.
an. 111). St. James, our Saviour's brother, was bishop of Jerusalem
SERMON II. 193
commission a person to officiate in Christ's name as
such, than they can enlarge the means of grace, or
add a new Sacrament for the conveyance of spiritual
advantages 5 ? If these doctrines are really founded
30 years, (Euseb. Lib. 4, cap. 15), and his successor 38, (Euseb. an.
33, 63). There were but three bishops at Rome whilst St. John lived.
To mention all were endless and unnecessary. As to the episcopal
unity, the antient fathers are full and positive. St. Jerome assures us,
(Euseb. an. 63, 111), that in his time the care of every Church was
committed wholly to one single bishop ; which he elsewhere tells us is
agreeable both to the laws of God and man, (Epis. Tit. c. 1,) and that
one Church cannot have more than one Bishop. The Nicene fathers,
St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, (Ecumenius, Optatus, and St. Ambrose, are
all consenting to the same opinion; and they explain this one Church,
so as to signify a diocese, or number of towns or villages, with one
city, under a bishop. Nay, St. Cyprian, (In 3 cap. 1 Tim.) has written
a whole treatise on this subject, wherein he proves this to be agreeable
to the apostolical institution, as well as necessary to the unity and
peace of the Church. And here it may be sufficient to prove, that
bishops are a distinct order from priests, or presbyters, because there
was to be but one bishop to many presbyters, and because to them, and
not to the presbyters, the succession of the Church was committed."
Oldisvvorth's Timothy and Philatheus, vol. 3, page 40.
5 " We say again, it is accipite, not assumite : assumit qui nemine
dante accipit; he assumes, that takes that is not given him. But
nemo assumit honorem hunc, ' This honour no man takes unto him,'
or upon him, till it be given him. As quod accipitur non habetur, in
the last, so quod accipitur, datur, in this. And both these are against
the voluntaries of our age, with their token-on callings ; that have no
mitto vos; unsent, set out of themselves; no accipite, no receiving;
take it up of their own accords ; make themselves what they are ;
sprinkle their own heads with water ; lay their own handy on their own
heads ; and so take that unto them which none ever gave them.
They be hypostles (so doth St. Paul well term them, as it were the
mock-apostles) ; and the term comes home to them, for they be u?o)
wro<7-Tx>iff, filii subtractions : right ; work all to subtraction, to with-
2 A
194 SERMON II.
upon the Divine law, then indeed it is certain, and
a plain matter of fact, that all those persons of
whom I have been now speaking, are effectually
unchurched 6 . And this indeed is a very grievous
draw poor souls, to make them forsake the fellowship (as even then
the manner was.) This brand the Apostle hath set on them, that
we might know them, and avoid them." Bishop Andrewes' Sermon
9th, Of the sending of the Holy Ghost.
6 Dr. Bowden, in his Apostolic Origin of Episcopacy, remarks,
" It may be observed, that those who assert the Divine institution
of Episcopacy, must necessarily be supposed to maintain, that a
Church which rejects Episcopacy, or cannot possibly obtain it, (which
is placing it upon the most favourable ground,) is, quoad hoc, imper-
fect and unsound. For if Episcopacy rests upon Divine institution,
then a presbyterian Church, which wants Episcopacy, wants a Divine
institution ; and, consequently, in a very important point must be
defective. And whether a conscientious man, convinced of this, can
derive any comfort from the concession, that this principle does not go
so far as totally to unchurch ; or whether he can continue a member
of such a Church consistently with the duty of being a member of a
complete, sound, and scriptural Church, is a question of great impor-
tance, and, therefore, deserves the attention of every serious Christian."
" It grieves me (writes Dr. Hickes) always, when I consider to what
difficulty the ministers of the Presbyterian Churches abroad have been
put, to answer the questions about their missions ; and what shifts and
evasions their defenders among us have also been put to in their
attempts to defend it. And therefore I must say it again, the greatest
and truest charity to the reformed Churches, and the whole reforma-
tion, is to exhort them to take the same mission that we have retained,
as the only true and indisputable mission of the Holy Catholic Church.
I think the nature of Christian charity obliges us, upon catholic
principles, to write them up to our Church, and not, as the manner
of some hath been, to write our Church down to them. And who-
ever would write such a Parcenesis to them, in the common language,
and Christian spirit of meekness, I think he would do a most charitable
work ; for which, if they did not think themselves obliged to him,
SERMON JI. 195
consideration 7 . But then they only must answer
for it, with all the sad and terrible consequences
God would certainly reward him, and all good men would praise him
for ever. What I have said here, I call God to witness, I speak not
out of ill will, but out of pure love and good will for the foreign
reformed Protestants, for whose preservation, if I can judge of myself,
I could lay down my life, and of whom I say with my whole heart,
as St. Paul said to King Agrippa, ' 1 would to God, for His Church's
sake, that they were not only almost but altogether as ice of the Church
of England are." Preface to the Divine Right of Episcopacy asserted,
p. 50 ; See also Law's incomparable Letters to Bishop Hoadly ; and
Ordination by mere Presbyters proved null and void.
7 " In the Church's bosom we are born ; our growth is owing to
the food which is thence administered to us, and the same Spirit
quickens us which enlivens her. The spouse of Christ will not play
the harlot, her chastity is unblemished ; she hath but one habitation,
which she endeavoureth to preserve inviolate, equally free from guilt,
and from the suspicion of it. In her custody, under her patronage
and protection, we are trained up to the knowledge and enjoyment of
God, in whose kingdom she assigns to her obedient children their
respective interests; whoever therefore is separated from the true
Church of Christ, and joins himself to a false one, forfeits his title to
the promises of the true. Nor can he ever attain the recompence
propounded by Christ to His followers, who deserts His Church.
No ! For he becomes thence unsanctified, an alien, and even a
downright enemy. He cannot have God for his Father, who hath
not the Church for his Mother. Could any one, do we find, escape,
who was not with Noah in the Ark ? If any one could, then, and
not otherwise, is there room for those to expect security who are
out of the Church ! Our blessed Lord hath given us in this matter
a proper caution, where He saith, ' He that is not with me is against
me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. He
therefore who breaks the bonds of Christian unity and concord,
is censured here as being against Christ ; whosoever gathereth any-
where but within the Church, falleth under the imputation of scatter-
ing it abroad. Our Saviour hath said, ' I and my Father are one.'
And again, it is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that
2A 2
196 SERMON II.
that follow from the want of a valid ministry, and
valid sacraments, who have themselves been the
' these three are one.' And can any one imagine that an unity settled
upon so firm a bottom, and cemented by such sacred and awful bonds,
shall allowably be broken in the Church, through the jarring
inclinations and affections of its different members ? He, in
short, who shall presume to break it, who shall not with all
his might endeavour to preserve it, will undergo the censure
of breaking the law of God, of having no regard to that holy
faith which is the joint and equal care of the Father and of the Son,
and consequently will not hold the truth to any saving purpose."
Cyprian on the Unity of the Church. "This paragraph (says Marshall,
Notes to his Translation, p. 98,) deserves the serious perusal of all
separatists from the communion of their proper bishop, with whom
they may join upon lawful terms. Nor was our author singular
in this opinion, that out of the Church, the ark, there is no federal
salvation. St. Clemens Romanus hath pronounced very ill of being
SO, though in a modest /ui;W<r, &.fta.prla. yag ou yuix^a ^i/j-tv eo-TKt, &C.
In 1 Epist. ad Corinth. : ' We shall contract no small guilt, if we re-
ject those from the office of their episcopate, who execute it with holi-
ness and integrity.' And St. Ignatius, besides what hath already
been cited from him, hath told the Christians of Ephesus, 'Whosoever
is not within the altar,' id est, who doth not communicate with his
bishop, ' is deprived of the bread of God, and loses the singular ad-
vantage of the bishop's prayers, together with those of the Church.'
In Epist. ad Ephes. And again, in Epist. ad Trail., he tells them,
that he ' who is not in communion with his bishop, hath not a pure
conscience.' And Irenasus, book iii. ch. 40, hath peremptorily asserted,
that ' no one who is not in the Church, is a partaker of the Holy
Spirit ; but instead of it defrauds himself of life, by his unhappy
choice. ' To argue against these ancient opinions from modern
prejudices, is indeed to defraud ourselves, and to cheat others
too, with infinite hazard of theirs and our own salvation.
The conclusion of the paragraph, we may observe, will not allow
an agreement in doctrinal truths to be of any significancy,
where there is such a separation. Veritatem non tenet ad salutem.
Novation differed not from Cornelius in any point of doctrine, which,
SERMON II. 197
occasions of it. It is not the Divine institution that
unchurches them, but their own wilful disobedience
to it ; and those doctrines are not false because they
are unchurched, but they are unchurched because
those doctrines are true 8 . Since then the power,
the mission, and the authority of the ministry, is
constituted and commanded by God for a perpetual
ordinance 9 ; since it is enjoined by Him, whom all
things in heaven and earth obey ; since the religion
of Christ cannot be duly propagated and effectually
supported, without a constant succession 1 of Bishops
however, did not excuse his schism. What allowances God of His
infinite mercy shall make to pitiable prejudices, is by no means hence
predetermined ; but we see they had not weight enough with these
Fathers, though otherwise men of great and comprehensive charity,
to give up the rule in favour of any such exceptions ; which it belongs
indeed properly to none to make, but to God only ; since He alone
who settled the rule can dispense with it ; wherefore as we are not to
set bounds to His mercy, nor to say how far it shall not go, it will as
little become us to lay any force upon it, or to be peremptory in
determining how far it must or shall go."
8 " If there be no uninterrupted succession, then there are no
authorized ministers from Christ ; if no such ministers, then no Chris-
tian sacraments ; if no Christian sacraments, then no Christian
covenant; if no Christian covenant, then no Christian Church,
according to the order of Christ." Beauty of the Church of England.
See also Bishop Taylor's Episcopacy Asserted, sect. 22 ; and Field's
Book of the Church, book ii. ch. vi.
9 " The reader will pardon me for referring him to the following
works : Brokesby's Government of the Primitive Church ; Hume's
Sacred Succession ; Cawdwell's Defence of an Ordained Ministry ; and
Invalidity of the Dissenting Ministry, in reply to Mr. Peirce.
1 " This ecclesiastical authority (writes Dodwell) cannot be derived,
in this age we live in, from those men to whom it was at first committed,
198 SERMON II.
and Priests 8 ; since it is appointed to be for ever
observed in the Church 3 ; since it has been sealed
that is, from the Apostles, without a continued succession of persons
orderly receiving authority from those who had authority to give it
them, from those first times of the Apostles to ours at present. For
it is plain, 1st, That this authority cannot be derived from the
Apostles themselves to any beyond their own time. There are but
three ways conceivable how this might be possible, that they them-
selves might convey authority to others, either by their persons, or
by their deed of gift, or by their writings. But by none of these
means are they capable of receiving authority from them who did
not live in their time. Not from them in their own persons, because
they were dead before the persons of whom we speak were born, or
were capable of receiving authority from them. For it is impossible
to understand (by the nature of any human contracts) how a personal
right can be devolved to another without a personal act, or how any
personal act can be between parties who are not supposed to be co-
existent at the same time. Not by their deed of gift, because this
could only convey their power to persons of their own age. Especially
considering that power is that which is the original security of all
other gifts. Indeed where a standing power is supposed, and a
constant orderly succession into that power, there a gift may be
made to future persons, which may both be determined by persons
so empowered, and the gift secured to persons so determined by them.
But all are so sensible of the unpracticableness of a gift to future
persons, without a power, both to determine the persons, and secure
the gift to them, as that it is ordinary in wills to appoint executors,
who may secure the performance, where the standing power cannot
descend minutely to take care of the performance in particular cases.
And it were certainly in vain to make testaments, if none were em-
powered to determine the controversies which rise in execution of
them, and if the public authority did not confirm the act of the testator
in nominating an executor, and the power of the executor for per-
forming the trust committed to him. It is therefore absolutely ne-
cessary that a power be first established by which the will may be
performed, and a succession in that power ascertained, for so long at
least as any particular of the will remains unperformed, before any
SERMON II. 199
with the blood of the best of men, the Christian
Martyrs, and confirmed by the unanimous consent of
one can, in prudence, think such a will performable. And therefore,
the power of the Apostles being the supreme and only power by which
the Church, as a body politick, does subsist, must be first secured, and
secured in a regular constant succession, so that none ought to be
supposed, in future ages, to receive any power from them, but they
who receive it in that succession by the hands of persons empowered
to give it them. And because their legacies are not confined to any
certain age, therefore the power of their executors must not expire for
ever ; and so much the rather because there is no superior power to
take care of the execution, in case the persons should fail who are im-
mediately intrusted with the execution. Not by their writings, though
they indeed continued extant after the decease of the writers, for what
has been said in the future chapter, (ch. xx. sec. 21.) Hence it
follows, secondly, that, if they would convey any power to persons not
living in their own age, seeing they could not do it by themselves, they
must do it by appointing sufficient substitutes, to act in their name
after their decease, that is, they must give such persons whom they
would substitute, the same power themselves had received from Christ, (I
mean, as to these ordinary exercises of power, for which I am at present
concerned,) and not only so, but the same power also, which themselves
had received, of communicating this power to others. Where both of
these were present, the act of such substitutes was to be taken for the
act of the Apostles themselves, and as validly obliging them as if it had
been performed by themselves in their own persons, by all the laws then
received concerning delegation and substitution. And the want of
either of them was sufficient, by the same laws, to invalidate a con-
veyance from the Apostles, by so imperfectly authorised substitutes.
And I have already shewn that the laws then received were punctually
observed by the Apostles in these their legal conveyances. (ch. iii. sec.
5, 6, 7j 8.) I cannot foresee what other means our adversaries can
think of to avoid this consequence. When they shall think of any, it
will then be time enough to consider it. And thirdly, the very same
reasons which prove it impossible for the Apostles to convey their
power to any who did not live in their own age, does also prove it
impossible for any of their successors to do so. They also cannot be
200 SERMON II.
Fathers 4 and Councils ; since they who usurp and
oppose the ministry, oppose religion itself, and act
supposed capable of acting in their own persons, when they cease to be
in their own persons, and therefore can only be capable of acting by
substitutes, whom they have intrusted with their power ; and none can
be taken for their substitutes, but they who have been made so by their
personal act when they were alive. Which will perfectly reach the
negative, for which I am concerned at present, that they cannot be
taken for the Apostles' substitutes, nor for the substitutes of any of their
successors in later ages, who have not been substituted by them by a
personal act ; and that what has not been done since by any substitute,
either of the Apostles, or of any of their successors, cannot be taken
for the act of any of them, and therefore cannot derive any authority
from them.
" These things are as applicable to the successors of the Apostles in
every age respectively, as they are to the Apostles themselves. As
therefore in the age succeeding the Apostles nothing could be done by
the Apostles, but what was done by some of them to whom the Apostles
had committed their power by a personal act in the apostolical age
itself ; so neither in the third age could any thing be taken for the
act of (he successors of the Apostles, but what was done by persons
authorized by their personal act in the preceding age, whilst those
successors were yet living. And the same reasoning may be brought
down through all the intermediate ages to that wherein we live at
present ; so that nothing ought to be taken for the act of the Apostles
in our present age, but what is done by them who have been lawfully
substituted by them who have received their power from their other
lawful substitutes in the several ages respectively, by personal substitu-
tion of each predecessor respectively whilst he was yet living; and
therefore no such act can convey the authority of the Apostles to any
who is ambitious of pretending to it in our present age. Therefore
the force of this negative argument consisting in this, that that cannot
be the Apostles' act in a later age which is not the act of any of those
who derive their substitution from them by personal acts in the several
ages, it will not hold but only in the only substitutes. For supposing
the Apostles substituted many in the first age, (as certainly they did,) it
will not follow that he who has not received his authority from the
SERMON II. 201
in disobedience and rebellion 5 against the laws of
God, and have been constantly condemned 6 by the
succession of Jerusalem, for example, has therefore not received it
from the succession of Antioch, or any other apostolical see. But con-
sidering the whole complex of substitutes in every age, certainly the
reason will hold, that he who has derived his authority from none of
them, must as certainly fail of deriving his authority from the Apostles,
as if he had lived in the age immediately succeeding the Apostles, and
yet had not received his authority from any of them who had, in the
former age, received their authority by a personal act of the Apostles
themselves. The reasoning still holds the same, how many soever the
ages of succession are. Neither can any authority be given by the
Apostles in the fifteenth century which is not given by their substitutes
then existing, nor can they then be taken for their successors who have
not been substituted by several personal acts of their immediate prede-
cessors through all the foregoing period." Dodvvell's Separation of
Churches from Episcopal Government proved Schismalical, ch. 21,
page 477.
2 See Field's Book of the Church, b. v. ch. Iv. Ivi. Turner's
Vindication of the Rights and Privileges of the Christian Church, ch. 5,
6, On the Divine Right of Ordination, and On the lasting obligation of
Apostolical Institution in the case of the Bishops and Clergy ; and A
View of the Elections of Bishops in the Primitive Church, by a Presbyter
of the Church of Scotland : 1728.
3 See Laud's Conference with Fisher, 16. 29; and Bp. Andrewes'
Sermon on Absolution.
4 See Bishop Downame's Defence, book iii. ch. iv. sect. 18.
s Quisquis ab ecclesia segregatus adulterse jungitur, a promissis
ecclesiae separatur ; nee perveniet ad Christi praemia, qui relinquit
ecclesiam Christi. Alienus est, profanus est, hostis est. Habere jam
non potest Deum patrem, qui Ecclesiam non habet matrem." Cyprian,
de Unitate Ecclesite Catholics.
6 " The pride and peevish haughtiness of some factious people
(says Bishop Taylor, quoting St. Cyprian) that contemn their bishops,
is the cause of all heresy and schism. And therefore it was so strictly
202 SERMON II.
Church in all ages ; will any man, after this, dare,
with a view of pandering to popular prejudices, dare
forbidden by the ancient canons, that any man should have any
meetings, or erect an altar, out of the communion of his bishop, that
if any man proved delinquent in this particular, he was punished
with the highest censures ; as appears in the thirty-second canon of
the Apostles, in the sixth canon of the council of Gangra, the fifth
canon of the council of Antioch, and the great council of Chalcedon,
all which I have before cited. The sum is this, the bishop is the
band and ligature of the Church's unity, and separation from the
bishop is 8/^ovo/a? cr^/So^ov, as Theodoret's expression is, ' a symbol of
faction,' and he that separates is a schismatic." Episcopacy Asserted,
sect. 46.
" From these and many more such canons producible, (writes Bishop
Sage,) 'tis evident as light, that in those times, (i.e., now I may safely say,
during the first five centuries,) the ordination of whatsoever clergymen
was peculiar to the Bishops. To ordain belonged to them as the chief
governors of Churches. To make this yet further appear, I have one
other step to make ; It is, that during all those centuries, (I may say,
during the first fifteen,) ordinations performed without bishops, were
never reputed valid. I dare confidently say you cannot produce one
instance to the contrary. I can produce divers which were so per-
formed, and therefore most solemmly condemned and repudiated.
Blondel, indeed, pretends, (Apol. pro Sent. Hieron. p. 312) that about
the middle of the third century, Novatus, a Carthagenian Presbyter,
ordained Felicissimus a Deacon. But the most learned Doctor Pearson
(Anal. Cyprian, ad an. 250. sect. 21 J and, after him, the aforemen-
tioned author of the Principles of the Cyprianich age, (Prin. Cyp.
Age. p. 42 3. and Vindication, ch. 6, Sect. 82.) have most clearly
discovered BlondeTs mistake." Bishop Sage's Reasonableness of Tol-
eration, p. 176. I would refer the reader to a very valuable and
interesting Annotation on the 13 Canon of the Council of Ancyra, in
Dr. Routh's Reliquice Sacra, (vol. iv. pp. 144157, Edit. 1846.) The
importance of a right interpretation of the Canon, will be learnt from
the language of the learned author ; " Cum Concilii Ancyrani Can-
ones ad hoc Volumen ultimum jam reservati fuerint, de Canone decimo
tertio hie monendum est, me praeter solitum in eo exponendo fusiori
SERMON II. 203
to vilify this Divine institution ? Will any man in
his senses pronounce an institution so given, and
so ratified 7 by God Himself, unmeaning and unim-
portant ? Can we believe, that, from the early dawn
of Christianity to the Reformation, and from that
period down to the present hour, it was asserted by
the most learned men without knowledge, or obeyed
by the most holy men, even unto death, without
conviction, or reverenced by the whole Church of
God without reason ? And shall we, after all this,
contemn and lay 8 aside this Divine institution, be-
oratione usum fuisse, nee tamen extra oleas vagante, siquidem hcec
una verba ex omni germana antiquitate presbyteris potestatem sacros
ordines conferendi farac attribuant."
7 " If any man" (says Dr. Barrow) " be so dully or so affectedly
ignorant as not to see the reason of the case, (the exercise of episcopal
ordination and jurisdiction,) and the dangerous consequences of
rejecting this ancient form of discipline ; if any man be so overween-
ingly presumptuous as to question the faith of all history, or to
disavow those monuments and that tradition, upon the testimony
whereof even the truth and certainty of our religion, and all its
sacred oracles do rely ; if any be so personally contentious as to
oppose the custom and current practice of the Churches through all
ages down to the last age ; so self-conceitedly arrogant as to condemn
or slight the judgment and practice of all the Fathers, (together also
with the opinion of the later most grave divines who have judged
episcopal presidency needful, or expedient, where practicable,) so
peevishly refractory as to thwart the settled order of the Church into
which he was baptized, together with the law of the country into
which he was born ; upon such a person we may look as one utterly
invincible and intractable : so weak a judgment and so strong a will,
who can hope by reason to convert ?" Barrow on Obedience to our
Spiritual Guides, Sermon 24.
8 Rather I hope (with Bishop Taylor,) that " it will so happen to
2B 2
204 SERMON II.
cause latitudinarians, and libertines, and schismatics,
and enthusiasts despise it 9 ? Shall their false
opinions, and prejudices, and secular interests, weigh
against God's authority, and the inspiration of His
Holy Spirit ; against the unanimous consent and
joint authority of Apostles and Martyrs, and
Fathers \ and Councils and the whole Church of
God 2 , in all ages of Christianity ? God forbid 3 ! Woe
us, that it will be verified here, what was once said of the Catholics
tinder the fury of Justina, ' Sed tanta fuit perseverantia fidelium
populorum, ut animas prius amittere quam episcopum mallent ;' if it
were put to our choice rather to die (to wit, the death of martyrs, not
rebels,) than lose the sacred order and offices of Episcopacy ; without
which no priest, no ordination, no consecration of -the Sacrament, no
absolution, no rite or Sacrament legitimately can be performed, in
order to eternity." Episcopacy Asserted.
9 See a Short Answer to a Pamphlet called ' Plain Reasons for Dis-
senting from the Church of England,' 1740.
1 Thus plainly speaks the Council of Carthage (A.D. 256) : "Mani-
festa est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi, Apostolos suos mittentis,
et ipsis solis potestatem a Patre sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos
successimus, eadem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes." " The
judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ is clear enough upon this question,
who sent His Apostles, and gave to them alone the power which He
received from His Father. Now we (the bishops) are their successors,
and govern the Church of our Lord in virtue of the same powers
which they had." Marshall calls upon the reader to " observe the
assertion here, that the Apostolic office, and all the pastoral powers
appertaining to it, were designed for continuance in the Church of
Christ, and that the bishops succeeded to the one and the other."
Marshall's Notes on the Council of Carthage, p. 254. See also the
Councils of Ancyra, Antioch, Sardis, Alexandria, two of Constanti-
nople, the Arausican Council, and that of Hispalis.
2 See Bishop Taylor's Episcopacy Asserted, sect. 22.
3 " Let the clergy, (writes Dr. Hickes,) without any regard to
SERMON II. 205
to him that fighteth against God ! Woe to him that
striveth against his Maker ! Woe to him, who on
human politics, or serving times, or fearing the arm of flesh, instruct
the people in the true nature and original of Church-government.
Let them teach their flocks from whom bishops have their authority
over priests, and both bishops and priests their authority over the
people, and in whose name, and place, they absolve them, and preach,
and minister the sacraments to them, and that they are Christ's
messengers, Christ's ambassadors, Christ's ministers, and Christ's spirit-
ual governors to them, and over them, in His kingdom upon earth.
Let them remember what St. Paul, St. Ignatius, St. Cyprian, not to
mention Hosius, Athanasius, Gre. Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and Ambrose,
taught the Christian world upon this subject, and let them preach, and
teach the same principles with primitive boldness, before the greatest
of men ; the same principles which archbishop Cranmer taught King
Edward VI. in his sermon of the Power of the Keys ; and which, as
it is evident from the sermon worthy of his great name, as a bishop, a
reformer, and a martyr, were not only his principles, but, as is also
evident from the Preface of the reformers before our old Ordinal, the
principles of the reformation, upon which it began, and proceeded, and
upon which, I trust, it will ever continue and subsist ; though now it
hath more, and more powerful enemies in number and kind, than ever
it had before. Wherefore, as it is the duty of the clergy to defend the
principles upon which Church-government, and their own mission
and authority is truly founded, as well as the true faith, and to in-
struct the people in them ; so it is more especially necessary they should
do it now, when men take the liberty to speak, and write, with the
spite of Devils, against Priests and Priesthood, and take delight,
without truth, wit, or good manners, and what is more without fear
of punishment, to revile and ridicule both. Let them assure them-
selves God will assist them, if they will be unanimous, and labor in so
good a work. He will contend with them against their enemies, in
defence of them and His own institutions, but He will not contend
without them. He will most assuredly be their second, but He will
not be their champion to fight alone for them. Nor must they
expect that He will work miracles for them, when they will do
nothing for themselves. He will not support them, and the Church
206 SERMON II,
account of the world's calumny, or the world's
united scorn, labours to frustrate the righteous
purposes of God's eternal wisdom ! Whatever
therefore is appointed by the instigation and artifice
of human policy, in order to change, new model,
and abrogate the sacred hierarchy 4 , to disturb,
violate, and destroy this positive institution of God,
is impiety 5 , is sacrilege, is rebellion against heaven,
with them, if they will not do their own part to support both.
Wherefore let them hold fast what they have, and, laying aside all
animosities, strife, contentious, and names of parties, agree as one
man to maintain their sacerdotal orders, and authority, against those
who are confederate with the powers of hell against it ; not only
against the sensualists of flesh and blood, but against principalities,
and powers, and the rulers of the darkness of this world, and wicked
spirits in high places." Dr. Hickes' Preface to the Divine Right of
Episcopacy Asserted, p. 52.
4 See a curious Tract entitled " Popery and Schism equally dangerous
to the Church of England as by Law established; and Separation from
the Established Church proved by undeniable matters of fact and reason,
to be, even in the opinion of the Pope, Cardinals, and Jesuits, the only
probable means for introducing Popery again into the Country" by
Robert Ware, with the Continuation by the same Author entitled
Foxes and Firebrands, in 3 Parts, 1678, 1682. See also Edwards'
Gangrcena, 1646.
6 " Qui relinquit Ecclesiam Christi, alienus est, profanus est, hostis
est Si autem grex unus est, quomodo potest gregi annumerari,
qui in numero gregis non est ? Aut pastor haberi quomodo potest,
qui (manente vero pastore, et in Ecclesia Dei ordinatione succidanea
prsesidente) nemini succedens, et a seipso incipiens, alienus fit et pro-
phanus dominicae pacis ac divinae unitatis inimicus ; non habitans in
domo Dei, id est in Ecclesia Dei, in qua non nisi Concordes atque
unanimes habitant." Cypriani Epist. ad Magnum. 69. See also
Hickes' Constitution of the Catholic Church, and the nature and con-
sequences of Schism.
SERMON II. 207
is an invasion and infringement upon Christ's own
authority, as declared in the Word of Eternal
Truth 6 .
Would that those in the ministry and out of the
ministry would duly contemplate the character of
Christ's ambassadors ! The ministers of Christ are
in Scripture designated by the names of rulers,
teachers, stewards, shepherds, servants, watchmen,
labourers, soldiers, and the like ; all of them ex-
pressive of both great toil and implicit trust.
6 "I do not know how to excuse these persons from presumption, in
presuming to act in His name without any power received from Him
to do so, to make promises, and enter into obligations, wherein they
will concern Him as a party, and to think to oblige Him without any
leave received from Him. Nor can they really pretend themselves
forced to use such means by any necessity whatsoever. They may
indeed be reduced to a necessity of ivanting the ordinances, and they
have reason to believe themselves actually reduced to that necessity,
when they cannot have them without the sin of usurpation. But no
necessity can oblige them to venture on the guilt of that, or any other
sin, that they may obtain them. And though such a necessity as this
is, when they cannot procure the sacraments by any compliances
whatsoever, much less by unsinful ones, may make their case in equity
relievable without the sacraments, if they do observe the moral duties
of religion ; yet the presuming to assume an authority without leave to
do so, is so far from gaining them the legal advantage of sacraments so
administered, as it is the most likely way to forfeit their title to the
equity of it, when they use sinful means of coming by it. I have
elsewhere observed the example of Saul to this purpose, who had
certainly fared better, if, in the absence of Samuel, he had only made
use of those moral duties, which even laicks may use without danger
of usurpation, than he did by presuming to offer sacrifice without a
lawful authority to do so." Dodwell's Separation of Churches from
Episcopal Government proved Schismatical ch. xviii. p. 421.
208 SERMON II.
Whoever would exercise any one of them aright,
must have many wearisome days and many restless
nights ; much fatigue of body, and much anxiety
of mind. But when they must all unite in one
character, alas! "who is sufficient for these things?"
Our office is indeed an office of labour. In it the
wicked and slothful servant are but one and the
same character. In it an idle hour must always be
set down as a guilty one, and every moment must
be occupied, or God, conscience, and perishing souls
may upbraid us, since the moments which we
waste in trifles might, if applied properly, be the
means, under God, of saving immortal souls. Our
office is an office of labour. It obliges us to cany
our children in our bosom, as a nurse her child ; to
suffer their murmurings and ingratitude and per-
verseness of spirit against us, without abandoning
them ; nay, to double our diligence and care in pro-
portion as they study to frustrate our labours for
their good. Our office is a station of eminence,
where it is difficult to stand, and whence it is un-
speakably dangerous to fall; it is an eminence which
exposes us to the observation of the public, and
renders many things in themselves lawful, to us not
expedient, on account of the weakness of our bre-
thren. Our office is an awful dispensation, which
commits to us the mysteries of God and the fruits
of the death of Christ, so that the least unfaithful-
ness becomes an abuse of His blood, and renders the
inestimable benefits of His Cross less effectual. It
SERMON II. 209
is a post of vigilance, which obliges us to have the
spiritual armour of our sacred warfare always in
readiness for use, to combat not only against flesh
and blood, but spiritual wickedness in high places,
and against the corruptions of the age in which we
live. Labores ecclesiastici, says Luther, exhauriunt
ab imis medullis, senium mortemque accelerant : We
must watch when others sleep ; we must study to
paleness ; we must preach tofaintness. " Instant in
season and out of season," we must instruct the
ignorant, reprove the wicked, exhort the negligent,
alarm the presumptuous, strengthen the weak, visit
the sick, comfort the afflicted, reclaim the wandering,
and confirm the faithful. Is there on earth an office
of greater labour a situation less easy or more
dangerous than ours ? Is there in the world a
greater mistake than to seek for rest there, where
least of all rest can be found ? Admiration and
applause we may perhaps obtain, though faithless
in our office ; for these are crumbs which the master
of the family sometimes deigns to throw to the dogs
under his table, for whom he has nothing greater in
reserve ; but then, when you have these, " Verily I
say unto you, you have your reward;" and a poor
reward it is ! " We preach not ourselves, but Christ
Jesus the Lord ;" and if we preach Him as we ought,
our discourses will rather be felt by the heart than
praised 7 by the tongue. That his words should
7 "Docente te in Ecclesid, non clamor populi sed gemitus suscitatur ;
lachrymce auditorium laudes tiue sint." St. Jerome.
2c
210 SERMON II.
be followed by both these effects, was thought so
unlikely by one of the Fathers, that he wept when
his hearers praised his sermon ; for then he feared
that he had missed his purpose.
May the Lord of the harvest bless with abundant
success the labours of those who are this day enter-
ing on their sacred calling. May we, who are al-
ready engaged in the sacred office, always maintain
a deep sense of the nature and importance of our
work. We are the servants of God, the ambas-
sadors of Christ, and the ministers of His eternal
love to mankind. Let us imitate His example in
meekness, tenderness, heavenly-mindedness, piety,
and zeal. Let us leave to the dead the burying
of their dead. Let us leave to the world its cares
and contentions about things of little moment ;
we are called to a higher warfare ; to advance the
kingdom of Christ, to save others, to save our-
selves. With indefatigable zeal and patience let
us try every hallowed way to execute our com-
mission. Let us have bowels of pity for sinners
who are sleeping on the edge of a tremendous
precipice, on the brink of a flaming Tophet. Our
glorious opportunities are hastening to a close ; a
few more days, and we are no longer stewards.
Life, like a rapid stream, is passing by ; death on
his pale horse approaches, and behind him follow
heaven and hell, that glorious, that dreadful reality,
to one or other of which we must one day be
consigned. Let us sow, let us plant, let us water;
SERMON II. 211
and though we may not always see a ready and
perceptible success, yet He who giveth the increase
knoweth in what time it is fittest to vouchsafe His
blessing ; perhaps when our wearied spirits shall
be at rest in Christ, and our toil-worn bodies
mouldering in the grave. " The seed grew," says
our Saviour, "while the husbandman slept." We
would wish to see the immediate fruit of our labour,
but God does not always permit this, lest we should
ascribe to ourselves 8 the effects of His grace, and
the work of His Holy Spirit. His will be done !
Only let us be diligent, and so leave our portion
of the vineyard more improved to other labourers,
who must very soon succeed us. Then, though "we
sow and another reap," we shall rejoice together in
the day of the final harvest, through the atoning
blood of Jesus Christ.
Hab. xi. 16.
" To our own nets ne'er bend we down ;
Lest on the eternal shore
The angels, while our draught they own,
Reject us evermore." Christian Year.
POLLARP, PRATER, EXETER.
Also, by the same Author,
I.
BRIEF NOTES ON THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Svo. 4s.
II.
THE OBJECT, IMPORTANCE, AND ANTIQUITY OF THE
RITE OF CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES.
Svo. 7*.
III.
THE SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS IN THE CHURCH OF
ENGLAND UNBROKEN, &c.
Svo. 3s.
THE SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND UNBROKEN;
OK,
THE NAG'S HEAD FAELE REFUTED.
n
ON THE ORDINATION SERVICES OF EDWARD THE SIXTH,
IN REPLY TO THE NINTH LETTER OF THE
REV. J. SPENCER NORTHCOTE.
SECOND EDITION, WITH ADDITIONS.
E. C. HARINGTON, M, A.
Chancellor of the Cathedral Church of Exeter.
LONDON : F. & J. RIVINGTON.
EXETER : A. IIOLDEN.
1852.
W. & H. POLLARD, North Street, Exeter,
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
" The objection sometimes advanced, that the
" Succession was broken in the sixteenth century,
"is too weak to require refutation."- HARRINGTON'S
Ordination Sermons.*
Unhappily the Author, when he wrote the above
paragraph, was unacquainted with the extent of
human credulity, and the influence of popular
prejudice. He has been informed that the Nag's
Head Fable is still believed by many, who there-
fore deny the fact of the Apostolical Succession in
the Church of England. He learns, likewise, that
those who question the unbroken succession of Eng-
lish Bishops, propagate their opinions with much
assiduity. He has therefore been induced to
reprint (with considerable additions) this little
* Published at the request of the Lord Bishop of Exeter, in 1845:
IV. PREFACE.
treatise, which has already appeared in the British
Magazine, in order to elucidate the fact of Arch-
bishop Parker's Consecration. The Author neither
has nor claims any merit whatever, save that of
enabling every class of readers to ascertain facts
and to peruse arguments in a small compass, which
are now dispersed throughout various works, not
always accessible to those who may be anxious
for information on subjects of such deep interest
as the one in question. To any reader who may
complain of brevity, or may require additional
information, the Author would suggest a careful
persual of the works of Bramhall, (with the Pre-
face, Notes, and Appendix of the edition in the
Library of Anglo -Catholic Theology,} of Courayer,
Mason, and Browne: to them he is chiefly in-
debted for the subject-matter contained in the
following pages.
ST. DAVID'S, EXETER.
September 7, 1846.
THE SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS
IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND UNBROKEN;
OK,
<Tf)e flag's 39ea& JlFafcle refuteU.
THE question as to the " Validity of English
Ordination," is one of vital consequence to every
member of the Anglican branch of the Church
Catholic ; it is, therefore, not a matter of wonder
that any doubt which may be cast on the " succes-
sion of English Bishops,' 1 or the "validity of Ordi-
nation in the Church of England," should create
a deep interest in the mind of every member
of that Church. It may, indeed, excite surprise,
that, with such advocates as Bramhall, 1 Mason, 2
Williams, 3 Browne, 4 and Courayer, 5 any doubt
should still remain unanswered to the candid in-
1 The Consecration and Succession of Protestant Bishops justified ;
and that infamous Fable of the Ordination at the Nag's Head clearly
refuted.
2 Vindication of the Church of England, $-c.
3 Succession of Protestant Bishops asserted.
4 The Story of the Ordination at the Nag's Head Tavern thoroughly
examined.
5 A Defence of the Validity of the English Ordinations; A Defence
of the Dissertation on the Validity, Sfc.
B
2 TESTIMONIES OF ROMISH WRITERS
quirer ; much more must it create astonishment that
modern Romanists 6 on the one hand, and Dissenters
6 The following testimonies of eminent Romish writers in favour
of the validity of English Ordinations will be read with interest.
" In the beginning of the last century, Cudsemius, a learned Ca-
tholic, having taken a journey into England on purpose to examine
the truth of the first ordinations made in the beginning of the
Reformation, and having probably consulted the registers before
Mason thought of producing them, acknowledged, in a book written
against the Calvinists, that the English had preserved the Succession
of the Hierarchy in their Church.
" We find the same confession in many other Catholic writers later
than he. Peter Walsh, a Franciscan, called, amongst us, Valesius, or
de Valois, expresses himself upon that head in the strongest terms, in
an advertisement prefixed to his ' History of the Irish Remonstrance,'
printed in 1664. ''In that place,' says that father, 'where I seem
' (p. 438) somewhat too severe on Matthew Parker, the first Protestant
' Archbishop of Canterbury under Queen Elizabeth, you must not
' persuade yourself / do at all reflect upon his ordination,* as if indeed
' that had been not only uncanonical or unlawful, but really void and
' null, or (as the schoolmen speak) invalid. Were I to deliver my
' opinion of this matter, or were it to my purpose to speak thereof,
' I would certainly hold myself obliged in conscience, (for anything
' I know yet,) to concur with them who doubt not the ordination of
' Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in the Protestant Church of England,
' to be (at least) valid. And yet I have read all whatever hath been
' to the contrary objected by the Roman Catholic writers, whether
' against the matter or form, or want of power in the first conse-
' crators, by reason of their schism and heresy, or of their being
' deposed formerly from their sees, &c. But I have withal observed
' nothing of truth alleged by the objectors, which might in the least
' persuade any man who is acquainted with the known divinity or
' doctrine of our present schools, (besides what Richardus Armachanus
* " Ordination is used generally to signify what we peculiarly call Con-
secration, as well as the conferring Priest's or Deacon's orders." Dr.
Ellington on the Validity of English Ordination.
IN FAVOUR OF ENGLISH ORDINATION. 3
on the other, should still be bold enough to ridicule
the claim, on the part of the Clergy of the Church
' long since writ,) and with the annals of our Roman Church ; unless,
4 peradventure, he would turn so frantic at the same as to question
'even the validity of our own ordination also in the said Roman
1 Church, on pretence, forsooth, either of the form of the Sacrament
' altered at the pleasure of men, or succession of Bishops interrupted
' by so many schisms,' &c.
" The same author being informed that some Catholics were dis-
' pleased, because in a letter wrote to the Bishop of Lincoln in defence
' of the Church of Rome, he had called that prelate 'Right Reverend:'
' For the same end of preventing,' says he, ' the offence or admiration
' of any Roman Catholics where they shall meet the titles of Right,
' or Most Illustrious, or Most Reverend, given by me to the Lord
' Bishop of Lincoln, I desire them to consider my reasons : 1st. I
' had, about twelve years since, (in the Preface to my History of the
' Irish Remonstrance,) publicly in print acknowledged my own opinion
' to be, that the Ordination of the Protestant Church of England is
' valid; meaning it undoubtedly to be so, according both to the
' public doctrines of the Roman Catholic schools themselves, and
' the ancient rituals of all the Catholic Churches, Latin and Greek ;
' nay, and to those rituals of all the Oriental heterodox churches too,
' as Morinus, the learned Oratorian, has recorded them.'
" Father Davenport, (called Santa Clara,) another writer of the
same Order, in his opinion upon the 36th Article of the Church
of England, passes the same judgment upon those ordinations as his
brother Peter Walsh ; at least according to the testimony of Dr.
Prideaux, for I have not seen the book quoted by him. But the
reputation of Dr. Prideaux is so well established, that he may be
credited upon so public a fact.
" 'Tis upon the same authority that I shall further allege another
fact, better known, and mentioned by Father Le Quien himself in his
work. Mr. Goffe, who had been of the Church of England, turning
Catholic, was admitted into the Oratory ; and there was a talk of
making him a Priest. He had already been ordained in England,
which occasioned a difficulty. The matter was proposed to many
doctors of the Sorbon, who, after having examined it, declared in
TESTIMONIES OF ROMISH WRITERS
of England, to Apostolical Succession. Who would
have anticipated that the exploded fable of the
favour of the ordination* But, that affair appearing too important
to be left to the decision of a few divines, Rome was consulted, which,
according to her practice, enjoined the ordination, upon account that
a doubt still remained for want of clearly stating the fact.f This is
related by Dr. Prideaux, who says, that he had it from a celebrated
Catholic, namely, Obadiah Walker^ who told him so, and to whom
that fact was very well known, because he was at Paris when that
affair was transacted. It was therefore at that time the prevailing
opinion of the doctors of the Sorbon, that the ordinations of the English
were valid; and why should it be thought extraordinary that I should
think as those learned men did, and maintain an opinion grounded
upon evident facts and solid reasons ?
" But what I am going to say comes nearer our times, and is more
direct to the point. In 1684 Cardinal Casanata, of known learning
and probity, and to whom the practice of Rome, about the re-ordi-
nation of the English, did not probably appear sufficient to determine
him, writ to the Bishop of Castoria, in order to know what he
thought of those ordinations : ' That great Cardinal,' says that
Prelate, in a letter of the 21st of December 1684, 'desires to know
' whether the ordinations of the Bishops of England were valid. He
' is afraid their ordination does not come from Bishops duly ordained.
' I believe 'tis for very important reasons that he desires to know of
' me what the Catholics and Protestants think of that ordination.'
That Cardinal, 'tis likely, believed that the Bishop of Castoria being
near England, and among the Protestants, must be very well in-
formed of that matter. But he was mistaken. The Bishop of
Castoria was perfectly ignorant of those facts, and ''did upon that
subject what is done by all those who are ignorant of them ; that is,
* Prideaux's words are, "gave in their opinion that our orders were good."
f Prideaux adds, "yet the Sorbonists still stuck to their opinion that he
was a good Priest by his first ordination." See a note in the new edition of
BramhaWs Works, vol. iii. p. 1 14.
% Walker was master of University College in Oxford, and apostatized to
Popery in the reign of James II.
IN FAVOUR OF ENGLISH ORDINATION. 5
Nag's Head consecration, as nullifying the Episcopal
functions of Archbishop Parker, would have heen
he began by denying the validity of those ordinations. It was with
such a prejudice that he writ at first to Cardinal Casanata, but
without giving his thoughts decisively. In the mean time, to be
better informed, he consulted two learned friends, whom he thought
might be more acquainted with the matter than he was, and who
really were so ; and the opinion of both of them was contrary to his.
The first was Mr. Arnaud, whose learning is well known, and to
whom the Jesuits themselves do not deny the justice of having been
one of the most learned writers of his age. The other was the
celebrated Dr. Snellaerts, at that time Professor of History at Louvain,
whose judicious commentary upon St. John's Gospel has been newly
published. The letter of Mr. Arnaud to the Bishop of Castoria is
dated February 4th, 1615. He does not at all hesitate about the fact,
and looks upon the Lambeth ordination as undeniable. ' My Lord,'
says he to that Prelate, ' I have seen your last letter to Dr. Snellaerts;
' but give me leave to tell you, that the fact, viz. that the Bishops
' in Queen Elizabeth's time were consecrated by true Bishops, appears
' to me undeniable, whatever Sanders and other controversialists, have
' said to the contrary. 1
" Dr. Snellaerts, who, being Professor of History, had probably
studied that matter more to the bottom, did also treat it much more
largely in the letters he writ to the Bishop of Castoria, whose
objections gave him occasion to search into that question. He
observes, in the first place, as Mr. Arnaud does, that the fact is
out of dispute. Afterwards, he confutes at large the objections of
the Bishop of Castoria, and says, among other things, that the tes-
timony of Sanders and the rest, in this present case, is of no weight.
After having confirmed this at large, he comes to the last objection
of the Bishop of Castoria, and maintains, that the form made use of
in King Edward's Ritual contains all that is necessary for ordination ;
and he does not doubt that such a ritual would be sufficient, if it was
used by the Catholic Church. This is a decision of the whole ques-
tion ; since a ritual which is sufficient in the Catholic Church may be
sufficient in any other.
" 'Tis no surprising thing that, in imitation of those learned men,
6 TESTIMONIES OF ROMISH WRITERS
adduced, in the middle of the nineteenth century,
as a prominent argument against the Episcopal Suc-
the illustrious Mr. Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux, should have acknow-
ledged the validity of the English ordinations, as it appears by his letter
to Father Mabillon.
" But this is not all. Mr. Bossuet did not only acknowledge then
the validity of the English ordinations, but also never changed his
opinion upon that head. I will give you two new proofs of it, above
all cavil. In 1699 the late Mr. Marcell, Curate of St. Jaques du
Haut-Pas at Paris, in company with a Priest of the Oratory, now
Chantor of the church of Mont/errand, making a visit to the Bishop
of Meaux, and the conversation falling upon the Church of England,
that Prelate fetching a great sigh, told them, that 'if God would give
' the English grace to renounce their errors and their schism, their
' clergy would want only to be reconciled to the Church, and rehabi-
' litated ;' and he added, that he ' had said as much before the King.'
"But here is a stronger one still. The K. F. de Riberolles, who
before he was Abbot of St. Genevieve, and Superior- General of his
Congregation, lived a long time with Mr. Bousset as superior of his
seminary, and had his entire confidence a great many years, while he
was continually about him, certifies by a declaration, which shall be
inserted in the Appendix, that he had the honour to hear that Prelate
frequently say, that if the Episcopal Succession in England under the
government of Cromwell* was well proved, which he had not suffici-
ently examined, there was no difficulty about the validity of the English
ordinations, and that their Bishops and Priests were as truly ordained as
* " It may not, perhaps, in this place, be improper to subjoin, respecting
the grand rebellion and usurpation of Cromwell, in which for fifteen or
sixteen years the functions of the episcopate were wholly suspended, that
the Bishops of London, Bangor, Bath and Wells, Chichester, Ely, Litchfield
and Coventry, Oxford, Rochester, and Salisbury, survived those troubles of
Church and State ; and that in particular, Dr. William Juxon, who had
been consecrated to the see of London ten years and upwards before the
decapitation of Archbishop Laud, was in the year 1660 promoted to the see
of Canterbury ; and remained in the metropolitical chair nearly three years
after the restoration of Charles the Second." Oxlee's Sermon on the Epis-
copal Succession, note 43, p. 107.
IN FAVOUR OF ENGLISH ORDINATION. 7
cession in the Church of England ? Or, who would
have imagined that the clerical as well as lay
members of our Church would have been stag-
gered by this Roman Forgery ? Yet so it is ; and,
therefore, a brief review of the controversy may be
interesting.
The "relation,"" as given by Popish writers viz.
Sanders, Le Quien, Constable, Sacrobosco, Fitz-
Simon, Wadsworth, Kellison, &c., may be told
in the words of Champney. His statement, in
his Treatise on the Vocation of Bishops, is as
follows : In the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's
reign, the Catholic Bishops being deprived and
committed to prison, others were to be made and
placed in their sees. They who were nominated
and elected to that dignity met by appointment
in London, at an inn, at the sign of the Nag's
Head, in the street called Cheapside. Thither also
ours. These two declarations, much later than the history of the
Variations, and the advice given to Mr. Le Grand, shew that the
Bishop of Meaux did always persist in the same opinion which he
entertained when he writ to Father Mabillon, that he had no difficulty
about the ordinations in the time of Queen Elizabeth ; and, what is more
essential, that, notwithstanding the pretended suppression of the
Sacrifice and Priesthood among the English, he always looked upon
King Edward's Ritual as containing whatever is necessary and suf-
ficient for the validity of ordination, since he had no difficulty about the
ordinations made in the time of Edward and Elizabeth" Courayer's
Defence of the Dissertation on the Validity of English Ordinations;
Prideaux's Validity of the Orders of the Church of England; and
Williams's Succession of Protestant Bishops asserted. See also note,
page 114 of the third volume of BramhaWs Works in the Library of
Anglo-Catholic Theology.
ROMISH ACCOUNT
came, upon invitation, the Bishop of Landaff, very
ancient and decrepit, and a weak and timorous
man. By him the new candidates expected to be
ordained ; which Banner, Bishop of London, then
in prison for religion, having some intimation of,
threatened Landaff with excommunication if he
ordained them. He, being frightened with this
message, and being also possibly touched with the
checks and pricks of his own conscience, drew
back, and, pretending that his eyes were too weak,
refused to lay hands upon them. The expectants,
therefore, being disappointed of what they hoped
for, and looking upon it as his putting a trick
and abuse upon them, began to load the old man
with reproaches, whom before they had treated
with great honour and respect, some of them say-
ing, 'This doting old fool thinks we shall not
be bishops, unless we be greased;' ridiculing both
the ancient Bishop and the Catholic ceremony of
Consecration. But being thus disappointed of a
consecrator, they were forced to take new mea-
sures, and addressed themselves to Scory, an apo-
state monk, (who, under Edward VI., had, without
any consecration, unlawfully possessed himself of
a bishopric,) to be ordained by him. He, who
with his religious habit had laid aside his con-
science, soon did the business, making use of
this, ceremony : They all kneeling before him,
he laid the Bible upon each of their heads, and
said, ' Take thou authority to preach the Word of
OF THE NAG S HEAD FABLE.
God sincerely ;' and so they rose up all bishops.
This whole relation I had, more than once, from
the mouth of a reverend priest, Mr. Thomas
Bluett, a very grave, learned, and prudent man,
who said he heard it from Mr. Neale, a person
of great reputation and learning, formerly Pro-
fessor of the Hebrew tongue in the University
of Oxford, and who, at the time when all this
was done, was an inmate of Banner the Bishop
of London's family, who sent him to the Bishop
of Landaff, to require him under pain of excom-
munication not to proceed in that sacrilegious
consecration, and, besides, to see what was done
there ; so that he was an eye-witness of what
was done. And of the truth of this relation,
there are at this day as many witnesses as are
alive of the priests, who were prisoners with Bluett
in the castle of Wisbich ; in which place also I
had it from him. (See Champney's Latin and
English Treatises.)
Here the reader has a view of the whole
legend from the first groundwork of it in San-
ders, till it came to its full height and propor-
tion in Fitz- Simon and Champney . 7 From the
narrative of the latter, Le Quien* takes the rela-
7 See Bramhairs Works in the Library of Anglo- Catholic Theology,
vol. iii. p. 39, note.
8 The value of Le Quierfs assertions may be learnt from the fol-
lowing extract :
" Of all the testimonies that have been produced in favour of the
10 FITZ-SIMON'S VERSION OF IT.
tion (as he calls it) of his Catholic writers ; as,
half a century before him, the author of the
Treatise of Catholic Faith and Heresy takes his
account from Champney. (See Broivne on the Nag's
story of the Tavern, none has been insisted on with greater osten-
tation than that of the Lord Audley, and afforded a more chimerical
triumph. The reader will see whether it be with reason and
success ....
" . . . To set the matter at rest, the following protest of Bishop
Morton, inserted in his will by way of codicil, was read publicly in
the church at the end of his funeral sermon, and published by Dr.
Barwick with the funeral sermon, and an historical account of that
Bishop's life : ' I do therefore solemnly profess in the presence of
' Almighty God, that, by His grace preventing and assisting me, I
'have always lived, and purpose to die, in the true Catholic faith,
' wherein I was baptized, &c. ... If I had not believed upon
' sufficient evidence that the succession of bishops in the Church of
' England had been legally derived from the Apostles, I had never
' entered into that high calling, much less continued in it thus long.
1 And therefore I must here expressly vindicate myself from a most
' notorious untruth which is cast upon me by a late Romish writer
' (Le Quieri), that I should publicly in the House of Peers, the begin-
' ning of the last parliament, assent to that abominable fiction which
' some Romanists have devised, concerning the consecrating Matthew
' Parker, at the Nag's Head tavern, to be Archbishop of Canterbury.
' For I do here solemnly profess that I have always believed that
' fable to proceed from the father of lies, as the public records still
' extant do evidently justify ; nor do I remember that ever I heard it
' mentioned in that or any other parliament that ever I sat in,' &c.
' THOM. DURESME.'
' Sealed, published, and declared, this 15th day of April 1658, in
'the presence of Thorn. Sanders jun., John Barwick cler., Jos.
' Draper cler., R. Gray, Evan Davies.' "
Courayer's Dissertation and Defence.
See also ' The Attestation of the Bishop of Durham,' in Courayer's
Defence, &c., p. 367.
PROTESTANT ACCOUNT OF IT. 1 I
Head Fable, ch. 1 .) Fitz-Simon's version, where
it differs from Champney's, is as follows: "They
make choice of Scory, an apostate monk. He
bids them all fall down upon their knees ; then,
taking Parker by the hands, he says, ' Up ! rise
Lord Bishop of Canterbury;' and again, in like
manner, to Grindall, ' Up ! rise Lord Bishop of
London ;' and so to Horn, ' Up ! rise Lord Bishop
of Winchester ;' and then to Sands, ' Up ! rise
Lord Bishop of Worcester ; and so to the rest."
Any one who compares the account of the Irish
Jesuit with that of the Doctor of the Sorbonne,
must at once see that they differ in that which is
of the greatest importance in an ordination, viz.
the two essential parts of it, the matter and the
form. Such, however, is the version of the Papists.
The account of Archbishop Parker's consecra-
tion, as recorded by historians of the Church of
England, may be given in the words of Le Neve*
Courayer and Camden. 1 Cardinal Pole surviving
Queen Mary but a few hours, (November 1558,)
" Queen Elizabeth, at her coming to the crown,
found the archbishopric of Canterbury at her dis-
posal, a post of great consequence with respect
to the situation in which she found the Church
.of England ; nor could she think of a man more
proper to fill that see than Matthew Parker. This
9 Lives of all the Protestant Bishops, vol. i. p. 10.
10 Defence, frc., ch. ii. p. 26.
i History of Elizabeth, An. 1559.
12 PROTESTANT ACCOUNT
Doctor had very reputably filled several stations
in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. ;
but, being despoiled of all his dignities in the
time of Queen Mary, he led a private life, and
shut himself up amongst his books for study and
reflection. As soon as Elizabeth ascended the
throne, he was recalled to court, and employed
in the Reformation ; for she thought Parker a
fit person to further her designs. She had, more-
over, her eyes upon him to raise him to the see
of Canterbury ; so that, after finishing the first
measures which she was obliged to take at the
beginning of her reign, she hastened a conge d'eslire
to the Chapter of Canterbury on the 18th of July
1559." The Chapter did on the 1st day of
August choose Matthew Parker for their arch-
bishop, and certified this election to the Queen,
which she confirmed by her letters patent. (See
Rymer's Records.) Having done this, on the 9th
of September she directed a commission to six
Bishops for the consecration and confirmation of
Parker. This commission was never executed ;
and, consequently, the Queen, on the 6th of De-
cember, caused another commission to be directed
to seven Bishops, requiring that all, or at least
four of them, should proceed to the consecration
and confirmation of Parker. The consecration
was delayed for some days, but, in fine, it was
performed on Sunday the 1 7th of December 1 559,
at Lambeth, by the same Bishops who, on the
OF PARKER'S CONSECRATION. 13
9th, had confirmed the election. The instrument
is to be found in several eminent historians :
(Bramhall, page 1051; Burnet, vol. i. Appendix;
Courayer* Appendix.) By this record we may
plainly see that the Ordinal of Edward the Sixth
was exactly observed: for, first, " they began with
the morning prayers ; after which the Bishop of
Hereford preached a sermon before the ceremony
began ; then Parker was presented to Barlow, and
when he had taken the oaths to the Queen, and
the prayers prescribed in the new Ordinal had
been made use of, they laid their hands on him,
saying in English, ' Take the Holy Ghost, and
' remember that thou stir up the Grace of God
' which is in thee by imposition of hands, 1 &c. They
afterwards delivered the Bible into his hands ; and,
having partaken of the Lord's Supper together,
the ceremony ended." The original acts are still
preserved in the Registers of Canterbury and in
Corpus Christi College Library at Cambridge, to
which college Parker belonged ; and we may
perceive that the whole account agrees with the
public Records which are in Rymer's collection,
as well as with those in the Registers of Canter-
bury, against which nothing ought to be objected
without valid reasons. (See Courayer's Defence,
2 Peter Francis Courayer, the author of A Defence of the Validity
of the English Ordinations, and of the Succession of Bishops in the
Church of England, was a learned divine of the Church of Rome, and
librarian of the Abbey of St. Genevieve.
14 THE ROMISH COMPARED WITH
Camderi's History of Elizabeth, and Strype's Life
of Matthew Parker.}
"Such (to quote the language of Bramhall) is
the controversy between the Romanists and our-
selves. They say that Archbishop Parker and the
rest of the Protestant Bishops, in the beginning of
Queen Elizabeth's reign, or, at the least, sundry of
them, were consecrated at the Nag's Head in Cheap-
side together, by Bishop Scory alone, or by him
and Bishop Barlow jointly, without sermon, without
Sacrament, without any solemnity, in the year 1559,
(but they know not what day, nor before what
public Notaries,) by a new fantastic form. And all
this they say, upon the supposed voluntary report
of Mr. Neale, (a single malicious spy), in private to
his own party, long after the business pretended to
be done. We say that Archbishop Parker was
consecrated alone, at Lambeth, in the Church, by
four 3 Bishops, authorized thereto by commission
under the Great Seal of England, with sermon,
with Sacrament, with all due solemnities, upon
the 17th day of December 1559, before four of
the most eminent public Notaries in England, and
particularly the same public Notary who was prin-
cipal actuary both at Cardinal Pole's* consecration
3 Will. Barlow, John Scory, Mil. Coverdale, and John Hodghins.
4 "It is remarkable that the four Notaries who attested Cardinal
Pole's consecration signed also the act of consecration of Parker ; the
comparison of their hand-writing affords a decisive proof of the
authenticity of the act." Dr. Elrington's Validity of English Ordi-
nation. Bramhall, p. 455.
THE PROTESTANT VERSION. 15
and Archbishop Parker's ; and that all the rest of
the Bishops were consecrated at other times, some
in the same month, but not upon the same day ;
some in the same year, but not in the same month;
and some the year following. And, to prove the
truth of our relation and the falsehood of theirs,
we produce the Register of the see of Canterbury, as
authentic as the world hath any ; the Registers of
the other fourteen sees then vacant, all as carefully
kept by sworn officers as the records of the Vatican
itself. We produce all the commissions under the
Privy Seal and Great Seal of England. We pro-
duce the rolls or records of the Chancery ; and, if
the records of the Signet Office had not been un-
fortunately burned in King James' time, it might
have been verified by those also. We produce an
act of Parliament express in the point, within seven
years after the consecration. We produce all the
controverted consecrations published to the world in
print, anno 1572, three years before Archbishop
Parker's death, whilst all things were fresh in
men's memories."
The first reason 5 to be adduced against this
ridiculous fable is taken from the palpable con-
tradictions and gross absurdities and defects of those
5 The following arguments, which are chiefly expressed in the
language of the authors themselves, may be seen more at large in
Bramhall's Consecration of Protestant Bishops vindicated, pp. 435-458 ;
Courayer's Defence and Dissertation ; and Browne on the Nag's Head
Controversy.
16 PALPABLE CONTRADICTIONS
Roman Catholic writers who have related this silly
tale ; who, in fact, agree in nothing but in their
common malice against the Church of England.
The only semblance of agreement is respecting the
consecrator ; yet, even in this, they disagree one
from another. The common opinion is, that Scory
alone consecrated them. But Mr. Constable* one of
their principal authors, supposes that Bishop Barlow
might have joined Scory in the consecration. And
Sanders, 7 whose pen was ready enough, and whose
malice was undoubted, and who, moreover, was
perfectly cognizant of the affairs of that particular
period, leaves it doubtful, when, or where, or by
whom they were consecrated. But they disagree
much more among themselves, who they should be
who were consecrated. First, Mr. Wadsworth does
not say that any of our Bishops were actually
consecrated there, but only that there was an
attempt to consecrate the first of them, viz. Arch-
bishop Parker. But that which destroys the credit
of this fiction is this, that Parker was not personally
present at his confirmation* in Bow Church on the
9th of December, or at his confirmation dinner at
the Nag's Head Tavern, (which gave occasion to
6 MS. An Answer to a Question about the Vocation and Consecration
of the English Bishops.
7 History of the English Schisms.
8 That Parker was confirmed by proxy, see the record of his con-
firmation, &c., with the notes, in the new edition of Bramhatfs Works,
vol. iii. p. 175.
OF ROMISH WRITERS. 17
the story,) 9 but was confirmed by his proctor, Dr.
Nicholas Bulling ham. A man may be confirmed
9 The following important extract from the fifth and last edition of
Dr. Lingard's History of England, (vol. vi. pp. 670-2, edit. 1849,)
will be read with deep interest, as containing the deliberate and final
judgment of that eminent historian on this llomish Fable.
" We are told, and that too on apparent authority, ( Fuller,
ix. 62; Heylin, p. 121,) that from Bow Church the commissioners,
who had confirmed the election of Parker, proceeded to dinner at
a neighbouring inn, the Nag's Head, much frequented by the
country clergy on their arrival in London. This fact, if it be
a fact, may account for the origin of a story afterwards circulated,
that, during the dinner, a messenger arrived from Bonner forbidding
Kitchen to exercise any diocesan authority in the bishopric of Lon-
don, on which Scorey, jocularly leaving his seat, made the bishops
elect kneel down, placed a bible on the head of each, and bade them
rise up consecrated bishops. How Kitchen and Scorey happened to
be present, (for the records shew that they never acted together,) or
what concern the bishops elect had with the confirmation of Parker,
(for they were confirmed not by the commissioners, but by Parker
himself,) is not stated. But the dinner appears to have given rise to
some story, which at first was privately whispered, and after some
years became by repetition more consistent and more widely known,
and acquired strength and credit in proportion as it receded from its
origin, till in the beginning of the next century it was boldly sup-
ported by writers, who maintained that the established hierarchy
derived its existence from the mummery said to have been practised
at the Nag's Head by the jocular bishop Scorey. It will not excite
surprise, if such statements led to a long and acrimonious con-
troversy.
"To meet the Nag's Head fable, appeal was made to the arch-
bishop's register. That register opens with some documents apper-
taining to his promotion, and a long narrative comprising the whole
process of his consecration ; a narrative remarkable for the minute-
ness of detail into which it enters, and the irreverent language in
which it occasionally speaks of the officiating prelates, whom it
designates by the names of plain John Scorey, Miles Coverdale, &c.
C
18 PALPABLE CONTRADICTIONS
by proxy, but cannot be consecrated by proxy. If,
therefore, there was an attempt to consecrate any
From this document we learn that the time appointed for the con-
secration was a little before six in the morning of Sunday, the 1 7th
of December ; the place appointed, the archiepiscopal chapel at
Lambeth. The consecrators were the four prelates by whom the
election of Parker had been confirmed, Barlow and Hodgkins, who
had been bishops under Henry VIII., and Scorey and Coverdale,
who had been bishops under Edward VI. The witnesses consisted
of many of the new bishops elect, the chief officers of Parker's
ecclesiastical and household establishments, and Thomas Willet and
John Incent, notaries public, to whom we ought perhaps to attribute
the document itself. There exists a copy of the same document
in the State Paper Office, (Tierney's Dodd, ii. cclxxxiv.,) and another
in a contemporary hand, (often supposed to be the original notarial
instrument from which the entry was made in the register,) still
in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, to which it
was left a legacy, with other papers, by the archbishop himself.
A fac -simile of this instrument was published by the Cambridge
Antiquarian Society in 1841.
" To this testimony of the register what could the champions of the
Nag's Head story oppose ? They had but one resource, to deny its
authenticity ; to pronounce it a forgery. But there was nothing to
countenance such a supposition. The most experienced eye could
not discover in the entry itself, or the form of the characters, or
the colour of the ink, the slightest vestige of imposture. Moreover,
the style of the instrument, the form of the rite, and the costumes
attributed to the prelates, were all in keeping, redolent of the
theology taught in the schools of Strasburgh and Geneva. Besides,
if external confirmation were wanting, there was the archbishop's
diary or journal, a parchment roll, in which he had been accustomed
to enter the principal events of his life, and in which, under the
date of the 17th of December, ann. 1559, is found Consecratus
sum in archiepiscopum Cantuarien. Heu ! heu ! Domine Deus, in
quae tempera servasti me! Another confirmation, to which no ob-
jection can be reasonably opposed, occurs in the Zurich letters, in
which we find Sampson informing Peter Martyr on the 6th of
OF ROMISH WRITERS. 19
one at the Nag's Head, it must have been Dr.
Nicholas Bullingham ; it could not have been Arch-
January, 1560, that Dr. Parker had been consecrated archbishop of
Canterbury during the preceding month.
" In the course of this controversy, the answer to one objection
frequently produced a new subject of debate. According to the
register, a William Barlow held the office of consecrating prelate.
Who was he? Barlow had been a regular canon of St. Osyth's,
distinguished by the boldness and bitterness of his writings at a
more early period, and afterwards a great favourite with Cromwell,
vicar-general to Henry VIII. About the end of 1535 he was sent
from his priory of Bisham in the company of Lord William Howard,
on a mission, partly political, partly religious, to James V. of Scot-
land, where he was successfully opposed by those ' pestilent limbs
' of the devil,' the Scottish bishops. Soon after his arrival there,
he was elected bishop of St. Asaph, in Wales, and, whilst he still
remained in Scotland, before he had been consecrated, or had taken
possession of his see, he was transferred, probably at the instance of
his patron, from the diocese of St. Asaph to that of St. David's, by
' free transmutation per liberam transmutationem.' Rymer, xiv.
570. In the present stage of the controversy it was asked whether
Barlow had been consecrated as well as transmuted, for both parties
agreed that an unconsecrated prelate could not confer consecration.
Now it happened most vexatiously that no record of his consecration
was known to exist. Though searches were repeatedly made in
every likely repository, no traces of it could be found, nor, I believe,
has any allusion or reference to it been discovered to the present
day in any ancient writer or document. Still the absence of proof
is no proof of non-consecration. No man has ever disputed the
consecration of Gardiner of Winchester ; yet he was made bishop
whilst on a mission abroad, and his consecration is involved in as
much darkness as that of Barlow. When, therefore, we find Barlow
during ten years, the remainder of Henry's reign, constantly asso-
ciated as a brother with the other consecrated bishops, discharging
with them all the duties, both spiritual and secular, of a consecrated
bishop, summoned equally with them to parliament and convocation,
taking his seat among them according to his seniority, and voting on
C
20 PROCEEDINGS UPON
bishop Parker. Others say, that there was more
than an attempt, that one or more were actually
all subjects as one of them, it seems most unreasonable to suppose,
without direct proof, that he had never received that sacred rite,
without which, according to the laws of both church and state, he
could not have become a member of the episcopal body."
10 The following extract from Archbishop Bramhall will tend to
elucidate the subject before us :
"When any Bishop's see becometh void, there issueth a writ out of
the Exchequer to seize the temporalities into the King's hand, as
being the ancient and well-known patron of the English Church ;
leaving the spiritualities to the Archbishop, or to the Dean and
Chapter, according to the custom of the place.
" Next, the King granteth his conge d 1 eslire, or his licence to
choose a Bishop, to the Dean and Chapter. Upon the receipt of this
licence the Dean and Chapter, within a certain number of days,
choose a Bishop, and certify their election to the King, under the
common seal of the Chapter.
" Upon the return of this certificate, the King granteth out a
commission, under the Great Seal of England, to the Archbishop,
or, in the vacancy of the archbishopric, to so many Bishops, to
examine the election ; and, if they find it fairly made, to confirm
it, and after confirmation to proceed to the consecration of the
person elected, according to the form prescribed by the Church of
England. This commission or mandate must pass both through
the Signet Office and Chancery, and be attested by the clerks of
both those offices, and signed by the Lord Chancellor and Lord
Privy Seal, and be enrolled. So as it is morally impossible there
should be any forgery in it.
"Upon the receipt of this mandate, the Bishops who are authorised
by the King, do meet first at Bow's Church in London, where, with
the assistance of the chief ecclesiastical Judges of the realm, the Dean
of the Arches, the Judges of the Prerogative and Audience, with
their Registers to actuate what is done, they do solemnly in form of
law confirm the election. Which being done, and it being late before
it be done, the Commissioners and Judges were and are sometimes
invited to the Nag's Head, to a dinner, as being very near Bow's
THE VACANCY OF A SEE. 21
consecrated there ; but they name none. Other
writers name some, but they accord not in their
Church, and in those days the only place of note. This meeting
led Mr. Neale (a man altogether unacquainted with such forms,) into
this fool's paradise : first, to suspect, and upon suspicion to conclude,
that they were about an ordination there ; and, lastly, to broach his
brain-sick conceits in corners, and, finding them to be greedily swal-
lowed by such as wished them true, to assert his own drowsy suspicion
for a real truth. But the mischief is, that Dr. Parker, who was to be
consecrated, was not present in person, but by his proxy.
" After the confirmation is done, commonly about three or four
days, (but, as it happened in Archbishop Parker's case, nine days,)
the Commissioners proceed to the consecration for the most part,
out of their respect for the Archbishop, in the chapel at Lambeth ;
with sermon, Sacrament, and all solemnity requisite according to
the form prescribed by the Church of England ; in the presence
of public Notaries or sworn officers, who reduce everything that
is done, with all the circumstances, into Acts, and enter them into
the Register of the see of Canterbury ; where they are carefully
kept by the principal officer in a public office, as records ; where
every one who desireth, may view them from time to time, and
have a copy of them if he please. And it is to be noted, that at
any consecration, especially of an Archbishop, great numbers of
principal courtiers and citizens are present ; so as it is no more
possible to counterfeit such a consecration than to walk invisible
upon the Exchange at noonday.
" After the consecration is done, the person consecrated is not
presently admitted to his bishopric. First, the Archbishop maketh
his certificate of the consecration, with all the circumstances of it,
under his archiepiscopal seal; thereupon the King taketh the new
bishop's oath of fealty, and commands that he be put into the
actual possession of his bishopric ; then he is intbroned ; and at
his inthronization his ordination is publicly read ; then he enjoyeth
his spiritualities ; then issueth a writ out of the Exchequer to the
sheriff to restore him to the temporalities of his bishopric. This
custom is so ancient, so certain, so general, that no Englishman
can speak against it.
22 INSUPERABLE DIFFICULTIES
enumeration. Some say Jewel, Sands, Horn, Grin-
dall, but not Parker ; others give the names of
Parker, Grindall, Horn, and Sands. Lastly, other
writers say that all who were appointed to the vacant
Bishopricks were consecrated there, and enumerate
fifteen. These writers speak indefinitely " Parker
and his fellows :" but they seem to extend this word
"fellows" as far as Champney, viz. to fifteen; for
they tell us that " they all kneeled down before
him, and he laid the Bible upon every one of their
heads or shoulders." Again, the time is a principal
circumstance in all consecrations, and is invariably
most punctually recorded by the Actuaries or public
Notaries. But in this fabulous relation the time is
concealed. It would seem that the inventor was
no good actuary, and either did not know how
material that circumstance was, or had forgotten it.
"Here we see evidently how all things do pursue one another,
and what a necessary and essential connection there is between
them. So as the stealing of an election, or the stealing of a con-
secration, can get no man a bishopric ; as Mr. Neale dreamed. He
that would advantage himself that way, must falsify all the records,
both ecclesiastical and civil. He must falsify the records of the
Chancery, of the Signet Office, of the Exchequer, of the Registries,
of the Bishop, of the Dean and Chapter. He must counterfeit
the hands and seals of the King, of the Archbishop, of the Lord
Chancellor, the Lord Privy Seal, of the Clerks and public Notaries ;
which is not imaginable. If Mr. Neale, who first devised this drowsy
dream, (or somebody for him,) had had more experience of our
English laws and customs, he would have feigned a more probable
tale, or have held his peace for ever." Archbishop Bramhall's Con-
secration of Protestant BisJiops vindicated, pp. 446-7, edit. 1677.
OF THE ROMISH FABLES. 23
Dr. Champney alone tells us that it was before the
9th of September 1559. But this is not precise
enough for an act ; and, moreover, it is most ap-
parently false and impossible. For, whereas there
are two commissions under the great seal of
England, for the confirmation and consecration of
Archbishop Parker, both recorded in the Rolls,
the one which was not l executed, the other which
was ; the former dated this very ninth day of Sep-
tember, and the other, which was executed, dated
the succeeding sixth day of December, it follows,
that if Dr. Champney said true, Archbishop Parker
was consecrated before he was confirmed ; nay, more,
before there was any commission issued, either for
his consecration or confirmation. Moreover, every
consecration must be performed before one or more
public Notaries ; and Notaries enough of great
eminence are proved to have been present at Arch-
bishop Parker's consecration at Lambeth. Now
what Notary recorded the Nag's Head consecra-
tion ? Who drew it up into acts ? Who certified
it ? Nobody ! Because the silly inventor did not
understand what things were necessary for a con-
secration.
A second reason against this senseless fable is, the
late discovery of it to the world, and its long con-
cealment before the inventors had the presumption
to publish it. Can any man in his right senses
i See BramhaWs Works, vol. iii. note, p. 73, new edition.
24 REASONS AGAINST
imagine that the Nag's Head consecration happened
in the year 1559, and, if the Popish writers say
truly, was notoriously known to all the world; and
that it should never once have been published, or
even hinted at, for almost a whole age after the
supposed transaction that is, till the year 1600 ?
We can appeal to the Romanists themselves,
whether it be credible that this story should be
"notoriously known to all the world" in the begin-
ning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, 2 and yet neither
Stapleton, nor Harding, nor Bristow, nor Alan,
nor Reynolds, nor Parsons, nor any one of the
Roman Catholic writers, should so much as allude
to it for forty years ensuing ?
A third reason against this ridiculous libel is, the
strictness of our laws, which allow no man to con-
2 It may be remarked, as shewing the absurdity of such a sup-
position, that, " for the first ten years of Queen Elizabeth, a great
part of the Roman Catholic laity came frequently to church. This
Sir Edward Coke declared in his charge at Norwich assizes, and
in his speech against Garnet and other conspirators, in the Powder
Plot. And this he affirmed upon his own certain knowledge, and
gave an instance in Beddenfield, Cornwallis, and several others of
the Roman Catholic persuasion. And, to fortify Coke's evidence,
the same thing is averred by the Queen herself, in her instructions
to Sir Francis Walsingham ; here, with reference to the principal
persons of that party, it is expressly affirmed that they ' did ordinarily
' resort, from the beginning of her reign, in all open places to the
' churches, and to divine services in the church, without contradiction,
'or show of misliking.' 1 " See Collier's Eccl. Hist., an. 1559.
Heylyn also says, that "the learned amongst the Papists conformed
to it, (the new service,) and that it differed little from what it was
before."
THE NAG'S HEAD STORY. 25
secrate, or be consecrated, but in a sacred place,
with due matter and form, and all the rites and
ceremonies prescribed by the Church of England.
No man can be consecrated by fewer than four
Bishops, or three at the least, and that after the
election of the Dean and Chapter has been duly
confirmed, and upon the mandate or commission of
the King under the Great Seal of England, under
the pain of a prtemunire that is, the forfeiture of
lands, and goods, and livings, and liberty, and
protection. 3 They allow not consecration in a
tavern, without due matter and form, without the
ceremonies and solemnity prescribed by the Church,
without election, without confirmation, without let-
ters-patent, by one single Bishop, or rather, by no
Bishop at all, as they feign to have been the case
in the Nay's Head consecration !
Again, a fourth reason is, that there was no need
of all this illegality. There could be no necessity
why they should have a clandestine consecration,
without a Register or public Notary, when there
were abundance at hand, out of the Courts of
Arches, and the Audience, and Prerogative. There
was no necessity why they should anticipate the
Queen's letters-patent for their consecration, by whose
commission they had been elected, and of the ac-
complishment whereof in due time they could not
doubt. There could exist no reason why they should
3 25 Hen. VIII., c. 20, sec. 7.
26 THE FABLE FALSIFIED
select a common tavern for the place of their con-
secration, when the keys of all the churches in the
province were at their command. Lastly, there
could be no necessity why they should desert the
form of consecration prescribed by law, which was
agreeable alike to their judgments, to their desires,
and to their duties ; and should omit the essentials
of consecration, both matter and form, which they
knew well enough, and be consecrated by a new
fantastic form ! The only necessity that can be
pretended is the want of a competent number of
Bishops ; and, to answer this objection, we bring no
vain rumours, no uncertain conjectures, but the
evident and authentic testimony of the Great Seal
of England affixed to the Queen's letters-patent, for
authorizing the consecration and confirmation of
Matthew Parker, dated the sixth of December
1559, directed to seven Protestant Bishops viz.
Anthony Kitchen, Bishop of Llandaif ; William Bar-
low, sometime Bishop of Bath and Wells and then
elect of Chichester ; John Scory, Bishop (elect) of
Hereford, and formerly Bishop of Chichester ; Miles
Coverdale, sometime Bishop of Exeter ; Richard
(or John) de Bedford and John de Thetford, Suf-
fragan Bishops ; and John Bale, Bishop of Ossory.
A fifth reason, in proof of the falsity of the story
in question, is derived from the diametrical oppo-
sition between this fabulous relation of the Nag's
Head consecration, and all the Records of England,
both ecclesiastical and civil. First, As to the time.
BY ALL THE PUBLIC RECORDS. 27
The Romanists say that this consecration was before
the ninth of September 1559: but it is apparent,
by all the Records of the Chancery, that all the
distinct letters-patent, or commissions, for their
respective confirmations and consecrations, where-
upon they were consecrated, were issued long after;
viz. Archbishop Parker's letters-patent, which
were the first, upon the sixth day of December
following ; next, the commissions for Grindall,
Cox, and Sands, who were consecrated together
21st of December 1559 ; then for Bullingham,
Jewel, and Davies, who were consecrated 21st of
January 1560 ; then for Bentham and Barclay,
who were consecrated 24th of March 1 560 ; and,
in the year following, for Horn, consecrated 16th
of February 1560 ; Alley, consecrated 14th of
July 1560; Scambler, consecrated 1 6th of Febru-
ary 1560 ; and Pilkington, consecrated 2nd of
March 1560. Copies of these commissions are
to be seen recorded verbatim,* both in the rolls
of the Archbishop's Register, and in the rolls of
the Chancery. To what end were all these let-
ters-patent to authorize so many confirmations
and consecrations, if the consecrations had been
effected long before ? No man's election can be
confirmed in England but by the King's letters-
4 See Records and Instruments in Courayer's Defence, Appendix ;
and the Table of Consecrations and Confirmations, A.D. 1559-1561,
vol. iii. of BramhalVs Works, in the Library of Anglo- Catholic
Theology.
28 THE STORY DISPROVED
patent ; therefore the letters-patent must precede
the confirmation and consecration not follow, after
a period of three, six, or even twelve months.
And as by the records of the Chancery, so also by
all the ecclesiastical records, is the story proved to
be fabulous. First, by the records of their several
and distinct confirmations, which followed their
commissions in due order ; next, by those of their
several and distinct consecrations, which duly fol-
lowed their confirmations. The authentic records,
both of these confirmations and consecrations, may
be seen in the registry of the Archbishop of Can-
terbury. One forgery will not suffice ; either all
these records are forged, or the Nag's Head story is
a silly senseless fable. Lastly, after the consecra-
tion, follows the installation, or enthronization, the
record of which is to be found in the register of
the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury ; and the
restitution of the new Bishop to his temporalities
by virtue of the King's writ, mentioning the con-
firmation and oath of fealty to the King, as being
temporal things. Now, how duly, according to
these instruments, does one act follow another in
regular succession. Archbishop Parker's commis-
sion issued December 6th ; his confirmation followed
December 9th; his consecration, December 17th;
his enthronization, immediately afterwards; and the
restitution of his temporalities, the (twenty 5 ) -first of
5 See note in the new edition of BramhaWs Works (1844), in the
Library of Anglo- Catholic Theology, vol. iii. p. 69.
BY THE ECCLESIASTICAL RECORDS. 29
March ensuing that is, at the latter end of the
very next term. But, by their relation, the conse-
cration was long before the election was confirmed,
which cannot be : the letters -patent to license the
confirmation and consecration were issued three
months after the consecration had been effected,
which is incredible : as for the confirmation, Mr.
Neale, the inventor of the story, knew not what
it was : the installation followed, three months after
the consecration ; and the restitution to the tem-
poralities, six months subsequently ; all of which
is out of the pale of probability. So far as regards
the time.
And now as to the place. The story propagated
by the Romanists says, that the elected Bishops
were consecrated at the Nag's Head Tavern. All
the ecclesiastical records say that they were con-
secrated at Lambeth. The King's commission en-
joins a legal consecration, according to the form
prescribed by law ; such a legal consecration ours
at Lambeth was ; such a legal consecration theirs
at the Nag's Head was not ; neither as to the
place, nor the rites, nor the essentials of consecra-
tion. And, without good assurance that the con-
secration was legal, neither the person consecrated
could have been enthroned, nor made his oath
of fidelity to the King, nor have been restored
to his temporalities ; and yet Archbishop Parker
was enthroned, did take the oath of fidelity, was
restored to his temporalities, or, in other words,
30 QUESTIONS AS TO THE CONSECRATORS
his consecration was legally performed at Lambeth
not illegally at the Nag's Head.
Then, again, as regards the consecrator. The
fabulous relation feigns that there was one conse-
crator, or at the most two. The authentic records
of the Church of England testify that there were
four consecrators ; the letters-patent require that
there should be four consecrators, and, without an
authentic certificate that there had been four, the
King's writ of restitution would not have been issued.
The Romanists feign that they imposed hands
mutually, Scory upon them, and they upon Scory ;
the Records testify that Scory was solemnly con-
secrated Bishop of Rochester, in King Edward's
time, the 13th (30th) 6 day of August 1551, by the
Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London,
and the Suffragan Bishop of Bedford, and there-
fore did not require re-consecration at the Nag's
Head.
Lastly, as to the persons consecrated. Some
writers feign that all the elected Bishops, and
others say that many of them, were consecrated
together at one time with Archbishop Parker.
But all the records, both civil and ecclesiastical,
testify the contrary ; that they had several com-
missions, several confirmations, several consecra-
tions, upon several days, in several months, in seve-
ral years, and had several consecrators, as appears
6 See note, ibid, p. 70.
AND PERSONS CONSECRATED. 31
clearly, not only by the authentic Records of the
see of Canterbury, but also by the Records of the
Chancery, and particularly by the several commis-
sions directed expressly to Archbishop Parker, as
a Bishop actually consecrated, for the consecration
of all the rest ; the first three of which commissions
or letters-patent bear date the 18th of December
1559 (that is, the very next day after Archbishop
Parker's consecration) for the confirmation and
consecration of Grindall, Cox, and Sands, three
of those elected Bishops.* If any doubt exists
as to these letters-patent, they may be examined
both in the Archbishop's Registry, and in the
Rolls. If these Bishops were confirmed and con-
secrated by Archbishop Parker, then they were
not consecrated together with him, as is affirmed
in the Nag's Head relation ; and with this their
subsequent installations and restitutions exactly
agree. Either, we repeat, all the records in
England connected with these consecrations must
be false, or the silly fable of the Nag's Head is
a lying forgery. 7
7 "These records, as well as the Act of Consecration, are all in-
consistent with the Nag's Head story; and, if that be true, they must
all have been forged. Yet further : In the Registry of the Metro-
politan Chapter of Canterbury the vacancy of that see is noticed from
November 1558, when Pole died, until the 8th of December, 1559, in
the several commissions to the officers of the province and diocese of
Canterbury, the inhibitions on account of visitations, the probates of
wills, the administrations to the goods of persons dying intestate, the
vacancies of the different sees in that province which happened during
32 ABSURDITIES REQUISITE
But not only do the Records of England refute
the Nag's Head story, but the same Records cow-
that period, the commissions to Vicars- General, the institutions to
ecclesiastical benefices, and entries of collations by the Queen to ec-
clesiastical benefices in the vacant dioceses ; forming a long train of
legal acts, and occupying 106 leaves in the Registry ; and amongst
these we must have another set of forgeries, and that of entries
affecting the property of individuals, and legal rights of various
kinds, if the Nag's Head story be true, for it fills the see in the
beginning of September, and the form of these entries is l sede vacante 1
for three months beyond that time. Again, the Registry of the Pre-
rogative Court of Canterbury^eontains the probates of thirty-seven
wills, between the 15th of September 1559, and the 9th of December
following, all entered as having been made before Walter Haddon,
commissary of the Court during the vacancy of the see ; and on that
day the form is changed, and the entries, until the 15th of December,
are in the name of Walter Haddon, acting under the authority of
Archbishop Parker, elected and confirmed ; and the whole of this legal
record must also be forged, if the Nag's Head story be true * ...
But after pronouncing all the works usually regarded as of classic
antiquity to be forgeries, except four or five, some forty or fifty books
and public records more were easily disposed of; and he (Hardouin)
appears in this Ordination controversy quite in his element. Adduce,
as an argument in support of Parkers Registry, the edition of the
Antiquitates Eccles. Brit, in 1572, Hardouin implies, It is a forgery.
But it was reprinted in 1605 at Hanau*? A forgery. It is confirmed
by the Catalogue of English.writers, printed in Germany ? A forgery.
Cujas quotes the Antiquities in a work printed in 1594 ? A forgery.
Hollingshead 's Chronicle, printed in 1586, and containing the date
of Parker's consecration? A forgery. Camden's Britannia, published
in 1586 ? A forgery. It was reprinted at Frankfort in 1590 ? A
forgery. The Life of Parker, with Notes, by a Puritan, printed in
1574 ? A forgery. Humfreys Life of Jewell, in 1573 ? A forgery.
Godwin, de Prcesulibus Anglia, printed in 1601 ? A forgery. The
History of London, by Stow, printed in 1605 ? A forgery. There
* See Dr. Elrington's Appendix, Nos. 14, 15, 16.
TO SUPPORT THE ROMISH STORY. 33
firm and establish our relation. We say, first,
that, the see of Canterbury being void by the
death of Cardinal Pole, the Queen granted her
conge d 'eslire to the Dean and Chapter of Canter-
bury to choose an Archbishop. This is clearly
proved by the authentic copy of the conge d 'eslire
itself in the Rolls. (Rot. Par. 6, 1st Eliz.) We
say, secondly, that the Dean and Chapter, having
received this licence, did choose Dr. Matthew Par-
ker for their Archbishop. This, again, is apparent
by the Queen's commission for his confirmation
and restitution, wherein there is this clause, " And
the said Dean and Chapter, by virtue of our licence,
have chosen our beloved in Christ, Matthew Parker,
Professor of Theology, for Archbishop and Pastor
to them and the aforesaid Church, as by their
arc many copies of the Antiquitates Eccl. Brit, with MS. Notes in
them ? All forgeries. The Records published by Rymer in his
Fcedera ? All forgeries. The Registry of Lambeth ? A forgery.
The Register of the Prerogative Court ? A forgery. The Registry
of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury ? A forgery. The Registry
of the Bishop of Salisbury? A forgery. -^Qi the Bishop of Worcester?
A forgery. Of Winchester ? A forgery. Of Cranmer ? A forgery.
Of Bonner ? A forgery. The letters of Jewell, authenticated by the
public seal of Zurich? A forgery. Barely to state such assertions
is to refute them ; and yet, whoever contends for the Nag's Head
story has no means of maintaining his opinion but by adopting the
whole of Hardouins system ; for every book, and paper, and registry
that I have named must be a forgery, if that story be true." Dr.
Elrington's Validity of English Ordination established, pp. 103 and 108.
See also the Preface to the third volume of BramhalF ,? Works, in the
Library of Anglo -Catholic Theology.
D
34 THE PROTESTANT ACCOUNT
letters-patent directed to us thereupon it appear eth
more fully," &c. Again, the Queen, accepting this
election, was graciously pleased to issue out two
commissions for the legal confirmation of the said
election, and consecrating of the said Archbishop.
The first, dated the 9th of September 1559, di-
rected to six Bishops, (Rot. Par. 2, 1st Eiiz.,)
was not executed ; the second commission, which
was executed, was dated the 6th of December
following, directed to the seven Bishops, 8 whose
names and sees are given in the commission in
question. Fourthly, we say, that, by virtue of
these letters-patent of December 6th, four of the
commissioners therein named did meet in Bow
Church upon the 9th day of the said month, and
then and there, with the advice of the chief
ecclesiastical lawyers of the kingdom, the Dean
of Arches, and the Judges of the Prerogative and
Audience, did solemnly confirm the election : this
is proved by the records of the confirmation or
definitive sentence itself. (See the record in full
in Courayer's Appendix, and Bramhall, edit. 1844,
App. p. 185.) Fifthly, we say, that eight days
after the confirmation that is to say, the 17th
of December 1559, the same commissioners did
proceed to the consecration of Archbishop Parker
8 The names and sees are given above, p. 26. On the Consecration
of the Consecrators of Archbishop Parker, see Preface to BramhalTs
Works, vol. iii. of the Library of Anglo- Catholic Theology, and note,
p. 78.
CONFIRMED BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. 35
in the archiepiscopal chapel at Lambeth, accord-
ing to the form prescribed by the Church of Eng-
land, " with solemn prayers and sermon, and the
holy Eucharist, at which great numbers of grave
persons communicated with him at the time :"
this is proved evidently by the authentic records
of the consecration, as they are still and always
have been to be seen in the public Registry of
the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury. 9
" As the case stands, (writes the Editor 10 of BramhalVs
Works 1 in the Library of Anglo- Catholic Theology,} I may
be permitted to say, that the result of a tolerably minute
examination of the evidence upon the subject is, in few
words, this : that, if any one is disposed to question the
truth of the account given in the Lambeth Register,
he must be prepared to assert the forgery not only of that
Register itself, and the first volume of Archbishop Par-
ker's Register, which is the volume in question, consists of
411 pages containing a mass of circumstantial entries upon
a great variety of subjects, but of the Registers also
of the several Sees and Chapters throughout the kingdom
for the period referred to (so far as they are preserved or
as it has been found possible to consult them) ; of many
9 See Records, &c., in the Appendix to BramhalVs Works, edit.
1844, pp. 174-215 ; in the Appendix to Dr. Elrington's Validity of
English Ordination established; and Courayer's Appendix of Records
and Instruments.
10 The Editor, to whom every member of the Church of England
is so much indebted, is the Rev. A. W. Haddan, M.A., Fellow and
Tutor of Trin. Coll., Oxford.
1 Vol. iii., Preface to the Consecration of Protestant Bishops vin-
dicated.
D 2
36 MASS OF EVIDENCE
pages of entries in the Registers of the Prerogative Court
of Canterbury ; of thirty or forty documents in the Rolls ;
of a mass of contemporary letters and other documents
preserved in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cam-
bridge, with the existence of which Mason, an Oxonian,
(who is the person accused, most absurdly, of forging the
Register in 1613,) was unacquainted; of other also con-
temporary documents, preserved in the State Paper Office,
likewise unknown to Mason; of others, (which are by
themselves enough to prove the case,) preserved at Zurich,
and unknown in England until 1685, seventy-two years
after Mason's book was published ; of Archbishop Parker's
book " De Antiquitate Britannica3 Ecclesise," as privately
printed by him in 1572, a work of which twenty-two
copies were known to exist (out of fifty originally printed)
in 1724; of a Puritan translation of a Life of Parker (the
original of which is in C. C. C. Library, Cambridge,) con-
taining a table of the Consecrations in question, according
mainly with the Register, and printed in 1574, of which
several copies exist; of pp. 1490-1491 in the middle of
vol.iii. of Holingshead's Chronicle as first published in 1586;
.and, lastly, of at least three other printed authorities prior
to 1613, all of which evidences are independent of each
other, bear no signs whatever of want of genuineness,
and tally to a very minute degree of accuracy : and he
must be prepared to do this, upon the testimony of two,
or, at the most, three, obscure controversialists, the ear-
liest forty-four years after the event, writing in foreign
countries, and avowedly upon mere heresay, whose evi-
dence is in itself rendered absolutely unworthy of credit
by the undisguised virulence and palpable ignorance of
the writings in which it is found. Such is in brief the
balance of testimony upon which he must be prepared to
AGAINST THE ROMISH FABLE. 37
surrender a consistent, probable, and rational narrative,
and to adopt in its stead a supposition at once incon-
gruous, improbable, and absurd." 2
We may conclude the testimony above given,
in favour of Archbishop Parker's due consecration,
with an extract from Mason's Vindication. " The
consecration of Archbishop Parker, which was so-
lemnized sixty years ago and more, is beyond the
memory of most men now alive ; and yet it hath
pleased God to preserve for us one witness, vene-
rable for his great age, and every way above the
reach of exception ; I mean the most noble and
renowned Lord Charles Howard, Earl of Notting-
ham, and late Lord High Admiral of England :
who, in the year 1616, being asked by a friend,
Whether or no he was invited (since he was of
age sufficient) to honour the consecration of Arch-
bishop Parker, and the solemnity thereof, with his
presence ? answered, That he was indeed invited,
and earnestly entreated to be present at it. Being
again asked, To what place he was invited ? and
particularly whether it was to the Nag's Head ? his
lordship replied, By no means, but to the palace
at Lambeth ; whither he also declared he went on
the day appointed, for that very purpose. He,
moreover, positively averred that he was also pre-
sent, with many other noble lords, at the entertain-
ment, (which is wont to be very magnificent,) on
2 See the Editor's notes k. m. u., pp. 97, 101.
38 TESTIMONY OF LORD HOWARD.
the very same day of the consecration. All which
he affirmed that he remembered perfectly well. And
being likewise asked, Why Parker was so very
earnest in inviting him, and he so punctual in gra-
tifying Parker ? his lordship gave this particular
and remarkable reason : Because they were related
the one to the other. Thus you see the testimony
of this famous nobleman exactly agrees both with
the acts of Parliament and the venerable records
of the Church of England."
And thus, (to adopt the reasoning of Courayer,)
as the arguments which support the consecration of
Parker at Lambeth are all founded upon evident
facts and authentic documents, and the opposite
arguments are founded only upon mere possibilities,
and upon suspicions destructive to the most solemn
acts, it does not appear that there is any compa-
rison to be made of the one with the other. And
it may be added, that doubts, which have no foun-
dation but presumptions and prejudices, can never
decide about the validity or invalidity of an act,
when these prejudices or these presumptions are de-
stroyed by proofs, which are convincing to all those
who search less for dispute than instruction. The
consecration being once ascertained, the successioji is
easy to be established ; the same principles concur-
ring to prove the validity of the one, consequently
prove the other. All depends upon Parker's conse-
cration, which, taking its source in the ancient Epis-
copacy, reunites it in his person to the new, and leaves
THE EPISCOPAL CHARACTER INDELIBLE. 39
no space to Jill, which can give suspicion of the least
interruption?
3 " The consecration of Parker " (writes Carwithen) " is an event
which demands something more than a minute and accurate statement
of its circumstances ; it cannot be dismissed without some reflections.
Its validity has been impugned, from a design of invaliditating the
Episcopal Succession of the Church of England. The Romanists
have objected, that our Priesthood has no divine authority, and is
therefore incapable of performing the administration of divine offices
with effect. They pretend that our Holy Orders have not been
derived as they ought to have been, and as those in the Church of
Rome are, by an uninterrupted succession from the Apostles, from
Christ Himself; and that the Apostolical Succession, so essential to a
Christian ministry, was broken in the English Church on the conse-
cration of Parker. This consecration was uncanonical, because the
persons engaged in it had been legally deprived by Queen Mary, and
had not been legally or canonically restored ; and their episcopal
authority was derived only from the Great Seal of England.
" To this allegation it has been sufficiently answered, that the
persons engaged in the consecration having been once invested with
the episcopal character, that character was indelible ; and that their
deprivation under Queen Mary took place before a reconciliation was
effected with the See of Rome, and by no other than a commission
instituted by royal authority. The episcopal character remained in
these deprived Bishops even during their exile, and they had the
power of communicating it before they regained temporal possession
of their sees. The episcopal power of Coverdale and Hodgskins was
not less valid because they never exercised it afterwards ; nor that of
Scory and Coverdale, because they were consecrated by an Ordinal
different from that of the Church of Rome ; nor that of Hodgskins,
because he was only a Suffragan Bishop. The assistance of Coverdale
and Hodgskins in the present consecration was a voluntary act, and
their ceasing afterwards to perform any other episcopal function was
equally voluntary. The Ritual of Edward the Sixth retained all
which was necessary to confer the episcopal character, all which was
practised in the primitive ages, and all which had been retained by
the Greek Church. The institution of Suffragan Bishops is known
40 CARWITHEN'S ARGUMENT.
to the Church of Rome, and their power is recognised as rightful and
sufficient.*
" It has been also answered, that when a Church is overrun with
error, or otherwise unsettled in its constitution, it cannot be bound by
those rules to which it may rigidly adhere in a pure and settled state.
When the Arian Bishops were dispossessed of some of the chief sees
on account of their heresy, the orthodox Bishops ordained others
in their room, without a strict attention to the canons usually and
properly observed.
" Neither has the objection of the Romanist any weight, that the
Bishops of a province cannot, according to primitive custom and the
canon law, consecrate their own superior, and invest him with an
authority over themselves. Such was the course anciently adopted
in the isle of Cyprus, where the Suffragan Bishops always consecrated
their own Metropolitan, and were maintained in that right by the
council of Ephesus." History of the Church of England, vol. ii. p. 25.
See also Palmer's Treatise on the Church of Christ, vol. i. pp. 487-91.
The reader who may require the solution of other difficulties will
do well to consult Bramhall, Courayer, or Browne, and the Preface
and Notes to the third volume of Archbishop BramhaWs Works, in
the Library of Anglo- Catholic Theology.
* The reader is referred to the extracts from Prideaux, Bramhall, &c.
in the Postscript.
A POSTCRIPT,
BEING
A REPLY TO THE REV J. SPENCER NORTHCQTE's
NINTH LETTER
ON THE
FOURFOLD DIFFICULTY OF ANGLICANISM,
A POSTSCRIPT ;
Being a few words to the REV. J. SPENCER NORTH-
COTE, on his Ninth Letter on the Apostolicity of
the CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
My attention has been called to some remarks
in the Ninth Letter 1 of the Rev. J. Spencer North-
cote, relative to the claim on the part of the Church
of England to the Apostolical Succession. I shall
consider these remarks seriatim. In giving "a
brief history of the origin of the present English
Episcopate," Mr. Northcote tells us, (speaking of
King Edward's Ordinal,) that, " in the consecration
of a Bishop, the form of words which accompanied
the laying on of hands was such as might have
served with equal propriety for the ordination of a
priest, or deacon, or even for the confirmation of a
layman ; and no mention was made, in any part of
the service, of conveying to the candidate the
power of conferring orders." Again, Mr. N. speaks
of the new service for the consecration of Bishops
1 The Fourfold Difficulty of Anglicanism ; in a Series of Letters, frc.
The author is a Priest of the Church of England, and has lately
joined the Church of Rome.
44 MR. NORTHCOTE'S CHARACTER
as " a form of words not even irreconcilable with
Presbyterianism," and as " giving some ground to
suspect that Episcopacy was retained only for form's
sake ; or, at least, with a very different design from
that hitherto entertained by the Church ; and rather
as a civil than an ecclesiastical dignity." The same
objection has been often raised by Papists 2 and by
Puritans, 3 and been often and ably answered. As,
however, Mr. Northcote seems to imply that to the
" experienced eye " of Rome " some flaw 4 may be
2 The reader will see the objection more fully stated in Dodd's
Church History, Part IV.
3 See Neale's History of the Puritans, p. 63, &c.
4 That Rome's " experienced eye " had not discovered this "flaw "
in the reign of Queen Mary may be learnt from the following facts :
" That the forms in King Edward's Ordinal were not considered as
invalid at the very time when the question was most important, in
the reign of Queen Mary, appears plainly from the case of Scorye,
who had been consecrated by those forms, and was, as I have already
observed in proving him to have been a Bishop, restored to the
exercise of his office by Bishop Bonner, without any new consecration ;
the act of restoration, taken from Dormer's Registry, is given in the
Appendix, No. 45. And that Bonner conceived it to be only neces-
sary to reconcile those who had been ordained by the Protestant
Ritual, appears from the 29th Article set forth by him to be enquired
into at his general visitation in 1554, which ran thus : ' Whether any
' such as were ordered schismatically, and contrary to the old order and
' custom of the Catholic Church . . . BEING NOT YET RECONCILED
' NOB ADMITTED BY THE ORDINARY, have celebrated the Mass,' &c.
Here we find that they were only to be reconciled, not reordained.
And that this of Scorye was not a solitary instance in which Orders
conferred by the Ritual of Edward were admitted as valid in the
reign of Mary appears decisively from the complaint made by Sanders,
one of the earliest and most violent opposers of those ordinations,
' that many ordained in the time of the Schism of Henry and of Edward
OF KING EDWARD'S ORDINAL. 45
discernible in the English succession," through the
medium of the new Ordinal (that of 1549), I
subjoin the following replies.
' were permitted to exercise their ecclesiastical functions without enquiring
' into the manner in which they were ordained' * Sanders, indeed, dis-
approves of this having been done, and says plainly, that this supina
et irreligiosa negligentia was the cause why the favour of Divine
Providence was withdrawn from England, and the triumph of the
Catholic faith so soon terminated by the death of Mary ; but the
opinion of Cardinal Pole, of Bishop Gardiner, Bishop Banner, and by
necessary inference, of the Council which directed the ecclesiastical
affairs of England during that reign, may fairly be considered as the
opinion of the Roman Catholic Church, particularly as the whole was
conducted under the especial direction of the Pope.
" The objection made by Sanders obviously indeed goes farther
than any Roman Catholic will now support him in, reaching to the
Orders conferred during the latter part of the reign of Henry the
Eighth, against which no objection lay as to the forms used, for they
were those of the Church of Rome, but merely to the Schism; and
this erroneous opinion it was which led him to deny Barlow and
the Suffragans of Bedford and Thetford to be Bishops, and thus to
maintain that there was no Bishop at Parker's consecration. But
this is a point that need not now be argued ; for Schism, it is
universally acknowledged, does not render orders conferred during
it invalid.
" The authority given to Cardinal Pole by Pope Julius the Third,
to enable him to perform all the acts necessary for reconciling England
to the See of Rome, proves beyond a doubt that reordination was not
considered as necessary in the case of those who had been ordained by
the Protestant Ritual ; for it empowers the Cardinal, or those com-
missioned by him, so to give dispensations, even to Archbishops and
Bishops, that they may 'per eosjam licet minus recte susceptis ordinibus
' etiam in altaris ministerio ministrare, necnon munus consecrationis sus-
' cipere et illo uti libere et licite valeant.' These ordines minus rite
suscepti are evidently those indeed they can be no other than those
* De Schism. Angl. 1. ii. p. 293 ; Colon. Agripp. 12mo. 1610.
46 VALIDITY OF ENGLISH ORDINATION
The first is from the pen of Dean Prideaux, in his
work on " the validity of the Orders of the Church
received under the Protestant forms of Ordination. A Dispensation
was necessary, because the orders had been irregularly conferred, and
not according to co?isuetam et legitimam formam, to use the words of
Stapleton ;* but if they had not been in substance valid, no dispensation
could have been sufficient; and it is for this validity merely that I
contend, perfectly indifferent as to the irregularities ivhich the Roman
Canonists may be able to find out in them, or the censures which their
Regulations and Decretals might justify them in bestowing upon the
Bishops who conferred them.
" There is a still further argument which may be derived from
this commission, for it joins, as under the same irregularity, the
Bishops appointed in Henry's time, and in Edward's ; thus making no
distinction between the deficiency arising from Schism in the reign of
Henry and the former part of Edward, and that which some writers
have since contended to have been occasioned by the change in the
forms of Ordination made in the latter part of Edward's reign. Now,
the fair inference from this union of the different classes of Bishops
under one censure is, that Julius the Third considered both classes as
only irregular, and did not condemn those made by the new Ordinal
as invalidly ordained.
" And to complete our proof, we find, in Act 1 & 2 Ph. and Mary,
C. 8, a dispensation from Cardinal Pole inserted in the body of the
Act, in which he expressly states, that many persons ordained under
the pretended authority of the English Church had been confirmed in
the exercise of their Orders and the possession of their benefices.
" The general practice of England will, I am confident, be found to
have been conformable to the Bull of Pope Julius, and to have con-
sisted not in reordaining, but in rehabilitating. We have already seen
what Banners conduct was, and he surely will not be reckoned over-
liberal in his sentiments. An examination of the Diocese of Norwichf
did not produce a single instance of reordination ; and, what is
decisive on the question, Cardinal Pole's Registry for the Diocese of
Canterbury affords also no instance of reordination.
* Tom. ii. p. 838.
f See Courayer's Defence of the Dissertation, fyc. vol ii. p. 253.
ADMITTED BY THE BULL OF JULIUS III. 47
of England made out against the objections of the
Papists."
"The grand objection brought against the validity of
our English Orders was from the alteration made in our
Ordinal anno 1662 ; as if that were a tacit consent on our
side that, before this alteration was made, our Ordinal was
not sufficient, and therefore no orders could be conferred
thereby ; and, consequently, that neither they which were
ordained by it, or we that have derived our Orders from
them, have received any legal and sufficient ordination
thereby. 5 To which I answer: 1st. That the putting in
" It appears, indeed, that for an hundred and fifty years no settled
rule as to reordination had been established in the Church of Rome ;
for, so late as the year 1704, we find John Clement Gordon, a Scotch
Bishop, who apostatized to the Church of Rome, petitioning the Pope
to be reordained, and stating at length the motives of his application.
This very curious document is given by Le Quien ;* and as it proves
the decision of the Church of Rome to have been made without due
examination, upon the bare assertions of an individual, it will serve to
show to Roman Catholics how little that determination is entitled to
respect ; and when it appears that some of the most important state-
ments made in that petition are false, and the theological principles,
in some instances, such as no Roman Catholic is bound to acknow-
ledge, the little respect that it could have claimed will be totally
annihilated."! Elrington's Validity of English Ordination, p. 140.
5 Notwithstanding this objection on the part of the Romanist, " we
are assured that Pius IV. made an overture to Elizabeth of approving
the Book of Common Prayer, and consequently the Liturgy and the
Ordinal, which were parts of it, provided that Princess would return
to the obedience of the Holy See. This was at least the common
report, as the famous Camden informs us, ' Fama obtinet Pontificem
' fidem dedisse sententiam contra matris nuptias tanquam iujustam
' rescissurum, Liturgiam Anglicam sua autoritate confirmaturum, et usum
* Nullitd des Ordin. Anglic, torn. ii. App. p. 68.
f See a very interesting note in BramhalVs Works, vol. iii. p. 114, edit. 1844.
48 THE NEW ORDINAL
of explanatory words to make things clearer, and render
them more free from cavil and objection, cannot be well
termed an alteration. 2nd. That supposing really there
had been any such alteration made as to the whole sub-
stance of the form, yet this is no more than what the
Church of Rome hath often done, there being scarce an
age in which she hath not considerably varied from herself
herein ; as may be seen by comparing those many differ-
ent forms of Ordination used in the Church of Rome,
which are collected together by Morinus, a learned Priest
of that Church, in his book " de Ordinationibus" 3rd.
The alterations, or rather explanatory additions, made in
' Sacramenti sub ulraque specie Anglis permissurum, dummodo ilia
' Romano* Ecclesicp, se aggregaret, Romanesque Cathedrae primatum
' agnoscereC The thing is very certain as to the first article, and I
see no reason for doubting of the rest more than that." Courayer's
Defence of the Dissertation, vol. ii. p. 360.
Camden adds, " imo et hcec curantibus aliquot aureorum millia fuisse
promissa" Annales Rerum Anglicarum, fyc. p. 51, edit. 1677.
Again, Lord Chief Justice Coke, in a charge at the assizes held
by him at Norwich, August 4, 1606, three years .only after Queen
Elizabeth's death, publicly affirmed that " the Pope wrote a letter to
Elizabeth, in which he consented to approve the Book of Common
Prayer, as used among us, as containing nothing contrary to the truth,
and comprehending what is necessary to salvation, though not all that
ought to be in it, and that he would authorize us to use it if her Majesty
would receive it from him and upon his authority. And this is the truth
touching Pope Pius V., which 1 have often heard from the Queen's own
mouth. And I have frequently conferred with noblemen of the highest
rank in the state who had seen and read the Pope's letter on this subject,
as I have related it to you. And this is as true as that I am an honest
man." See Charge, p. 28. After all, it is a matter of small moment
whether Pope Pius V. recognised our Orders and approved our
Liturgy, or not : " can 'any man doubt (asks Brarnhall) that they
which make no scruple of taking away our lives, will make conscience
of taking away our Orders ? "
MERELY EXPLANATORY OF THE OLD. 41)
our Ordinal in the year Ifi6'2, were not inserted out of any
respect to the controversy we have witli the Church of
Rome,* but only to silence a cavil of the Presbyterians,
who, from the old Ordinal, drew an argument to prove
that there was no difference between a Bishop and a
Priest, because, (as they say,) their offices were not at all
distinguished in the words whereby they were conferred
on them when ordained, or any new pow r er given a Bishop
which he had not afore as a Priest. For the words of
ordination in King Edward's Ordinal are for a Priest
as folio w e th ; "Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins thou
" dost forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost re-
" tain they are retained ; and be thou a faithful dispenser of
" the Word of God, and of His Sacraments ; in the name of
"the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" and
for a Bishop ; " Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that
"thou stir up the. Grace of God which is in thee, by im-
" position of hands ; For God hath not (jiven us the Spirit
"of Fear, but of Poiver, and Love, and Soberness.'" And
they so continued till the Review of our Liturgy, anno
1662; and, then to obviate the above-mentioned cavil of
the Presbyterians, those explanatory words were inserted,
whereby the distinction between a Bishop and a Priest is
more clearly and unexceptionably expressed. So that
now the words of ordination for a Priest are ; " Receive
"the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the
" Church of God now committed to thee by imposition of our
"hands: whose sins thou dost joryive," Sfc. And for a
Bishop ; " Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and icork
" of a Bishop now committed to thee by the imposition of our
G See a very interesting note in Dr. Cardwell's History of Confer-
ences connected with the Revision of the Common Prayer, p. 385.
E
50 SUFFICIENCY OF ORDINATION
"hands ; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
" the Holy Ghost ; and remember that thou" 8fc. But
4th. Having thus stated the case, and laid before you the
differences between the new Ordinal and the old; now
to come to the main of the objection, I assert, that had the
old Ordinal been continued without any such addition,
although it might not so clearly have obviated the cavils of
adversaries, yet the Orders conferred by it would have
been altogether as valid. And as to the objection made
by the gentlemen of the Church of Rome, that the words
of our old Ordinal do not sufficiently express the office
conferred thereby, this must be understood either in re-
ference to the Priestly ordination, or the Episcopal, or
both. And 1st. As to the Priestly ordination, there
seems not to be the least ground for it, because the form
in the old Ordinal doth as fully express the office, power,
and authority of a Priest as need be required, in these
words : " Whose s:ns thou dost forgive they are forgiven,
" and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained. And
" be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and His
" Sacraments ;" wherein the whole of the Priestly office
is expressed. But 2nd. As to the Episcopal ordination,
the whole pinch of the argument seems to lie there ; be-
cause, in the old form of the words spoken at the imposi-
tion of hands, the office and authority of a Bishop (they
say) is not so particularly specified. To this I answer,
first, that I think this sufficiently done in the words of the
form ; " Remember that thou stir up the Grace of God
" which is in thee by imposition of hands ; for God hath not
"given us the Spirit of Fear, but of Power, and Love, and
" Soberness."" For they are the very words of St. Paul to
Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus, (Epist. 2. c. i. ver. 6, 7,)
whereby he exhorts and stirs him up to the execution
ACCORDING TO KING EDWARD'S ORDINAL. 51
of his Episcopal office, and they have been always under-
stood to refer thereto ; and, therefore, I think they may
be also allowed sufficient to express the same Episcopal
office when spoken to any other, and fully determine to
what office the Holy Ghost is given by imposition of
hands in the form mentioned, and properer for this pur-
pose than any other, because of the greater authority
which they must have, in that they are taken out of the
Holy Scripture. But if men will cavil on, and still object
that the name of Bishop is not expressed in the form,
or the duties and power of that office with sufficient clear-
ness specified in the words mentioned, the objection lies
much more against the Roman Ordinal than ours, as being
much more defective herein. For the whole form used
therein at the consecration of a Bishop is no more than
this, " Receive the Holy Ghost ;" that being all that is said
at the imposition of hands, and asserted by them to be the
whole form of Episcopal ordination. 7 And, therefore,
Vasques, a learned Jesuit, and most eminent schoolman,
makes the same objection against the Roman Ordinal
that the Romanists do against ours. For in Tertiam
Thomas Disp. 240, c. 5, n. 57, his words are, " Ilia verba
" (* accipe Spiritum Sanctum ') qua a tribus Episcopis simul
" cum impositione manuum dicuntur super Ordinandum,
" usque adeo gcneralia videntur, ut proprium munus aut
" gradum Episcopi non exprimant, quod tamen necessarium
" videbatur pro forma ;" i. e. " These words, ' Receive the
Holy Ghost' which are spoken by three Bishops together
with imposition of hands over the person to be ordained,
seem to be so general that they do not express the proper
7 See Courayer's Defence of the Validity of English Ordinations,
pp. 110-17.
52 ON THE GENERALITY OF EXPRESSION
office and degree of a Bishop, which yet did seem necessary
for the form of his Ordination." But to this lie himself
gives a solution (n. 60 of the same chapter) in these fol-
lowing words : " Neque obstat id quod supra dicebamus
" verba ilia ( accipe Spiritum Sanctum ' admodum generalia
" esse ; nam quamvia in illis secundurn se consideratis non
" denotetur munus aut gradus peculiaris Episcopi, et pro
" quocunque alio urdine did possent, tamen prout projerun-
" tur (adhibita a tribus Episcopis in unum congregatis ma-
" nuum impositione pro materia ) recte quidem denotant
"gradum Episcopi ad quern electus ordinatur. Sic enim
" simul imponentes per verba ilia denotant se eum in suum
" consortium admittere, et ad hoc Spiritum Sanctum tribuere,
" ac proinde in eodem ordine Episcopali seeum ipsum consti-
11 tuere. Cum tamen manuum impositio ab uno tantum Epis-
** copo adhibita, et eadem verba ' accipe Spiritum Sanctum?
" panels aliis additis ab eodem in ordinatione Diaconi, pro-
" lata, neque secundurn se neque prout ab ipso Episcopo dicta
" et huic matericB applicata, peculiare munus aut gradum
" Diaconi denotent, neque enim prout dicta ab uno Episcopo
" cum tali materia denotare possunt ordinatum admitti ad
" consortium Episcopi in hoc potius ordine quam in alio,
" cum unus Episcopus tarn sit minister ordinis Sacerdotii et
" Subdiaconatus quam Diaconatns ; e contrario vero tres
f ' Episcopi solius ordinis Episcopalis ministri sint ; ideo
ft autem existimo Christum voluisse ut Ecclesia illius tantum
" verbis, qua secundurn. se generalia sunt, in hac ordinatione
" uteretur, ut denotaret abundantiam graticB Spiritus Sancti,
" qua Episcopis in ordinatione confertur. Plus enim vide-
" tur esse dari Spiritum Sanctum absolute, quam dari ad
" hunc vel ilium effectum peculiarum :" i. e. " Neither doth
that hinder, which I have said before, that these words,
' Receive the Holy Ghost,' were too general. For al-
IN THE WORDS OF ORDINATION. 53
though by these words, considered in themselves, the
office or peculiar degree of a Bishop cannot be denoted,
and they may be also said for any other order ; but as they
are pronounced, (the imposition of hands of three Bishops
joined together being also had therewith for the matter of
Ordination,) they do truly denote the degree of a Bishop,
to which the person elected is ordained. For they after
this manner, laying on their hands all together, by those
words do denote that they do receive him into their fellow-
ship, and to this end do give the Holy Ghost, and there-
fore do place him in the same Episcopal Order with them-
selves ; whereas the imposition of hands made use of by
one Bishop only, and the same words, ' Receive the Holy
Ghost," 1 with a few others added to them spoken by the
same Bishop in the Ordination of a Deacon, do not, either
as considered in themselves, or as spoken by the Bishop,
and applied to this matter, denote the peculiar office
or degree of a Deacon ; neither can they as spoken by one
Bishop, with such a matter, denote the ordained to be ad-
mitted into fellowship with the Bishop rather in this order
than in another, seeing one Bishop is as well the minister
of conferring the Orders of Priesthood, and of the Sub-
Deacon, as of the Deacon ; but, on the contrary, three
Bishops are only the ministers of conferring Episcopal
Ordination. And I do, therefore, think it to be the will
of Christ that his Church should in this Ordination use
such words as, considered in themselves, are only general,
that it might denote thereby that abundance of Grace of
the Holy Ghost which is conferred on Bishops in their Or-
dination. For it seems to be much more that the Holy
Ghost be given absolutely, than that it be given for this or
that peculiar effect." Thus far the learned Jesuit ; and if
this may be allowed to be a sufficient solution of the ob-
54 THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF ORDINATION
jection against the Ordinal of the Church of Rome, it must
also be a sufficient solution of the same objection against
our Ordinal. For with us, as well as in the Church of
Rome, there are always three Bishops present at the Ordi-
nation of a Bishop, which, all together, lay on their hands
on the Bishop elect when ordained ; and not only this cir-
cumstance, but many others in the administration of this
office according to our Ordinal, do as fully show what
order the person on whom they thus lay on their hands,
and pronounce the above-mentioned form of consecration
over, is to be admitted to. The complex of the whole
office show it ; for the person to be ordained or conse-
crated is presented to the Metropolitan as one to be made
a Bishop, he takes the oath of canonical obedience to the
Metropolitan as one to be made a Bishop, is prayed for as
one to be made a Bishop, is examined or interrogated as
one to be made a Bishop, is vested in the Episcopal Robes,
and is ordained by a form never used but in the Ordination
of a Bishop ; and all these together, with many other like
circumstances in that office too long all to be put down,
are certainly sufficient to determine the words of the
form to the Episcopal office only, were there nothing
in the words themselves to do it, as it is certain there is
not in the form used by the Church of Rome to this pur-
pose." Validity of the Orders of the Church of England,
pages 14-20.
My readers may, perhaps, deem the above a
sufficient reply to the first objection advanced.
As, however, this " flaw "is so frequently referred
to with triumph by our opponents, I will give the
answers of two or three other eminent Divines
on the same subject, who have severally taken
DETERMINE THE MEANING OF THE WORDS. 55
up the different points in the argument, and left,
as a whole, no difficulty requiring solution.
Bishop Burnet shall make the next reply. In
his Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church
of England against a Romanist, he says,
" His (i. e. the Romanist's) second argument is, No Ordi-
nation is valid unless there be fit words used to determine
the outward Rites, to signify the Order given, which
he says, our own writers (Mr. Mason and Dr. Bramhall)
do acknowledge. But the words of consecration do not
express this, they being only " Take the Holy Ghost, and
remember that tkou stir up the Grace" *c. which do not
express the office of a Bishop. And having proposed
these arguments, that the unlearned reader may think
he deals fairly, he goes on to set down our objections, and
answer them.
" First. It has been already made out that the form
" Receive the Holy Ghost " was that which our Saviour
made use of when He ordained the Apostles, without
adding "to the office of an Apostle." For which it is to be
considered, that all Ecclesiastical orders being from the
influence and operation of the Holy Ghost, which being
one, yet hath different operations for the different adminis-
trations) therefore 8 the concomitant actions, words, and
circumstances must show for which administration the
* In our Ordination Service the Deacon trusts that he is moved by
the Holy Ghost, and does not receive it. Priest and Bishop think in
their hearts that they are truly called, and do receive the Holy Ghost.
In the office for Priests our Ordaining minister uses the words of
Scripture, John xx. 22, 23. In that for Bishops he proceeds to
2 Tim. i. 6, 7. Vide Hey on (he Articles, vol. iv. p. 492.
56 PRACTICE OF OUR SAVIOUR
Holy Ghost is prayed for, since that general prayer is
made for all ; but, the functions being different, the same
Holy Ghost works differently in them all. Therefore it
is plain from the practice of our Saviour, that there is no
need of expressing in the very words of Ordination what
power is thereby given, since our Saviour did not express
it ; but what He said both before and after did determine
the sense of those general words to the Apostolical func-
tion.
"Secondly. The whole office of consecrating Bishops
shows very formally and expressly what power is given in
these words. Now, though the writers of the Church
of Rome would place the form of consecration in some im-
perative words, yet we see no reason for that, but the
complex of the whole office is that which is to be chiefly
considered, and must determine the sense of these words ;
so that a Priest being presented to be made a Bishop, the
King's mandate being read for that effect, he swearing
canonical obedience as Bishop elect, prayers being put up
for him as such, together with other circumstances which
make it plain what they are about, those general words
are by these qualified and restrained to that sense.
" We do not fly here to a secret and unknown intention
of the consecrators, as the Church of Rome does, but to the
open and declared intention of the Church appearing in
this: so that it is clear that the sense of those general
words is so well explained that they do sufficiently express
and give the power and office of a Bishop.
" Thirdly. In the Church of Rome the consecration of
a Bishop is made with these words, " Receive the Holy
Ghost" This being all that is said at the imposition of
hands, which, as has been already proved, is the matter or
sensible sign of Orders. And in the prayer that follows
IN ORDAINING HIS APOSTLES. 57
these words there is no mention made of the Episcopal
dignity or function ; and all the other ceremonies used in
the consecration of a Bishop are but rites that are added
for the more solemnity, but are not of the essence of Ordi-
nation, according to what now is most generally received
even in their own Church. And Vasques 9 does set down
this very objection against the form of their Episcopal Or-
dination as not sufficient, because it does not specify the
Episcopal power; to which he answers that, though the
tvords express it not, yet the other circumstances that accom-
pany them do it sufficiently ; by which it appears that this
argument is as strong against their Ordination as ours, and
that they must make use of the same answers that we give
to it.
" Fourthly. The ancient forms of consecrating Bishops
differing 10 so much one from another, and indeed agreeing
9 Disp. 240, c. 5, n. 60.
10 Thus," to quote Mason, " we have compared our English
Ordinal with that of your Pope Innocent. It remains that we com-
pare some of the older Popish Ordinals among themselves :
" But now, alas ! as brother strives with brother ;
So these, together set, fall out with one another !
And less you should think I said this rashly or invidiously, hear, I
beseech you, what the Bishop of Pientum says, a man long versed in
the sacred ceremonies, who addresseth himself to Pope Innocent VIII.
thus : ' It was your command, holy Father, which put on me the
' correction of the Pontifical book , an undertaking full of painful
' variety, and which, as it may be acceptable to some, so it is not a
' little liable to envy. For through the antiquity of the matter, the
' multitude of the Churches, and the variety of times and Bishops, it
' is so ordered, that there are scarce any two or three books to be found
' which tell us the same thing. In like manner, so many books as there
' are, so many differences are there also ; for one contains too little,
' another too much, and another has nothing at all of the same
58 SIMPLICITY OF THE ANCIENT FORMS
in nothing but in an imposition of hands, with a convenient
(that is, appropriate) prayer ; it has been already made out
that there is no particular form so necessary that the want
of it annuls Orders, and that the Church has often
changed the words of these prayers upon several occasions ;
and it was ever thought that if the words do sufficiently
express the mind of the Church, there was no more scruple
to be made of the validity of the Orders so given : for if
the Episcopal character were begotten by any of those
rites which the Church of Rome has added of late, such as
the Chrism, the giving the Gospels, the Ring, the Staff, or
any other set down in the Pontifical, then there were no
true Bishops in the Church for many ages. In the most
ancient Latin Ritual now to be found, there is nothing in
the consecration of a Bishop but the prayer which is now
marked for the anthem after the consecration in the Ponti-
fical. In a Ritual, believed to be eight hundred years old,
the anointing is first to be found, but there is no other rite
with it. In another Ritual, somewhat later than the former,
the giving the Ring and the Staff were used, which at first
were the civil ceremonies of Investiture : and in the Greek
Church none of those rites were ever used ; they having
only an imposition of hands, and saying with it, " The
"Divine Grace that heals the things that are weak, and
"perfects the things that are imperfect, promotes this very
" reverend Priest to be a Bishop : let us, therefore, pray
" that the Grace of the Holy Ghost may come upon him."
Then all that are assisting say thrice, " Kyrie eleison"
' matter, so that they rarely or never agree.' And now you see
what a rare agreement you have to boast of among your Ordinals /"
Mason then proceeds to shew that the modern Roman Ordinal differs
in many things from the most ancient, both as to Habits, as to Oaths,
and as to the Confession of Faith. Mason's Vin. Eccl. Ang. p. 203.
OF CONSECRATING BISHOPS. 59
Then the Consecrator lays the Gospels on the head and
neck of him that is consecrated, having before signed his
head thrice with the sign of the Cross ; and all the other
Bishops touch the Gospels, and there is a prayer said.
And thus it is clear that if those rites in the Pontifical be
essential to Episcopal Orders, neither the Primitive Church
nor the Greek Churches gave them truly, which are things
they cannot admit. Therefore it is most disingenuously
done of them to insinuate on unlearned persons that our
Orders are not good, when in their consciences they know
that they have all those requisites in them which by the
principles of the most learned men of their own Church
arc essentially and absolutely necessary to make them
good and valid.
" I presume that I have said enough already to show
that both our Priestly and Episcopal Orders are good
and valid.
" But his (the Romanist's) second argument is such a
piece of foul l dealing that really he deserves to be very
sharply reproved for it. In it he makes us object, that
though the form of our ordination since King Edward
the Sixth's days, till his Majesty's happy restoration, was
invalid, yet that is salved by the Parliament that now sits
(1662), that appointed the words of Ordination to be,
"Receive the Holy Ghost for the " Office of a Priest" or "Jbr
the Office of a Bishop" And having set up this man of
straw, he runs unmercifully at him, he stabs him in at the
heart, he shoots him through the head, and then, to make
1 Neither Mr. Northcote nor my readers will, I trust, for a moment
suppose that I apply the language as well as the arguments to the
author of the " Letters," &c. Neither in the above, nor in any other
passage from whatever author, do I identify myself with the person-
alities which they may contain.
60 ENGLISH EXPLANATORY ADDITIONS
sure work of him, he cuts him all to pieces that he shall
never live nor speak again, and all this out of pure chivalry
to shew his valour. He tells us the salve is worse than
the sore ; that by the change the form used before is con-
fessed to be invalid, else why did they change it ? He tells
us, secondly, by this we acknowledge all our Bishops and
Priests till that time to be null. Thirdly, that they, not
being true Bishops, cannot ordain validly, for no man can
give what he has not. And fourthly, the power that Act
gives is only from the Parliament, and not from Christ ;
and this destroys our Orders root and branch. So there is
an end of us; we are all killed upon the spot, never to live
more. Yet there is no harm done, nor blood spilt ; all is
safe and sound. But to satisfy any person whom such a
scruple may trouble, let it be considered,
" First. That we pretend not that there is any greater
validity in our Orders since the last Act of Uniformity
than was before ; for those words that are added are not
essential to the Ordination, but only further and clearer
explanations of what was clear enough by the other parts
of these offices before. Therefore there is no change made
of any thing that was essential to our Ordinations. An
explanation is not a change ; for did the Fathers of the
Councils of Nice and Constantinople change or annul the
faith and creeds that the Church used before, when they
added explanations to the Creed ? Therefore, the adding
of some explanatory words for cutting off the occasions of
cavilling is neither a change, nor an annulling our former
Orders.
" Secondly. The change of the form of Consecration does
not infer an annulling of Orders given another way, for
then all the Ordinations used in the Primitive Church
are annulled by the Roman Church at this day, since the
COMPARED WITH ROMISH ADDITIONS. 61
forms of Ordination used by them now were not used in
the former ages ; and the forms used in the former ages
are not looked on by them now to be the forms of Conse-
cration, but are only made parts of the office, and used as
collects or anthems ; and yet here is a real change, which,
by their own principles, cannot infer a nullity of Orders
given before the change made.
" Thirdly. If the addition of a few explanatory words
invalidates former Orders, than the adding many new rites
which were neither used by Christ nor His Apostles, nor
the Primitive nor Eastern Churches, will much more in-
validate former Orders ; especially when these are believed
to be so essential as that they confer the power of conse-
crating Christ's Body and Blood, and of offering sacrifices,
and were for divers ages universally looked on in that
Church to be the matter and form of Orders, as w T as already
observed of the right of giving the sacred vessels with the
words joined to it, which Pope Eugenius in express words
calls the matter of Priestly Orders, and the words joined
to them the form, (in his decree for the Armenians in the
Council of Florence}', and even the form he mentions is also
altered now, for the celebrating Masses are not in the
form he mentions, but are now added to that part of the
office in the Roman Church. Let the Pontifical be consi-
dered in the ordination of Priests: we find the Priestly
vestments given, both the Stole and the Casula ; then their
hands are anointed ; then the vessels of the Sacrament are
delivered to them, with words pronounced in every one of
those rites, besides many other lesser rites that are in the
Rubrick. In the consecration of a Bishop his head is
anointed, then his hands ; then his Pastoral Staff is blessed,
and put in his hands ; next the Ring is blessed, and put on
his finger ; then the Gospels are put in his hands ; then the
62 THE ROMAN AND
Mitre is blessed) and put on liis head ; next the Gloves are
blessed and put on his hands ; and then they set him on his
Tlirone ; besides many less rites to be seen in the Ru-
brick. Now, with what face can they pretend that our
adding a few explanatory words can infer the annulling all
Orders given before that addition, when they have added
so many material ceremonies in which they place great sig-
nificancy and virtue ? Is not this to swallow a camel, and
to strain at a gnat ? and to object to us a mote in our eye,
when there is a beam in their own eye ?
" Fourthly. This addition was indeed confirmed by the
authority of Parliament, and there was good reason to de-
sire that, to give it the force of the law : but the authority
of these changes is wholly to be derived from the Convoca-
tion, who only consulted about them and made them, and
the Parliament did take that care in enacting them, that
might show they did only add the force of a law to them ;
for, in passing them, it was ordered that the Book of Com-
mon Prayer and Ordination should only be read over, (and
even that was carried upon some debate ; for many, as I
have been told, moved that the Book should be added to
the Act, as it was sent to the Parliament from the Convo-
cation, without ever reading it ; but that seemed indecent
and too implicit to others,) and there was no change made
in a tittle by the Parliament. So that they only enacted
by a law what the Convocation had done." 2 A Vindication,
fyc. pages 64-74.
The next reply is contained in a work by Daniel
Williams, entitled, The Succession of Protestant
2 See Wheatly on the Common Prayer, p. 28 ; Burnet's Vindication,
&c., p. 53; and Twisden's Historical Vindication of the Church of
England in point of Schism, p. 115.
ENGLISH FORMS COMPARED. 63
Bishops asserted, or the Regularity of the Ordination
of the Church of England justified, against the Asper-
sions of Mr. J. Ward, a Romanist.
" The first thing Mr. Ward undertakes to prove against
our Church is the invalidity of those forms of Ordination
which were composed in the days of Edward the Sixth,
and which continued in use until the Review of the
Common Prayer in the year 1662. For it was thought
expedient at that time to make some alterations in our Or-
dinals ; not as if they had been defective before in the es-
sential parts of them, but only to avoid some unreasonable
consequences drawn by the Presbyterians concerning the
sentiments of our Church with respect to the distinction
between a Bishop and a Priest. And, therefore, in short,
the question now to be discussed is, whether our forms be-
fore this alteration were valid with respect to the commu-
nication of the Episcopal and Priestly powers, or no."
Having examined the objection as regards the office for
the Ordination of a Priest, Williams " proceeds to show the
validity of our Episcopal Ordinal. The forms used both by
the Church of Rome and us, at the imposition of hands,
are these.
The English Form.
" Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir
" up the Grace of God which is in thee by the imposition
" of our hands : for God has not given us the spirit of
" Fear, but of Power and Soberness."
The Roman Form.
Take the Holy Ghost." 3
" Mr. Ward findeth fault with this our form, which we
3 .Pontificals Romanum, vol. i. p. 88, edit. 1735.
04 THE ROMAN AND
use at the imposition of hands ; because " the word Bishop
" is not once named, nor any word equivalent thereto,
" whereby to signify and denote the power of Grace given
" by imposition of hands to be Episcopal power."
" This is the same objection which has been already con-
sidered under the Ordinal for Priests, and you see it
equally affects the Roman Ordinal with ours. But if this
gentleman means that there is not the word ' Bishop? or
any word equivalent thereto, in any part of our Ordinal,
anybody that will be at the pains to consult it will find
that he is as much mistaken in this as he has been before
about the Ordinal for Priests. And because our Ordinals
are not commonly published along with our Common
Prayers for vulgar use, I shall show the several passages in
it, wherein both the name and office of a Bishop are parti-
cularly expressed and distinguished. But it shall be as I
find it in Bishop Bramhall's book, for the sake of his judi-
cious observations upon each particular.
' The form of Episcopal Ordination, used at the same
time when hands are imposed, is the same both in their
form and ours, "Receive the Holy Ghost" And if these
words be considered singly, in a divided sense from the rest
of the office, there is nothing, either in our form or theirs,
which doth distinctly and reciprocally express Episcopal
power and authority. But if these words be considered
conjointly in a compounded sense, there is enough to ex-
press Episcopal power and authority distinctly, and as
much in our form as theirs.
* First, two Bishops present the Bishop elect to the
Archbishop of the Province with these words : " Most
" Reverend Father in God, we present unto you this godly
and well-learned man to be consecrated Bishop" There is
one expression.
ENGLISH FORMS COMPARED. 65
* Then the Archbishop causeth the King's letters-patent
to be produced and read, which require the Archbishop to
consecrate him a Bishop. There is a second expression.
' Thirdly, the new Bishop takes his oath of canonical
obedience. " 1, A. B., elected Bishop of the Church and
" See of C., do promise and profess all reverence and due
" obedience to the Archbishop and Metropolitical Church of
" D. and his successors" This is a third expression.
'Next, the Archbishop exhorts the whole assembly to
solemn prayer for this person thus elected and presented,
before they admit him to that office (that is, the office of a
Bishop}, whereunto they hope he is called by the Holy
Ghost, after the example of Christ before He did choose
His Apostles, and the Church of Antioch before they laid
hands upon Paul and Barnabas. This is a fourth ex-
pression.
' Then followeth the Litany, wherein there is this express
petition for the person to be ordained Bishop ; " We be-
" seech Thee to give Thy blessing and grace to this our bro-
" ther, elected Bishop, that he may discharge that office
" whereunto he is called, diligently, to the edification of Thy
" Church." To which all the congregation answer, " Hear
" us O Lord, we beseech Thee." Here is a fifth expression.
' Then followeth this prayer, wherewith the Litany is con-
cluded ; " Almighty God, the Giver of all good things, which
" by Thy Holy Spirit has constituted divers Orders of Mi-
" nisters in Thy Church, vouchsafe, we beseech Thee, to look
" graciously upon this Thy servant, now called to the office
"(the work and ministry) of a Bishop." This is the sixth
expression.
* Next, the Archbishop telleth him he must examine him
before he admit him to that administration whereunto he
is called ; and maketh a solemn prayer for him " that God
F
66 ENGLISH FORM OF ORDINATION.
" who hath constituted some Prophets, some Apostles, &c.
" to the edification of His Church, would grant to this His
" servant the grace to use the authority committed to him to
" edification, not to destruction ; to distribute food in due
"season to the family of Christ, as becometh a faithful
" and prudent Steward." This authority can be no other
than Episcopal authority, nor his stewardship any other
thing than Episcopacy. This is a seventh expression.
' Then followeth imposition of hands by the Archbishop
and all the Bishops present, with these words, " Receive
the Holy Gkost," fyc. And, lastly, the tradition of the
Bible into his hands, exhorting him to behave himself to-
wards the flock of Christ as a Pastor, not devouring but
feeding the flock ; all this implicth Episcopal authority.
They may except against Christ's own form of ordaining
His Apostles if they will, and against the form used by
their own Church ; but, if they be sufficient forms, our
form is sufficient. 4 ' Bramhall's Consecration and Succession
of Protestant Bishops justified, Sfc., p. 484.
The Archbishop might have also directed the
reader's attention to the injunction to " minister
discipline," and to the last Rubric and Prayer.
Dr. Boivden, in his Apostolic Origin of Episcopacy,
furnishes us with another reply.
" I appeal to the Ordination Offices, which are the public
standards of the Church, and which were compiled by
Cranmer and others in the year 1550. You, Sir, indeed,
4 Cardinal Pole and Pope Paul IV. confirmed all without ex-
ception that were ordained according to this form, provided that
they would unite themselves to the Roman Catholic Church.
See Bramhall, p. 444.
ACT FOR DRAWING UP AN ORDINATION. 67
endeavour to preclude us from that plea by observing that,
" those who insist on this argument forget that the Ordi-
" nation Service as it now stands, differs considerably from
" that which was drawn up by Cranmer and his associates."
But to come to the point. In the year 1549,
not long after Edward's accession to the throne, an Act
passed the Parliament for drawing up an Ordinal. The
Act being short, I shall transcribe from Collier so much as
will answer my purpose. After premising the object of
the Act to be concord and unity, it proceeds to say, " It is
"requisite to have one uniform fashion and manner for
" making and consecrating of Bishops, Priests, Deacons,
" or Ministers of the Church. Be it therefore enacted
" by the King's Highness, with the assent of the Lords
" Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, in this present
" Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same,
" that such form and manner of making and consecrating
" of Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and other
" Ministers of the Church," &c.
" From this Act it is evident that the formation of dif-
ferent offices for different orders was contemplated. It is
therefore reasonable to suppose that the intention of the
Act was fulfilled, and that different offices were actually
framed for different orders. This was, in fact, the case.
"But those who are ever looking out for some slight de-
fect, upon which they may ground an objection, have said
that in the Ordinal set forth in Edward 's reign the words
for conveying the Bishop's character are not the same as
in the present Ordinal. Thus, in the latter, the words an-,
" Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a
Bis/top," -c. But in the former the words were, " Take
the Holy Ghost; remember that thou stir up," &fc. Here,
say they, the word " Bishop " was not used, and therefore
' F 2
68 ORDINATION OF BISHOPS DIFFERENT
it could not have been determined to what office the per-
son on whom hands were laid was designed.
" This, Sir, is one of the weakest and most idle cavils I
have ever seen. It was first started by the Papists ; and
the Puritans, although folly is marked upon " the head and
front of it," were not ashamed to repeat it. Collier, 5 in
answer to it, observes, that " although the word ' Bishop' is
" not used, (at the time of imposing hands,) yet there is a
" plain distinction in other parts of the office. For instance,
" there ia an express declaration of two Bishops that the
" person present is to be consecrated to their own order.
" There are more questions put to him by the Archbishop
" than are mentioned in the office for ordaining Priests ;
" some of which suppose a superior authority in his charac-
" ter, and that the exercise of discipline and the govern-
" ment of a Diocese are branches of his function. The
" Archbishop and two other Bishops lay their hands upon
" the head of the elect ; whereas at the ordination of a
" Priest, this rite is performed by the Diocesan, with some
" Priests assisting." It is, therefore, not to be denied with
any appearance of reason, that the first and second Ordinal
are precisely the same as to intention, distinction of office,
and conveyance of authority.
" As a further proof that a new office was conferred by
the old Ordinal, I would observe, in the words of Dr.
Chandler? that, "in the Ordination of Presbyters, a dis-
" tinction of their office from that of Bishop immediately
" follows. They are declared to have, and the declaration
" implies that they have, in virtue of that Ordination,
" only the power of absolving penitents, and of dispensing
5 Eccl. Hist., vol. v., p. 383, edit. 1840.
6 Appeal further defended, p. 42.
FROM THAT OF PRESBYTERS. 69
" the Word and Sacraments ; and that in such congregation
" as they should be appointed to. There is not the least
" appearance of Episcopal powers, nor of any authority
" which is not at this day given by the Church of England
" to Presbyters. But in the Ordination of Bishops there
" is not the least restraint ; the words are left general, as
" they were used by Christ in ordaining His Apostles ;
" and all the ordinary authority, which they were origin-
" ally intended to express, is conveyed by them without
" diminution. So that in one case there is only a limited
" commission given ; but in the other a commission without
" any restriction or limitation, and consequently extending
" to all ecclesiastical offices, which, in fact, is also in-.
" tended."
" Bishop Burnet 7 also argues correctly and forcibly
upon this point.
" It is to be considered that all Ecclesiastical Orders being
" from the influence and operation of the Holy Ghost, which
"being one, yet hath different operations for the different
"administrations; therefore the concomitant actions, words,
" and circumstances must shew for which administration the
" Holy Ghost is prayed for, since that general prayer is
" made for all ; but the functions being different, the same
" Holy Ghost works differently in them all. Therefore it
" is plain, from the practice of our Saviour, that there is no
" need of expressing in the very words of Ordination what
" power is thereby given, since our Saviour did not express
" it ; but what He said both before and after did determine
" the sense of those general words to the Apostolical func-
*' tion. Again, the whole office of consecrating Bishops
" shows very formally and expressly what power is given
7 Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England, p. 64.
70 THREE DISTINCT OFFICES
" in those (general) words. Now, though the writers of the
" Church of Rome would place the form of Consecration on
" some imperative words ; yet we see no reason for that,
" but the complex of the whole office is that which is to be
" chiefly considered, and so must determine the sense of
" these words. So that a Priest being presented to be made
" a Bishop, the King's mandate being read for that effect,
" he swearing canonical obedience as Bishop elect, prayers
" being put up for him as such, together with other circum-
" stances which make it plain what they are about ; those
"general words are by these qualified and restrained to
" that sense."
" As a further proof that the Reformers maintained a
distinction of offices in the Church, they expressly said in
their Preface to the old Ordinal, " it is evident unto all men
" diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors,
" that from the Apostles' time there have been these orders
" of ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and
" Deacons." Still farther ; the prayers in the old Ordi-
nal expressly mentioned the appointment of divers orders
by the Holy Ghost. Thus, at the Ordination of a Bishop,
the prayer was just the same as it is now. " Almighty
" God, Giver of all good things, who by Thy Holy Spirit
" hast appointed divers orders of ministers in Thy Church,
" mercifully behold this Thy servant noiv called to the work
" and ministry of a BISHOP," &c. The same declaration,
that the Holy Spirit appointed ' divers orders ' in the
Church, was likewise in the prayers used at the Ordination
of a Priest, and of a Deacon.
" Now, it is a consequence obvious to common sense, that
when a Committee was appointed for the express purpose
of composing distinct offices for the Ordination of Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons ; when three distinct offices were
MAINTAINED BY THE REFORMERS. 71
actually composed; when in the Preface to these offices
three distinct Orders were particularly enumerated; and
when in the prayers of each office it is expressly declared,
that divers Orders were appointed by the Holy Ghost ; and
lastly, when in the service for consecrating a Bishop it is
explicitly said that the elect is to be admitted into the
office of a Bishop: when, I say, these things are considered,
it is obvious to common sense, that the Reformers be-
lieved that Bishops were superior to Presbyters by Apostolic
institution" Testimony of the Reformers, Letter xiv.,
pp. 19-25.
I would ask, then, could Mr. Northcote have
read with any attention the form of consecrating a
Bishop, when he asserted that the Ordinal of Ed-
ward was " a form of words not even irreconcilable
with Presbyterianism ? "
Having stated the supposed defects in the Or-
dinal of Edward VI., Mr. Northcote tells us 8 that
" these defects are the more important, because
Cranmer, Barlow, and several others who were prin-
cipally concerned in framing the new Ordinal, had,
on a previous occasion, distinctly affirmed that
Consecration was not necessary; that Princes might
by their own authority appoint Priests and Bishops,
and that such appointment alone was sufficient,"
&c. Now I must confess that I read this passage
with much regret ; for though I do not believe that
Mr. N. intentionally deviated from the truth, yet I
think that, before he made so sweeping an assertion,
8 Letter ix., p. 10.5.
72 COMMISSION TO EXAMINE.
he ought to have enquired how far he was borne out
by the testimony of history. A very little diligence
would have enabled him to avoid such serious mis-
representations. Mr. N. speaks of " a previous
occasion," referring to that of the commission
9 " But this matter deserves to be a little more particularly treated
of. The King (Henry VIII.) had appointed several of the eminent
Divines of his realm to deliberate about sundry points of religion
then in controversy, and to give in their sentences distinctly. And
that in regard of the Germans And also in regard
of a more exact review of the Institution of a Christian Man, put
forth about two or three years before (1537), and now intended
to be published again, as a more perfect piece of religious instruction
for the people. The King, therefore, being minded thoroughly to
sift divers points of religion, then started and much controverted,
commanded a particular number of Bishops, and other his learned
Chaplains and Dignitaries (1540), to compare the rites and cere-
monies and tenets of the present Church by the Scriptures, and
by the most ancient writers ; and to see how far the Scripture or
good antiquity did allow of the same. And this I suppose he did
at the instigation of Archbishop Cranmer. The names of the
Commissioners were these : Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury ;
Lee, Archbishop of York ; Bonner, Bishop of London ; Tunstal,
Bishop of Durham ; (Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester ;) Barlow,
Bishop of St. David's ; Aldrich, Bishop of Carlisle ; Skip, Bishop
of Hereford ; Hethe, Bishop of Rochester ; Thirlby, Bishop elect
of Westminster ; Doctors Cox, Robinson, Day, Oglethorpe, Redman,
Edgeworth, Symonds, Tresham, Leyghton, Curwen, and Crayford.
And first, the doctrine of the Sacraments was examined, by pro-
pounding seventeen distinct questions, drawn up, as I have reason
to conclude, by the Archbishop, on which the Divines were to
consult ; but each one was to set down in writing his sense of
every of these questions singly and succinctly." Strype's Memorials
of Archbishop Cranmer, vol. i., p. 110.
It is important to remark, that the answers of these Bishops and
Divines formed the data for drawing up the Erudition of a Christian
TENETS OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 73
issued by Henry VIII. in the year 1540, nine years
prior to the office of Ordination being reformed.
Supposing Mr. N.'s assertion to be true, I do not
see how the "peculiar conceits" 10 of some of the
Man in 1543. See Lingard's History of England, vol. iv., p. 310;
Todd's Life of Archbishop Cranmer, vol. i., pp. 298 and 332 ; and
Wheatly on the Common Prayer, p. 25.
10 As the " Resolutions of several Bishops and Divines of some
questions concerning the Sacraments," in 1540, have been, and are
frequently quoted, to show that our Reformers were "Presbyterian
in their principles," and " only retained Episcopal Ordination for
form's sake," I will give the following summary of their opinions
from Courayer.
" Now it appears by the answers made to the questions above
mentioned, that the majority of the Prelates and Divines were not
of the same opinion with Cranmer.
" As, for instance, upon the seventh question, excepting Cranmer
and Barlow, almost all agree upon the efficacy of the Sacraments ;
' Conveniunt omnes, prater Menevensem, naturam septem Sacramentorum
' nobis tradi in Scripturis. Eloracensis ejffeclus singulorum enumerat
'item Carliolensis.' 1 Upon the ninth question, viz. * Whether the
' Apostles, lacking a higher power, as in not having a Christian
' King among them, made Bishops by that necessity, or by authority
' given by God ? ' They all agreed that ' Christ had given this power
' to his Apostles ; Omnes conveniunt Apostolos divinitus accepisse po-
testatum creandi Episcopos : and I do not find that any one fell
into Cranmer's error, who was of opinion that there was no necessity
for any further ceremonies to make a Bishop, than there was for
any other lay magistrate ; and that the rites made use of were
more for decency than out of necessity. Upon the eleventh question
' Whether a Bishop hath authority to make a Priest by the Scrip-
' ture, or no ? and whether any other but a Bishop only may make
'a Priest?' all, excepting Barlow, Bishop of St. David, were of
opinion that ' Bishops had the same power ; ' ' Convenit omnibus prater
' Menevensum, Episcopos habere authoritatem instituendi Preslyteros ;'
and almost all agree that they alone have this power : ' Eloracensis
74 SUMMARY OF THE OPINIONS
Bishops and Divines, in 1540, can affect the clear
and authoritative testimony borne by the Church
1 videtur omnino denegare aliis hanc poiestatem. Redmaynus, Symmons,
' Robertsonus, Leighlonus, Thirlby, Correnus, Rqffensis, Edgworthus,
' Oglethorpus, Carliolensis, nusquam legerunt olios usos fuisse hoc
' potestate? To the twelfth query, which regards the necessity of
Ordination, almost all were of a contrary opinion to Cranmer and
Barlow, and did acknowledge the necessity of Consecration. ' Res-
pondent Eboracensis, Londinensis, Carliolensis, Leighton, Tresham,
' Robertsonus, 8fc., consecrationem esse requisitam. Redmaynus ait earn
' receptam esse ab Apostolis, atque a Spiritu Sancto institutam ad con-
'ferandam gratiam. Dayus, Roffensis, Symmons aiunt Sacerdotiiun
' conferri per manuum impositionem, idque e Scripturis ; Consecrationem
' vero diu receptam in Ecclesia. Coxus institutionem cum manuum
' impositione sufficere, neque per Scripturam requiri Consecrationem?
&c. To the fourteenth, ' Whether it be forfended by God's law,
' that, (if it so fortune that all the Bishops and Priests of a region
' were dead, and that the word of God should remain there un-
4 preached, and the Sacrament of Baptism and others unministered,)
' the King should make Bishops ?' &c. few were of Cranmer 's opinion.
' Fatentur, ut prius, omnes Laicos posse docere. Eboracensis, Symmons,
' Ogle thorp, negant posse or dinar e Presbyter os ; tamcn concedit Ebora-
' censis baptizare, et contrahere matrimonia; Edgworth, tantum baptizare
' posse ; nam sufficere dicit ad salutemj &c. These opposite sentiments
of the majority of the Prelates and Divines, to those of Cranmer,
make it plain enough that the reformation of the Liturgy was not
blindly abandoned to the views and erroneous opinions of this
Archbishop.
" It is therefore not true, (as it was supposed,) that those employed
to reform the Liturgy * were Presbyterians in their principles, or that
they only preserved Episcopal Ordination for forms sake, or that they
looked upon Consecration to be useless. The errors of some cannot
with justice be imputed to the whole : and at the very time when the
* I shall examine by and by more at large the above " Resolutions," so far
as they were expressed by the compilers of the Book of Common Prai/cr mid
iheframers of Edward's Ordinal.
OF THE COMMISSIONERS. 75
of England in the year 1549, in the Preface 1 of
the Ordinal in question, as to there " having been
from the Apostles' times these orders of Ministers in
Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ;
which officers (says the Church) were ever more
had in such reverent estimation, that no man by
his own private authority might presume to exe-
cute 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, approved and admitted
thereunto;" and I think that I have also made it
apparent, in what I have already advanced, that an
express declaration, on the part of the Church, of
the separate, distinct, and subordinate character of
these three several Orders pervades the entire
Ordinal. But is Mr. Northcote's assertion true, that
" Cranmer, Barlow, and several others, who were
principally concerned in framing the new Ordinal,
had distinctly affirmed that Consecration was not
necessary, and that appointment by the Prince was
charms of novelty increased the number of the innovators, a great
many Divines, and a good part of the Clergy, remained firm in the
defence of the Hierarchy ; and there has not been found in any
Church more zealous defenders of Episcopacy than have appeared in
the Church of England since the Schism" f Defence of the Validity
of English Ordinations, p. 154. See also Todd's Life of Cranmer,
vol.'i., pp. 299-310.
1 Probably drawn up by Archbishop Cranmer.
f My readers must bear in mind that the above author was a Romanist.
76 MR. NORTHCOTE'S ASSERTION
alone sufficient " to make a Bishop ? May I ask,
who were these " several others ? " May I ask,
who informed Mr. Northcote that Bishop Barlow
was at all concerned in framing the new Ordinal ? "
Nay, I might ask him how he proves that Arch-
bishop Cranmer was himself engaged in reforming
the three offices ? But I contend not for victory,
but for truth ; and I reply to Mr. Northcote by
saying, that, though in all probability Cranmer was
one of the commissioners, 2 Barlow, as far as we can
ascertain, was not ; and that, moreover, not one of
them, with the exception of Cranmer, of whom I
shall presently speak more at large, had expressed
the sentiments imputed to them by Mr. Northcote;
nay, that they had, (so far as they had expressed
them,) recorded opinions 3 directly the reverse. I
presume that Mr. N. admits, with Heylyn 4 and
2 The Act speaks only of "six Prelates, and six other men of this
realm, learned in God's law."
3 That this is not a mere hasty assertion, my readers may learn
from the fact, that of the thirteen compilers of the Liturgy, Cranmer,
Skip, May, Cox, Redmayne, Robertson, and Goodrich, had been en-
gaged in drawing up the " Declaration of the Functions and Divine
Institution of Bishops and Priests " (1536-8) ; that Thirlby was one of
the compilers of the ERUDITION (1543) ; that Taylor and Ridley were
members of the sub-committee for preparing the Reformatio Legum
(1551) ; and that Day was an avowed Papist. The other two were
Bishop Holbech and Dr. Heynes.
4 " The number of the Bishops, and the learned men which are
appointed by this Act, assure me that the King made choice of the
very same whom he had formerly employed in composing the
Liturgy." History of the Reformation, p. 82.
AS TO SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS. 77
other writers, that "the same persons who had been
before employed in compiling the Liturgy 5 were
now made use of to draw up our Ordinal" If
this be not admitted, we shall, I believe, look in
vain for further information as to the names of the
commissioners; for Strype 1 tells us that he "does
not meet with any of their names, excepting that of
Hethe, Bishop of Worcester," who declined to act.
He adds, that "the chief of them, no doubt, was
the Archbishop." Taking for granted, then, that
the compilers of the Liturgy* and the commissioners
5 " The commission " (to draw up the English Liturgy) " is pro-
bably not on record ; and in the statute the Archbishop only is
named. The other commissioners are there called " most learned
and discreet Bishops, and other learned men of the realm." See note
in Shepherd's Introduction, fyc., p. 36.
6 Courayer, upon the authority of Heylyn, gives the names of the
thirteen Bishops and Divines mentioned in a subsequent note, as the
framers of Edward's Ordinal. See p. 187, edit. 1844.
7 Life of Cranmer, vol. i., p. 273, edit. 1812.
8 The Compilers of our Liturgy, according to the authority of
Strype, Memorials, vol. ii., pt. 1, p. 134, edit. 1822, and of Fuller,
Church History, p. 386, and of Heylyn, History of the Reformation,
p. 57, and of Collier, EccL Hist.* vol. v., p. 246, edit. 1840, and of
* Notwithstanding the note, p. 16, in the new edit, of Courayer, (1844,)
I must still claim Collier as a testimony in my favor : I think, with
deference, that a perusal of the passages referred to in Collier and
Heylyn, and even in Burnet, prove that Collier, in speaking of ' a different
list,' alludes to the list of commissioners for drawing up an ' order for
administering the Holy Eucharist in English,' and not to that for revising
the Liturgy. He distinctly says, speaking of the shorter list of thirteen
commissioners, " these were the persons who afterwards made the first
Liturgy." The Editor will pardon me for drawing his attention to a
misprint in the above note, viz. 1520 instead of 1550. I must add, that
78 QUESTION AS TO THE COMPILERS
appointed to draw up the new Ordinal* constituted
one and the same body, may I be allowed to ask
Wheatly on the Common Prayer, p. 86, and of Shepherd, Elucidation
of the C. P., Introduction, p. 36, (where see note,) and of Nichols on
the Common Prayer, Preface, p. 5, and of Gloucester Ridley, in his
Life of Bishop Ridley, p. 222, and of Downes, Lives of the Compilers,
Sfc., p. 152, were the following : Archbishop Cranmer, Bishops
Ridley, Goodrich, Holbech, Thirlby, Skip, and Day, and Drs. Taylor,
Cox, May, Robertson, Heynes, and Redmayne.| The list given by
Courayer, though ostensibly that of the compilers, seems to be that of
the " godly Bishops, and other learned and religious men, who were
no less busily employed (the same year) in the Castle of Windsor,
appointed by the King's command to consult together about one
uniform Order for administering the Holy Communion in the English
tongue, under loth kinds, of bread and wine" Published in March
1548. See Heylyn's Hist, of Ref., p. 57. Heylyn thinks that these
framers of the new Communion Office, and the compilers of the
Liturgy, were one and the same body, and gives the above names as
constituting the commissioners. Nichols makes the same assertion,
adding that the same thirteen persons prepared the public services for
other special occasions. At all events, Courayer would by his re-
ferences make the number of the framers of the Ordinal twenty-four,
whereas they were limited to twelve by Act of Parliament ; neither is
this passage consistent with that referred to in the previous note ;
nor does Collier, to whom he refers, substantiate his assertion. The
reader must bear in mind, that there were three commissions issued,
one for drawing up " a new Office for the Communion only" (published
in March 1548); another, for compiling " a complete Liturgy, or Form
of Public Prayer," set forth by an Act of 2 and 3 Edward VI.
(adopted by Parliament, November 1548); and a third, for drawing
I much regret not having had the advantage of consulting the very valuable
notes, &c., by the learned Editor of Courayer, until I had nearly com-
pleted my labours.
f The above list of the compilers of the Liturgy is adopted by BWiop
Mant, Bishop Short, the Author of the History of the Church of Eni/laml
(J. B. S. Canvithen), and other modern writers.
OF THE LITURGY, ETC. 79
the name of any one commissioner, (with the above
exception, which I shall examine by and by,) who
" had distinctly affirmed that consecration was not
necessary ; that Princes might by their own au-
thority appoint Priests and Bishops, and that such
appointment alone was sufficient ;" and, " that the
only reason why the Apostles made Bishops on their
own authority was, that there were at that time no
Christian Princes to whose orders they might sub-
mit themselves ! " I am aware that some confusion
arises from the difficulty of ascertaining the precise
sense in which " the Bishops and Divines," in
their replies to " some questions concerning the sa-
craments," in 1540, used the terms "making," "con-
secrating," &c. &c. In the language of Dr. Redmayne,
one of the respondents, "it is to be considered that
in this question, with other like, this word ' maker
of a Bishop or Priest ' may be taken two ways : for
understanding the word to ' ordain,' or ' consecrate,'
so it is a thing which pertaineth to the Apostles and
their successors only ; but if by this word ' making'
be understood the appointing or naming to the of-
fice, so it pertaineth specially to the supreme heads
and governors of the Church, which be Princes."
Again, in the reply of Dr. Cox to the twelfth ques-
up the Ordinal, pursuant to the 3 and 4 Edward VI. (published in
March 1549). See Kennett's Hist, of Eng., vol. ii., p. 290, note;
and Jenkins's Remains of Archbishop Cranmer, Preface, pp. 50-5-2,
and 375, note.
9 The number was limited to twelve by the 3rd of Edw. VI., ch. 12.
80 REPLIES TO QUESTIONS
tion, " whether in the New Testament be required
any consecration of a Bishop and Priest, or only
appointing to the office be sufficient ?" viz. " that
by Scripture there is no consecration of Bishops
and Priests required, but only the appointing to the
office of a Priest, cum impositione manuum," it is
evident that he attached a different sense to the
word consecration from that which it bears now, or
in fact, was applied to it at the time by the other
Divines. 10 It will be observed that Cox speaks of
the consecration of Bishops and Priests as not being
required, but only the appointing to the office of a
Priest, "per impositionem manuum," admitting the
necessity of ordination. 1 To the ninth question,
" whether the Apostles, lacking a higher power, as
in not having a Christian King among them, made
Bishops by that necessity, or by authority given
them of God?" Dr. Cox replies, "Although the
Apostles had no authority to force any man to be
Priest, yet they, moved by the Holy Ghost, had
authority of God to exhort and induce men to
set forth God's honour, and so to make Priests."
And again, in the eleventh question, " whether a
10 And, we may add, by Dr. Cox himself, when in 1549 he assisted
in drawing up " The Form of CONSECRATING of an Archbishop or
Bishop."
1 Dr. Cox was one of the Divines who drew up the Heformatio
Legurn in 1551, and the Institution of a Christian Man in 1537, in the
latter of which " the invisible grace imparted at Ordination by the impo-
sition of the Bishop's hands'" is distinctly admitted.
RESPECTING CONSECRATION. 81
Bishop hath authority to make a Priest by the
Scripture, or no ? " Dr. Cox replies, " Bishops
have authority, as is aforesaid of the Apostles in
the tenth question, to make Priests" That the
term " consecration " was used by the different
Divines in a very different sense, may be learnt
from the answers of Dr. Day and others. Thus
Bishop Heath, who held the Divine Right of Epis-
copacy, says " the Scripture speak eth de impositione
manus et de oratione; and of other manner of conse-
cration I find no mention in the New Testament
expressly, but the old authors make mention of
Inunctions." Dr. Day (who was, as Strype tells us,
" a strong Papist,"} says, " Consecration of Bishops
and Priests I read not in the New Testament, but or-
dinatio per manuum impositionem cum oratione is read
there; and the only appointment to the office of a Priest,^
as I think, is not sufficient." And yet he replies to the
question as to " the authority of a Bishop to make
a Priest," that " Bishops have authority by Scrip-
ture to ordain Bishops and Priests, John xx. ' Hujus
rei gratia reliqui te Cret<s, ut constituas oppidatim
presbyter os, y " Tit. i., Acts xiv. Drs. Redmayne, Ro-
bertson," 2 Leighton, Tresham, and others, say that
" Besides the appointing to the office, it appeareth
that in the primitive Church the Apostles used
certain consecration of the Ministers of the Church,
2 I should add, that Dr. T. Robertson also, with Dr. Cox, was
engaged, in the year 1537, in drawing up The Institution of a Christian
Man, in which the Episcopal functions are clearly maintained.
G
82 OPINIONS RESPECTING CONSECRATION.
by imposition of hands, and prayer, and with fasting.' 7
(Redmayne.) " Opinor requiri consecrationem, quan-
dam, hoc est impositionem manuum, orationem, jeju-
nium," &c. (Robertson.) "I suppose that there is a
consecration required, as by imposition of hands ;
for so we be taught by the ensample of the Apos-
tles." (Leighton.) "There is a certain kind of conse-
cration required, which is imposition of the Bishop's
hands, with prayer; and the appointment only is
not sufficient " (Tresham.') It will be seen by these
extracts that though Drs. Cox and Day objected to
the term consecration, 3 which was admitted by most
of the other Divines, yet that they all agree as to
the mode of conveying the commission, "per manuum
impositionem." My readers must not, however, sup-
pose that " several others, who were principally
concerned in framing the new Ordinal, had, on a
previous occasion" recorded opinions even as vague
and loose as those of Drs. Cox and Day. It will
hardly be believed, after Mr. Northcote's positive as-
sertion, that only six (we might, perhaps, say but^/we)
of the framers of the new Ordinal had expressed any
opinion at all, as far as we have any record, on the
subject of the questions propounded in 1 540 ! Of
these six, Drs. Robertson and Redmayne thus speak :
3 It is, however, worthy of remark, that in the new Ordinal of
1549, of which Drs. Cox and Day were compilers, the titles ran thus :
" The Form of Consecrating of an Archbishop and Bishop " " The
Form of Ordering Priests." In the Review of 1662 the first title
was altered thus : " The Form of Ordaining or Consecrating of an
Archbishop or Bishop."
OPINION OF DR. REDMAYNE. 83
"Opinor (says the former) Apostolos authoritate divina
creasse Episcopos et Prcsbyteros, ubi publicus magis-
tratus permisit." Again, "Opinor Episcopum habere
authoritatem creandi sacerdotem." . . He then adds,
" ordinal . confer, gratiam, vid. EC. Homil. Ix. Dr.
Redmayne, (whom Strype calls " one of the solidest
and best read Divines in the land,") writes, "Christ
gave his Apostles authority to make other Bishops and
Ministers of the Church, as he had received authority
of the Father to make them Bishops;" and adds, that
"it was meet that they which were special and most
elect servants of our Saviour Christ, and were sent
by Him to convert the world, and having most
abundantly the Holy Ghost in them, should have
special ordering of such ministry as pertained to the
planting and increasing of the faith." He then
says, that, " to ordain or consecrate is a thing which
pertaineth to the Apostles and their successors only."
Again, Dr. Redmayne writes, " As for making, that
is to say, ordaining and consecrating of Priests, I
think it specially belongeth to the office of a Bishop,
as far as can be showed by Scripture, or any example,
as I suppose, from the beginning." The opinions of
Drs. Day and Cox we have considered already, and
have seen that they are very far from supporting
the assertion of Mr. Northcote ; and we must bear
in mind that Dr. Cox had, in 1540, subscribed to
the declaration that " Orders is a holy rite or
ceremony, instituted by Christ and His Apostles in
the New Testament, and doth consist of two parts,
84 DR. COX'S DEFINITION OF ORDERS.
that is to say, of a spiritual and invisible grace,
and also of an outward and a visible sign. The
invisible gift or grace conferred in the sacrament
(of Orders) is nothing else but the power, the office,
and the authority before mentioned. The visible
and outward sign is the prayer, and imposition of the
Bishop's hands upon the person that receiveth the
said gift or grace. And to the intent the Church
of Christ should never be destitute of such Minis-
ters as should have and execute the said power of
the keys, it was also ordained and commanded by
the Apostles, that the same sacrament should be
applied and administered by the Bishop, from time
to time, to such other persons as had the qualities
necessarily required thereunto ; which said qualities
the Apostles did also very diligently describe, as it
appeareth evidently in the third chapter of Timothy
and first of Titus." Institution of a Christian Man.
Dr. Cox also assisted in drawing up the Reformatio
Legum, in 1551. But what will my readers say
when I repeat that Dr. Day also, (then Bishop
of Chichester,) though appointed a commissioner
for compiling the Liturgy, and subsequently for
framing* the new Ordinal, was "a strong Papist,"
notwithstanding his replies to the seventeen ques-
tions ; that he was deprived of his See for not
4 Downes says, upon the authority of Heylyn, that Day's name
was omitted in the latter commission; but Heylyn seems to have
hazarded a conjecture. Courayer gives the name of Bishop Day,
when he enumerates the commissioners.
DR. THIRLBY'S OPINION. 85
taking down the Popish altars in his diocese ; that
he reproved his college for favouring the Reforma-
tion and leaving off masses ; sided with Gardiner
against Cranmer ; and in Mary's reign was a violent
persecutor of the Protestant Bishops and others !
" In truth (says Strype 5 ), in the composing of that
Office (the Common Prayer) choice was made, not
so much of men with respect to their opinions, as to
their great learning and knowledge in the usages and
practice of the ancient Church. For Bishop Day,
another of them, (besides Redmayne,} was a strong
Papist; and so was Robertson affected, and not much
otherwise was Bishop Skip!" Be it remembered that
Bishop Skip (and probably Bishop Day) and Drs.
Robertson and Redmayne assisted in drawing up the
Ordinal, in which Mr. Northcote says "Episcopacy
was retained only for form's sake, and rather as a civil
than an ecclesiastical dignity !" But we must pro-
ceed with the "Resolutions." The remaining two
were those of Archbishop Cranmer and Bishop
Thirlby. Bishop Thirlby 6 thus writes : " Making of
Bishops hath two parts : appointment and ordering.
Appointment, which the Apostles by necessity made
by common election, and sometimes by their own
several assignment, could not then be done by
Christian Princes, because at that time they were
5 Memorials Ecclesiastical, vol. ii., pt. 1, edit. 1822.
6 According to Strype, Life of Cranmer, vol. i., p. Ill, and vol. ii.,
p. 749, edit. 1812. See also Bishop Thirlby' s opinions, as stated by
Burnet, in the Collection of Records, Book iii., No. 21.
86 THIRLBY'S OPINION.
not ; and now at these days appertaineth to Christ-
ian Princes and Rulers. But in the ordering, where-
in grace is conferred, (as afore,) the Apostles did
follow the rule taught by the Holy Ghost, per manuum
impositionem, cum oratione et jejunio." Again : " A
Bishop having authority of his Christian Prince
to give Orders, may by his ministry, given to him
of God in Scripture, ordain a Priest. And we
read not that any other, not being a Bishop, hath,
since the beginning of Christ's Church, ordered a
Priest" Again: "Only appointment is not sufficient,
but consecration ; that is to say, imposition of hands,
with fasting and prayer, is also required. For so
the Apostles used to order them that were appointed ;
and so have been used continually ; and we have not
read the contrary." I have thus examined the
opinions of five 7 of the commissioners who " on a
previous occasion " had recorded their sentiments
on the authority of the Episcopate; and I again ask,
is Mr. Northcote's assertion true, that " Cranmer,
Barlow, and several others, who were principally
concerned in framing the new Ordinal, had, on a
previous occasion, distinctly affirmed that consecra-
tion was not necessary ; that Princes might, by
7 Of the remaining seven compilers (whose opinions on Episcopacy,
it will be remembered, are not recorded in the celebrated " Resolu-
tions ") Bishop Skip is accused by Strype of having been affected
with Popery ; and Bishops Goodrich and Ridley, and Drs. Taylor
and May, were four of the committee for drawing up the Beformatio
Legum, in which Episcopacy is clearly maintained in all its efficiency.
See Jenkins's Remains of Archbishop Cranmer, Preface, p. 110, note.
CRANMER'S OPINION. 87
their own authority, appoint Priests and Bishops ;
and that such appointment alone was sufficient ; nay,
that some went so far as to say, that the only reason
why the Apostles made Bishops on their own
authority was, that there were at that time no
Christian Princes to whose orders they might sub-
mit themselves " ? Verily, Mr. Northcote must
have read the " Resolutions of the Bishops and Di-
vines " in 1540, with a very inattentive or a very
prejudiced mind !
The opinion of Archbishop Cranmer alone remains
to be considered. 1 am willing to admit, that, in
the Archbishop's replies in 1540, certain " singular
opinions" seem to be recorded on the " Ecclesiastical
Functions," which are not conformable to the prin-
ciples maintained throughout the new Ordinal of
1 549 ; but I think that, in fairness, Mr. N. should
have informed his readers that Cranmer had, as
Bishop Burnet expresses himself, quite "laid aside
those peculiar conceits of his own," six years at least
prior to the rejection of the Roman Pontifical and
the introduction of the new Ordinal; and that in the
years 1537 and 1538 he had not embraced these
" singular opinions." I have said that certain
" singular opinions " seem to be recorded in the
8 At the end of Cranmer's replies to the seventeen questions appears
this paragraph, written by the Archbishop himself: " T. Cantuarien.
This is my opinion and sentence at this present, which nevertheless I
do not temerariously define, but refer the judgment thereof wholly
unto your Majesty."
88 CRANMER'S OPINION.
replies of the Archbishop in 1 540, because I believe
that some of Cranmer's answers may be capable of
an interpretation, very different from that which is
generally attached to them. How otherwise can we
reconcile the opinions expressed in The Institution
of a Christian Man, drawn up under the immediate
direction of the Archbishop, and of which he was
the principal compiler, and published in 1537, and
similar sentiments to which he subscribed in
1536-8, when he signed a Declaration* of the Func-
9 " A Declaration made of the Functions and Divine Institution of
Bishops and Priests" signed by thirty-eight Bishops, Divines, and
Canonists ; amongst whom were seven of the compilers of the Book
of Common Prayer, viz. Cranmer, Ship, Robertson, Redmayne, May,
Cox, and Goodrich. " It declares, that the power of the Keys, and
other Church functions, is formally distinct from the power of the
Sword. That this power is not absolute, but to be limited to the
rules that are in the Scripture, and is ordained only for the edification
and good of the Church : that this power ought to be still preserved,
since it was given by Christ as the mean of reconciling sinners to God.
Orders were also declared a Sacrament, since they consisted of an
outward action, instituted by Christ, and an inward grace conferred
with them ; but that all inferior Orders, Janitors, Lectors, &c., were
brought into the Church to beautify and adorn it, and were taken
from the Temple of the Jews : and that in the New Testament there
is no mention made but of Deacons or Ministers, and Priests or
Bishops. Nor is there belonging to orders any other ceremony
mentioned in the Scripture but prayer and imposition of hands."
Burnet's Hist, of the Ref., vol. i., p. 345, and Wilkins's Concilia Mag.
Brit., vol. Hi., p. 834. The reader will find in Burnet (idem, p. 346)
some explanatory remarks on the words " Priests or Bishops."
Though the " Declaration " is, in fact, nearly the same as the Ex-
position upon Orders in The Institution of a Christian Man, it appears
to have been a distinct document, and to have preceded the publi-
cation of the latter. A very interesting and important document will
CRANMER'S SENTIMENTS IN 1537. 89
tions and Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests,
with the replies of 1540, as commonly interpreted ?
And we should bear in mind that assertions equally
strong in favour of Episcopacy pervade the Erudition
of a Christian Man, published in 1543, which was
" chiefly," Strype tells us, " of the Archbishop's
composing," and his Catechism, published in 1548.
I shall leave the solution of the question in the
hands of my readers ; but the following extracts
from the Bishop's Book will show what were Cran-
mer's sentiments in 1537.
" We think it convenient (that is, proper and right) that
all Bishops and Preachers shall instruct and teach the
people committed unto their spiritual charge; 1st. how
that Christ and His Apostles did institute and ordain in
the New Testament, that, besides the civil powers and go-
vernance of Kings and Princes, which is called potestas
Gladii, " the power of the Sword," there should also be
continually in the Church Militant certain other ministers
or officers, which should have special power, authority, and
be found in Jenkins's Remains of Archbishop Cranmer, (vol. iv.,
p. 300,) entitled " De Ordine et Ministerio Sacerdotum et Episco-
porum" from the pen of Cranraer. The date is supposed to be about
1538. The following brief extracts will suffice to shew the opinions
of the Archbishop at that time : " Sacerdotum et Episcoporum ordinem
ac ministerium non humana auctoritate sed divinitus institutum, Scriptura
aperte docet .... Proinde potestatem sen functionem hanc Dei verbum
et sacramenta ministrandi cceterasque res agendi quas ante recensuimus,
Christus ipse Apostolis suis dedit, et in illis ac per illos eandem tradidit,
haud promiscue quidem omnibus, sed quibusdam duntaxat hominibus,
nempe Episcopis et Presbyteris, qui ad istud muneris initiantur et
admittuntur" Throughout the document the two Orders are dis-
tinguished, " Presbytcri et Episcopi."
90 CRANMER'S SENTIMENTS IN 1537.
commission, under Christ, to preach and teach the word of
God unto His people ; to dispense and administer the Sacra-
ments of God unto them, and by the same to confer and
give the graces of the Holy Ghost ; to consecrate the blessed
Body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar ; to loose and
absolve from sin all persons which be duly penitent and
sorry for the same ; to bind and to excommunicate such as be
guilty in manifest crimes and sins, and will not amend
their defaults, to order and consecrate others in the same
room, order, and office, ichereunto they be called and ad-
mitted themselves. It appeareth evidently that this poiver,
office, and administration, is necessary to be preserved here
in earth for three special and principal causes. 1st. For
that it is the commandment of God it should be so, as it
appeareth in sundry places of Scripture. 2nd. For that
God hath instituted and ordained none other ordinary
mean or instrument whereby He will make us partakers of
the reconciliation which is by Christ, and confer and give
the graces of His Holy Spirit unto us, and make us the
right inheritors of everlasting life, there to reign with Him
for ever in glory, but only His Word and Sacraments. And,
therefore, the office and power to minister the said Word and
Sacraments may in no wise be suffered to perish or to be
abolished. 3rd. Because the said power and office or
function hath annexed unto it assured promises of excellent
and inestimable things ; for thereby is conferred and given
the Holy Ghost, with all His graces, and finally our justifi-
cation and everlasting life. Again, this office, this power,
and authority was committed and given by Christ and His
Apostles unto certain persons only ; that is to say, unto
Priests and Bishops, whom they did elect, call, and admit
thereunto, by their prayer and imposition of their hands . . .
Orders is a holy rite or ceremony instituted by Christ and
CRANMER'S OPINIONS IN 1543 AND 1548. 91
His Apostles in the New Testament, and doth consist of
two parts ; that is to say, of a spiritual and invisible grace,
and also of an outward and visible sign. The invisible
(jlft or grace conferred in the Sacrament is nothing else but
the power, the office, and the authority before mentioned.
The visible and outward sign is the prayer and imposition of
the Bishop's hands upon the person that receiveth the said
gift or grace. And to the intent the Church of Christ
should never be destitute of such ministers as should have
and execute the said power of the Keys, it was also ordained
and commanded by the Apostles, that the same Sacraments
should be applied and administered by the Bishop, from time
to time, unto such other persons as had the qualities necessa-
rily required thereunto ; which said qualities the Apostles
did also very diligently describe, as it appeareth evidently
in the third chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy, and
the first chapter of his Epistle to Titus."
These were the Archbishop's sentiments in 1537;
that Cranmer had moreover completely relinquished
the loose opinions imputed to him on the subject
of Church government some years before the new
Ordinal was framed, may be learnt from his re-
corded sentiments on the same topic, as given
in the Erudition of a Christian Man, published
in 1543, and from his Catechism, published in
10 Dr. Lingard says : " It is remarkable that in this Catechism the
Archbishop leans more than usual to the antient doctrines ; and
attributes the origin of ecclesiastical jurisdiction to Christ in a manner
which seems to do away his former opinion on the same subject"
History of England, vol. iv., p. 395. See also some interesting
remarks on this head in Jenkins's Preface to the Remains of Arch-
bishop Cranmer, p. 34.
92 CRANMER'S OPINIONS
1548. In the former of these he tells us, that
" Order is a gift or grace of ministration in Christ's
Church, given by God to Christian men by the con-
secration and imposition of the Bishop's hands upon
them ; and this was conferred and given by the Apos-
tles, as it appeareth in the Epistle of St. Paul to
Timothy, whom he had ordained and consecrated
Priest, when he saith thus : ' I do exhort thee that
' thou do stir up the grace of God, the which is given
'thee by the imposition of my hands.' And in
another place he doth monish the same Timothy,
and put him in remembrance of the room and
ministry that he was called unto, in these words :
' Do not neglect the grace which thou hast in thee,
' and the which is given thee through prophecy
' and with imposition of hands, by the authority of
' Priesthood ;' whereby it appeareth that St. Paul
did consecrate and order Priests and Bishops by the
imposition of his hands. And as the Apostles
themselves, in the beginning of the Church, did
order Priests and Bishops, so they appointed and
willed the other Bishops after them to do the like,
as St. Paul manifestly sheweth in his Epistle to
Titus, saying thus : ' For this cause left I thee in
' Crete, that thou shouldest ordain Elders in every
' city according as I have appointed thee.' And to
Timothy he saith, ' See that thou be not hasty to
' put thy hands upon any man.' " Collier 1 tells us
1 Eccl. Hist., vol. v., p. 125, edit. 1840.
IN 1543 AND 1548. 93
that Cranmer subscribed the Erudition, counte-
nanced it in his Diocese, and checked Joseph, a
clergyman, who took the liberty to preach against it.
Again, in the Catechism, which was published in
Cranmer's own name, we read that "the ministration
of God's word, which our Lord Jesus Christ did first
institute, was derived from the Apostles unto others
after them, by imposition of hands, and giving the
Holy Ghost, from the Apostles' times to our own
days ; and this was the consecration, and orders, and
unction of the Apostles, whereby they, at the beginning,
made Bishops and Priests; and this shall continue in
the Church unto the world's end," &c., from which it
is clear, as Dr. Hickes 2 remarks, that Cranmer
" derived the orders and mission of Bishops and
Priests from Christ to the Apostles, and from them
to others, and from them successively to others, unto
the world's end."
Again, the Archbishop says,
" Teachers, unless they be called and sent, cannot fruit-
fully teach ; for the seed of God's Word doth never bring
forth fruit unless the Lord of the harvest doth give the in-
D
crease, and, by His Holy Spirit, do work with the sowers.
But God doth not work with the preacher whom He hath
not sent; as St. Paul saith, "How shall they preach if they
be not sent?" Wherefore it is requisite that preachers
should be called and sent of God ; and they must preach
according to the authority and commission of God granted
unto them."
2 Preface to the Divine Right of Episcopacy asserted, p. 40.
94 CRANMER'S OPINIONS
And to the intent that we may know to whom
this commission is granted, the Archbishop adds :
" Again, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath loth ordained
and appointed ministers and preachers, to teach us His Holy
Word and to minister His Sacraments; and also hath ap-
pointed them what they shall teach in His name and what they
shall do unto us. He called and chose His twelve Apostles.
And, after Christ's ascension, the Apostles gave authority to
other godly and holy men to minister God's Word; chiefly in
those places where there were Christian men already which
lacked preachers, and the Apostles themselves could not
longer abide with them. Wherefore, when they found
godly men, and meet to preach God's Word, they laid their
hands upon them, and gave them the Holy Ghost, as they
themselves received of Christ the same Holy Ghost to execute
their Office. And they that were so ordained were indeed,
and also were called., the Ministers of God, as the Apostles
themselves were, as St. Paul saith unto Timothy ; and so the
ministration of God's Word, ichich our Lord Jesus Christ did
first institute, was derived from the Apostles unto others after
them, by imposition of hands and giving the Holy Ghost, from
the Apostles' time to our own days : and this ivas the conse-
cration, and orders, and unction of the Apostles, whereby
they, at the beginning, made Bishops and Priests ; and tliis
shall continue in the Church unto the world's end. Where-
fore, good children, you shall give good reverence and ho-
nour to the ministers of the Church, and shall not meanly
or lightly esteem them in the execution of their office, but
you shall take them for God's ministers, and the messen-
gers of our Lord Jesus Christ. For Christ Himself saith
in the Gospel, " He that heareth you, heareth Me ; and he
" that despise th you, despiseth Me." And whatsoever they
do to you, as when they baptize you, when they give you ab-
IN 1543 AND 1548. 95
solution, and distribute to yon the body and Hood of our Lord
Jesus Christ, these you shall so esteem as if Christ Himself in
His ou-n person did speak and minister to you : for Christ
hath commanded His ministers to do this unto you ; and He
Himself, although you see Him not with your bodily eyes, is
present with His ministers, and ivorketh by the Holy Ghost
in the administration of the Sacraments"
But I shall further prove that Cranmer, probably
before the publication of the Erudition in 1543,
had repudiated the Erastian views imputed to him,
by cancelling his replies to the ' questions concern-
ing the Sacraments,' which, on presenting them to
the King, he had declared, though " at present his
opinions and sentence," he did " nevertheless not
temerariously define." Dr. Durel, it appears, ex-
amined " Bishop Cranmer's MS." (cited in the Ire-
nicurri) with Stillingfleet himself, and not only dis-
covered that the date of the MS., as stated in the
Irenicum, viz. 1547, was incorrect, but found that
Cranmer had subscribed to the opinions of Dr. Leigh-
ton, " ' Th. Cantuariensis ' being written with the
Archbishop's own hand under Leighton's opinion,
to signify his approbation of it." "Tantus, inquam,
fuit Cranmeri candor, et tantus amor veritatis, (writes
Dr. Durel,) ut in hone Leightoni sententiam, proprid
mutatd, concedere non dubitaverit. Quod ex eodem
Cl. Stillingfleeti manuscripto libro manifestum est ;
3 " Even at the moment of expressing them, he seems to have had
some misgivings respecting their soundness ; and as he had lately
adopted, so he very quickly saw reason to forsake them." Jenkins's
Remains of Archbishop Cranmer, Preface, p. 33.
96 SUMMARY OF CRANMER's VIEWS
in quo scilicet videas ' Th. Cantuariensis ' nomen
manu propria ad calcem Leigtoniance sententice ap-
positum, in signum approbations, Cranmerus itaque
non modo in Formulae ordinandi Praefatione, sed in
eo ipso qui penes est Cl. Stillingfleetum manuscripto
totus noster est.'' 4 Dr. Hickes, referring to this point,
4
The following summary of Cranmer's views, from 1537 to 1550,
on the point we are considering, is from Todd's Life of Archbishop
Cranmer, vol. i., p. 307. " It will be seen, that in Cranmer's paper,
as Burnet has stated it, there are some singular opinions about the
nature of Ecclesiastical Offices ; but they were not established as the
doctrines of the Church. They were laid aside as peculiar conceits of
his own. Indeed, he soon afterwards changed his opinions ; for he
subscribed the book that was formed in consequence of these dis-
cussions, (The Necessary Erudition, published in 1543,) which is
directly contrary to the opinions delivered in his paper; as the
reformed Ordinal, in the time of Edward, is, of which he was one
of the compilers (1549). On mature consideration he abandoned
those dangerous principles, which subject the validity of Christ's
Church to the caprice of every tyrant who may choose to call himself
a Christian. He had, before the artful questions of his Sovereign
were circulated, entertained sentiments very different from his present
answers. I have already briefly noticed them. He was then in
perfect agreement with the Archbishop of York, eleven other Pre-
lates, and several Canonists and Theologians, in declaring, on Henry's-
abolition of the inferior Orders in the Church of Rome, such as
Subdeacons, Janitors, Lectors, and the like, that in Scripture those
Orders are not to be found : this being the sole object of their
declaration in answer to certain Romanists, who represented the
partial, as a general suppression of ecclesiastical offices. He had
also been the principal compiler of the Institution (1537); his opinions
in which, as to the government of the Church, and the functions of
the Hierarchy, the reverse of those in his present answers, are, as I
have before said, recovered in the Necessary Erudition, In not pro-
claiming now (1540) the Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy, he had
been perhaps led by the King to aim at an acknowledgement of the
DR. LEIGHTON'S OPINIONS. 97
says 5 that " Dr. Stillingfleet, afterwards Bishop of
Worcester, never wrote, or, that I heard, said, any
thing to contradict Dr. Durel's account of his ma-
nuscript, all his life long."
Now what were the opinions of Dr. Leighton to
which Cranmer subscribed ? "To the ninth ques-
tion, I say, that the Apostles (as I suppose) made
Bishops by authority given unto them of Christ ;
howbeit I think they would and should have re-
quired the Christian Princes' consent and licence
thereto, if there had been any Christian Kings or
Princes." " To the tenth: the .Apostles were made
of Christ Bishops and Priests, both at the first ;
and after them septuaginta duo discipuli were made
Priests." "To the eleventh: I suppose that a Bishop
hath authority of God, as His minister, by Scripture,
to make a Priest ; but he ought not to admit any
man to be Priest, and consecrate him, or appoint him
Sovereign's right to exercise every office in the Church. But in these
answers he met with little support." The " pliability " of the Arch-
bishop has been adduced as the cause of his apparent inconsistency ;
but if we refer to his Annotations on the King's Booh, being remarks
on Henry's corrections of the Institutions, we shall find that Cranmer
was not that " cowardly time-server to a dogmatical tyrant," as some
writers are apt to imagine. " It will be found, on the contrary, that he
criticised both the grammar and the theology of his master with a
caustic freedom, which might have given offence to an author of far
humbler pretensions than a Sovereign who had entered the lists with
Luther, and who prided himself on his titles of ' Defender of the
Faith,' and ' Supreme Head of the National Church '." Jenkins's
Remains of Archbishop Cranmer, Preface; p. 19.
5 Preface to the Divine Right of Episcopacy asserted, p. 43.
H
98 ANACHRONISM OF STILLINGFLEET.
to any ministry in the Church, without the Prince's
licence and consent, in a Christian region. And that
any other man hath authority to make a Priest by
Scripture, I have not read, nor any example there-
of." "To the twelfth : I suppose that there is a
consecration required, as by imposition of hands ; for
so we be taught by the ensample of the Apostles."
Dr. Durel adds, 6 " Didicimus disceptationem, quse
in eo manuscripto continetur, factam fuisse ante
etractum annum millesimum quingentesimum quadra-
gesimum quartum, quo anno diem suum demum obiit
Edvardus Lee, Eboracencis Archiepiscopus, cujus
nomen manu propria in eo libro, eodem tempore
et eadem occasione cum cseteris scriptum legitur."
" Which also farther shows the great mistake of
Bishop Stillingfleet, when he wrote his Irenicum,
in dating the birth of his manuscript from the
first settlement of King Edward VI. , as a paper
containing the principles upon which the Refor-
mation proceeded in 1547, to the great dishonour
of our Reformers, and the disgrace of our Re-
formation ; and giving our adversaries of Rome
great occasion to misrepresent our Church to be
Erastian in its foundation, as giving the Prince the
power of the Apostles, and other unconsecrate lay-
men authority to ordain Bishops and Priests, and to
excommunicate, and administer the Sacraments, if
the law of any kingdom alloweth thereunto." Thus
6 EcclesicR Anglican Vindicice, pp. 327-328.
OPINIONS IN FAVOUR OF EPISCOPACY. 99
wrote Dr. Hickes 7 at the close of the seventeenth
century. It is also worthy of remark, that in the
margin of the paper of "Resolutions," attributed by
Strype to Bishop Thirlby, portions of which I have
previously quoted, the names of Cranmer and others
are written, "for what purpose (says Strype) I do
not know, unless to signify their judgments as agree-
able with his." It will be seen from the passages
quoted, that the judgment of this Bishop, upon some
of the seventeen questions bearing on the subject
before us, was in favour of the Apostolical succession
and Episcopal Ordination; and to each reply, as given
above, is added in the margin " Abp. Cant."
I ought perhaps to add, that the same opinions in
favour of Episcopacy and the necessity of a Divine
Commission transmitted through the medium of
Ordination, which are found in the Institution of a
Christian Man* (1537); the Declaration of the Func-
tions and Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests
(1536-8); the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for
any Christian Man (1543); and Cranmer s Catechism
(1 548), are distinctly stated in the Reformatio Legum
Ecclesiasticarum, drawn up at the close of 1551, of
which the principle matter was furnished by the
Archbishop. In the third, fourth, tenth, and sub-
sequent chapters we have the offices of Deacon,
Priest, and Bishop clearly and specifically stated.
7 Preface, Sfc., p. 44.
8 How far Cranmer was concerned in drawing up this formulary
will be seen in Jenkins's Preface to Cranmer's Remains, p. 17.
H 2
100 INSINUATION THAT EPISCOPACY
The Deacon was to preach, and administer the Sacra-
ments, " modo Episcopi permissione." The chapter
on the office of Presbyter refers us to the third chapter
of Timothy and the first of Titus for an elucidation
of their official character; and speaks of the flock of
God committed to them : which commission we learn
from the Ordination Service, (which was drawn up
two years before, under the same authority, and
again printed in 1552, with a few alterations,) was
imparted by the imposition of the Bishop's hands.
The chapter on the order and dignity of Bishops,
and the subsequent chapters on the obedience due
to these, are still more explicit. The first speaks
of the Bishops as holding the chief place among
the ministers of Christ's Church, and gives them
authority to govern the inferior orders of the Clergy,
" inferior es or dines Cleri ;" the others allude to
the Ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction of the
Bishops ; and declare that the whole diocese, both
Clergy and Laity, " omnia Christi membra ejus curce
commissa," were to be under the Bishop, and to be
governed by his discipline and discretion, not only
on those points which are clearly specified in the
Word of God, but on such as appertain to the main-
tenance of Church discipline, and the cariying out
the requirements of the Ecclesiastical laws. A
subsequent chapter speaks of the Bishop as con-
ferring the sacred orders, " sacros ordines conferat ;"
and alludes to the imposition of the Bishop's hands
as the mode of conferring these orders, " nemini
WAS RETAINED BY US FOR FORM. 101
temere manus imponat ?" I should likewise state
that Cranmer, Goodrich, Ridley, Cox, Taylor, and
May, six of the compilers of the Liturgy, together
with three others, formed a sub-committee to pre-
pare the above code.
I think then that my readers and even Mr.
Northcote's readers will acknowledge that the
inference intended to be drawn by Mr. N. from the
opinions expressed in 1540 by "certain Bishops and
Divines," viz. that the compilers of the new Ordinal
did not believe in the doctrine of the Apostolical
Succession or the necessity of Episcopal Ordination,
and that in fact " Episcopacy was retained only for
form's sake, or at least with a different design from
that hitherto entertained by the Church, and rather
as a Civil than an Ecclesiastical dignity," militates
against historical testimony, and is utterly without
foundation; and I may be allowed to express a hope
that the Fourfold Difficulties of Anglicanism, in
which such palpable misstatements occur, will not
be read without due caution and inquiry.
Mr. Northcote proceeds to urge that, "it is no
sufficient apology for the defective form of conse-
cration to say that it contains as much as was ex-
pressed in the most ancient rituals. ... To reject
an article that has been once defined, is a very
different thing from not having consciously held
9 The reader will pardon me for referring him to my second
Ordination Sermon (p. 154, second edition) for further extracts in the
original, from the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum,
102 MASON'S COMPARISON OF ROMISH
that article before such definition. So in like
manner to abolish all 10 the usual rites in the con-
secration of Bishops, substituting for them a form
of words not even irreconcileable with Presby-
terianism, gives some ground to suspect that
Episcopacy was retained only for form's sake."
What hifc' been already advanced will in a great
measure furnish a reply to the above objection. The
following passages from Mason, Bramhall, and
10 Mr. Northcote will pardon me for observing, that, from a some-
what careless mode of writing, it is not very easy to ascertain whether,
in his remarks on the Ordinal of Edward the Sixth, he refers to that
of 1549 or that of 1552. Mr. N. says, that " six Bishops had been
consecrated according to ihejirst Protestant Ritual, during the reign
of Edward," alluding, of course, to the Ordinal of 1549 ; and yet he
immediately adds, that " Queen Elizabeth restored her brother's Ordi-
nal;" whereas the Ordinal restored in her reign was, in fact, not that
by which these (supposed six) Bishops had been consecrated, but the
Ordinal of 1552. The truth, however, is, that during Edward's reign
four Bishops only were consecrated by the Ordinal of 1549, and two
by that of 1552. In like manner, Mr. N. speaks of the framers of the
Ordinal having " abolished all the usual rites in the consecration of
Bishops," &c. If Mr. N. will refer to the Ordinal of 1549, he will
see that some rites, which were abolished in 1552, were at first
retained, in accordance with the Koman Pontifical, such as the two
consecrating Bishops having their pastoral staves in their hands;
the elected Bishop having upon him a surplice and cope ; the
Archbishop putting into the Bishop's hand the pastoral staff; the
Archbishop laying the Bible upon the Bishop's neck ; the appeal to
the Saints and Evangelists at the end of the oath of supremacy,
and the ceremony of delivering the chalice with bread at the con*
secration of a Priest, &c. It would almost appear, either that Mr.
Northcote is not aware that two distinct Ordinals had been drawn
up in Edward's reign, or that he is ignorant of the alterations which
were made in that of 1552.
WITH ANGLICAN ORDINATION. 103
Burnet, will however render the refutation more
complete.
" In the consecration of Bishops we have many things
common with you (the Romanist). For, first, 1 ye have an
examination concerning the faith and other things. Se-
condly, two Bishops at the fewest are wont to assist the
Consecrator. Thirdly, the Epistle is read out of the third
chapter of the former Epistle to Timothy. Fourthly,
prayers arc put up for the elected Bishop. Fifthly, while
the hands are laid on, these words are pronounced, " Re-
ceive the Holy Ghost" Sixthly, the Bible is delivered to
the consecrated Bishop. All these things are approved in
general by the practice of our Church : and yet there are
many things wherein we differ ; some of which indeed are
of small importance, such as these. First, with you, only
the elder of the assistants presents the elected ; with us,
two. Secondly, with you, not only the Consecrator alone
pronounceth these words, "Receive the Holy Ghost," but
the assistants also, though they do it with a lower voice ;
but with us the Consecrator alone, and that according to
the authority of the Council of Carthage. Thirdly, your
Bishops lay the Bible upon the head of the elected, accord-
ing to the direction of the same Council ; but ours deliver
it into his hand. But, besides these lesser matters, there
are others of greater consequence, wherein though there
seems to be a kind of agreement in generals, yet there is a
vast difference between us as to particulars. For, first, on
both sides is required the command of superior authority,
without which none can be consecrated ; but you require
the Pope's, and we the King's. Both sides used to take an
oath ; but ye take it in favour of the Pope, and we in de-
1 Pontificate Romanum, De Consecratione Elecii in Episcopum.
104 BRAMHALL'S REMARKS
fence of the King. Both sides use an examination ; and
here ye profess to follow the Council of Carthage, but ye
intermix therewith the Decretal Epistles and the Obedience
to the Pope, of which that Council takes not the least
notice. Lastly, to come to habits. Your elected Bishops
are dressed up with an Amice, an Albe, a Girdle, a Stole,
Pluvial, and Sandals : and then they receive the Cross upon
the breast, and the Stole is so Jitted as to hang down from
their shoulder ; and after that the Tunicle, the Surplice,
and the Chasible. Afterwards the Consecrator anointet/i
their heads and the palms of their hands : besides which he
blesseth the Staff, and delivereth it to the Consecrated ; and
so likewise the Ring, with the Jewels, the Mitre, and
Gloves. We, indeed, are no admirers of such a fine show
of ceremonies ; and yet our Bishops have their sacred vest-
ments, but those as modest and as decent as may be. So
that though in our consecrations we see not the Crosses,
the Oil, the Mitres, the Gloves, the Sandals, the Rings, or
the Staffs ; yet we have godly Sermons, Exhortations, Ex-
aminations, Admonitions, Prayers, Laying on of hands, and
Blessings : that is we have everything that is necessary ;
but your additionals, whish contribute more to pomp
than true piety, we neither have, nor desire to have."
Mason's Vindicice Ecclesies Anglicana, page 203.
With reference to Mason's opinion on this point
BramhaH remarks
" If Mr. Mason did commend the wisdom of the English
Church for paring away superfluous ceremonies in Ordina-
tion, he did well. Ceremonies are advancements of order,
decency, modesty, and gravity in the service of God, ex-
pressions of those heavenly desires, and dispositions which
we ought to bring along with us to God's House, adjuments
of attention and devotion, furtherances of edification,
ON MASON'S COMPARISON. 105
visible instructors, helps of memory, exercises of faith, the
shell that preserves the kernel of religion from contempt,
the leaves that defend the blossoms and the fruit ; but if
they grow over-thick and rank, they hinder the fruit from
coining to maturity, and then the gardener plucks them off.
There is great difference between the hearty expressions
of a faithful friend, and the mimical gestures of a fawning
flatterer ; between the unaffected comeliness of a grave
matron, and the fantastical paintings, and patchings, and
powderings of a garish courtesan. When ceremonies be-
come burdensome by excessive superfluity, or unlawful ce-
remonies are obtruded, or the substance of Divine worship
is placed in circumstances, or the service of God is more
respected for human ornaments than for the Divine ordi-
nance, it is high time to pare away excesses, and reduce
things to the ancient mean. These Fathers are quite out
where they make it lawful at some times to add, but never
to pare away : yet we have pared away nothing which
is eit/ier prescribed or practised by the true Catholic Church.
If our ancestors have pared away any such things out of
any mistake, (which we do not believe,) let it be made
appear evidently to us, and we are more ready to welcome
it again at the fore-door, than our ancestors were to cast it
out at the back door. Errare possumus, hceretici esse
nolumus' " Consecration oj Protestant Bishops Vindicated,
page 488.
On the same subject Bishop Burnet thus writes
" As for the forms of Ordination, they found that the
Scripture mentioned only the imposition of hands and
prayer. In the Apostolical Constitutions, in the fourth
Council of Carthage, and in the pretended works of Denis
the Areopagite, there was no more used. Therefore all
those additions of anointing, and giving them consecrated
106 BISHOP BURNET'S HISTORY
vestments, were later inventions. But, most of all, the
conceit which from the time of the Council of Florence
was generally received, that the rites by which a Priest
was ordained, were the delivering him the vessels for con-
secrating the Eucharist, with a power to offer sacrifice to
God for the dead and the living. This was a vain novelty,
only set up to support the belief of Transubstantiation ;
and had no ground in the Scriptures, nor the primitive
practice. So they agreed on a form of ordaining Deacons,
Priests, and Bishops, which is the same we yet use, except
in some few words that have been added since in the Or-
dination of a Priest or Bishop. For there was then no ex-
press mention made in the words of ordaining them, that
it was for the one or the other office. In both it was said,
" Receive thou the Holy Ghost in the name of the Father"
$c. But, that having been since made use of to prove
both functions the same, it was of late years ( 1 662) altered
as it is now. Nor were these words, being the same in
giving both Orders, any ground to infer that the Church
esteemed them one Order ; the rest of the office showing
the contrary very plainly.
" In this Ritual all those superadded rites were cut off
which the later ages had brought in to dress up these perfor-
mances with the more pomp ; whereof we have since a more
perfect account than it was possible for them then to have.
For in our age, Morinus, a learned Priest of the Oratorian
Order, has published the most ancient Rituals he could
find: by which it appears how these offices swelled in every
age by some new addition. About the middle of the sixth
century, they anointed and blessed the Priest's hands in
some parts of France ; though the Greek Church never
used anointing: nor was it in the Roman Church two
ages after that ; for Pope Nicholaus the first (860) plainly
OF OUR PRESENT FORM OF ORDINATION. 107
says it was never used in the Church of Rome. In the
eighth century, the Priest's garments were given with
a special benediction for the "Priest's offering Expiatory
Sacrifices ; it was no ancienter that that phrase was used
in Ordinations : and in that same age there was a special
benediction of the Priest's hands used before they were
anointed; and then his head was anointed. This was taken
partly from the Levitical law, and partly because the people
believed that their Kings derived the sacredness of their
persons from their being anointed. So the Priests, having
a mind to have their persons secured and exempted from
all secular power, were willing enough to use this rite in
their Ordinations. And in the tenth century, when the
belief of Transubtantiation was received, the delivering of
the vessels for the Eucharist, with the power of offering
sacrifices, was brought in, besides a great many other rites.
So that the Church did never tie itself to one certain form
of Ordinations ; nor did it always make them with the
same prayers ; for what was accounted anciently the form
of Ordination, was, in the later ages, but a preparatory
prayer to it.'' History of the Reformation, part ii., p. 136.
One word I must add from the pages of Collier
" The Committee appointed for compiling the Ordination
Book, struck off the additions of later ages, and governed
themselves by the forms of the ancient Church. Thus, in
the Consecration of Bishops, the Gloves and Sandals, the
Mitre, Ring, and Crosier were omitted ; neither in the Or-
daining of Priests was there any anointing or delivering the
consecrated plate. 2
" That the office was not maimed by leaving out these
2 These remarks of Collier in their full extent, can apply
only to the Ordinal of 1552, as will be seen by a reference to
that of 1549.
108 ENGLISH ORDINATION
ceremonies I shall prove from the forms of Ordination in
the primitive Church, and the concessions of the famous
Morinus"
I must refer the reader once more to Collier
(vol. v. page 376, edit. 1840) for the proofs which
he advances in support of his position. The result
of his examinations into the records of antiquity is
given as follows
" Thus we see that the ancient rituals for Ordination
agree with that drawn up in the reign of King Edward the
Sixth. There is no anointing the hands and head of the
Priest and Bishop; no chalice or paten delivered to the
second order, nor any ring or crosier to the first.
*' It is true, about the ninth century we find the use of
these ceremonies ; but then, as the learned Morinus ob-
serves, these supplemental rites in the forms of Ordina-
tion were added only upon the score of solemnity.
" This learned person grants, the Latin Church has all
along owned the Orders of the Greek, after the Schism, as
the Westerns call it : and yet, as he takes notice, it neither
is nor was the custom of the Greek Church to deliver the
chalice and paten to the Priest at their Ordination. He
observes farther, that prayer and imposition of hands are
the only essentials in Ordination. He acquaints us that
the ancient Pontificals are charged with fewest ceremonies.
That Thomas Aquinas, and other schoolmen, perusing only
the rituals of latter ages, inferred the usages of antiquity
from thence, which is a wrong way of arguing. That,
from this principle, they have been led into mistakes, made
the delivery of the holy vessels necessary to the con-
veyance of the sacerdotal character, and embarrassed
themselves with inexplicable difficulties in reconciling
A RETURN TO PRIMITIVE USAGE. 109
the allowance of the Orders of the Greek Church with
the customs and constitutions of their own."
Having thus briefly, but I trust satisfactorily,
examined and disproved Mr. Northcote's assertions
as to the recorded opinions of the framers of King
Edward's Ordinal ; and having shown that the alter-
ation in the Ordination Offices in 1 549 did not inva-
lidate the commission subsequently received through
that medium ; as well as that such alterations
were justified by primitive usage, and were, in fact,
rendered requisite for " paring away the superfluous
ceremonies of Ordination," as BramJiall expresses
himself, I must leave the subject of jurisdiction
as exercised by the Crown, of which Mr. Northcote
subsequently treats, to be explained and vindicated
by the following authorities : Bramhall's Schism
guarded, ch. 4 9 ; Hooker's Eccl. Pol., book viii ;
Mason's Vindicitf, b. iv. p. 365 ; Gibson's Pre-
servative against Popery, vol. i. pages 256-61 ;
Burnet's Vindication of English Ordination, pages
83-106 ; Courayer's Defence of the Dissertation,
vol. ii. b. v ; Nichols's Reply to Objections against
the lawfulness of Bishops, in the Supplement to his
Comment on the Common Prayer, page 44 ; Ham-
mond's Answer to Schism disarmed; Bowden on
Episcopacy, vol. ii. page 14 ; Gibson's Codex, pages
1-98 ; Wheatly on the Common Prayer, page 28 ;
Twisden's Historical Vindication of the Church of
England, chapter v ; and Palmer's Origines Litur-
gies, vol. i. pages 257-78 : to all of which I would
110 QUESTION OF THE
direct the reader's careful attention. A word or two,
however, I must add from Courayer and Burnet.
First, with regard to the authority upon which the
compilers acted.
" Since England (writes Courayer), by substituting Ed-
ward's Ritual instead of the Roman Pontifical, did but re-
turn to the simplicity of the ancient rite retained to this day
in the Greek Church, inserting only some new prayers, it
is pretty needless to examine by what authority this change
was brought about in the Church of England. By return-
ing to the simplicity of the ancient rite, the new Ordinal
derives its authority from the rite which the composers
proposed for their model, and thereby restored ; and, though
this restoration were ordered by the Prince, it would be
nevertheless looked upon as an Ecclesiastical rite. The
Roman Missal was received in France by the authority of
Charlemagne only, and in Spain by that of Alphonso ; and
yet did any one ever undertake to maintain upon that
pretence, that, this acceptation being the effect of a lay
authority only, that form of liturgy could not be used to
consecrate the Elements in the Eucharist ? Such sort of
objections were not then come into anybody's head. They
knew that spiritual functions were reserved to the ministers
of the Church, as well as we do now. But in many cases
the Prince took upon him the direction of the external po-
lity of the Church, and the reformation of Ecclesiastical
books and rites was the object of their care ; whilst their
concerning themselves in such things, or the orders, they
gave about them, were judged no encroachment on the ju-
risdiction of Bishops.
"Father Le Quien, therefore, and Mr. Fennell are
very much out in pretending to urge such an objection
against the validity of Edward's rite, by saying that it was
JURISDICTION OF THE CROWN. Ill
authorized only by a lay power; and that, seeing this
power could not of itself give any authority to the new
rite which it introduced, Ordinations conferred in conse-
qence of it could not be looked upon as really such. But,
excepting the permission granted the Clergy to revise all
Ecclesiastical books, and the order obtained from the Par-
liament 3 giving the force of a law to what had been ap-
pointed by the Clergy, a thing practised in the most Ca-
tholic coutries, the lay authority had never perhaps less
to do with any revolution than with this." Defence of the
Dissertation, vol. ii. page 283.
Again Bishop Burnet writes,
" Those who compiled the Liturgy and Ordinal had no
other authority from the Parliament than holy and Christ-
ian Princes did before give in the like cases. It is a com-
mon-place, and has been handled by many writers, how far
the civil magistrate may make laws and give commands
about sacred things. 'Tis known what orders David and
Solomon, Jehosaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah, gave in such
cases. They divided the Priests into several courses ; gave
rules for their attendance ; turned out a High Priest, and put
another in his stead ; sent the Priests over the cities to teach
the people ; gathered the Priests and commanded them to
sanctify themselves and the House of the Lord, and offer
sacrifices on the altar. And gave orders about the forms of
their worship, that they should praise God in the words of
David and Asaph : and gave orders about the time of observ-
ing the Passover, that in a case of necessity it might be
observed on the second month ; though by their law it
was to be kept the first month. And for the Christian
Emperors, let the Code, or the Novels, or the Capitulars of
3 See Wheatly on the Common Prayer, Appendix to Introduction,
page 28.
112 PRECEDENTS OF LAY SANCTION.
Charles the Great be read, and in them many laws will be
found about the qualifications, elections, and consecrations
of Churchmen, made by the best of all the Roman Empe-
rors, such as Constantine, Theodosius, &c. They called
Councils to judge of the greatest points of faith, which met
and sate on their writ ; whose determinations they confirm-
ed, and added the civil sanction to them. And even Pope
Leo, though a higher-spirited Pope than any of his prede-
cessors were, did intreat the Emperor Martian to annul
the second council of EpJiesus, and to give order that the
smcient decrees of the Council of Nice should remain in
force. Now it were a great scandal on those Councils to
say that they had no authority for what they did, but what
they derived from the civil powers ; so it is no less unjust
to say, because the Parliament empowered some persons to
draw forms for the more pure administration of the Sacra-
ments, and enacted that these only should be lawfully ex-
ercised in this realm, which is the civil sanction, that
therefore these persons had no other authority for what
they did. Let those men declare upon their consciences
if there be anything they desire more earnestly than such
an act for authorizing their own forms ; and would they
make any scruple to accept of it if they might have it ?
Was it ever heard of that the civil sanction, which only
makes any constitution to have the force of a law, gives it
another authority than a civil one ? And such authority the
Church of Rome thinks fit to accept of in all states and
kingdoms of that religion. (See the opinions of Gardiner,
Banner, and Tonstal, on the Pope's Supremacy, in Fox, vol.
v. pages 75, 98; edit. 1838.)
" Again, the Prelates and other Divines that compiled our
forms of Ordination, did it by virtue of the authority they
had from Christ as Pastors of His Church, which did em-
BY THE CROWN. 1 13
power them to teach the people the pure Word of God,
and to administer the Sacraments, and perform all other
holy functions according to the Scriptures, the practice of
the Primitive Church, and the rules of expediency and rea-
son ; and this they ought to have done, though the civil
powers had opposed it; in which case their duty had been
to have submitted to whatever severities or persecutions
they might have been put to for the name of Christ, and
the truth of His Gospel. But, on the other hand, when it
pleased God to turn the hearts of those who had the chief
power to set forward this good work, then they did (as
they ought) with all thankfulness acknowledge so great a
blessing, and accept and improve the authority of the civil
powers for adding the sanction of a law to the Reformation,
in all the parts and branches of it. So by the authority
they derived from Christ, and the warrant they had from
Scripture and the primitive Church, these Prelates and Di-
vines made those alterations and changes in the Ordinal ; and
the King and the Parliament, icho are vested with the su-
preme legislative power, added their authority to make them
obligatory on the subjects. Which is all that is imported by
the word "lawful" in the Act of Parliament; the ordinary
use whereof among lawyers is "a thing according to law."
Again, with regard to the nomination of Bishops
by the Crown, Burnet says,
" Consecrations upon the King's nomination must either
be good and valid, or all the Consecrations of the first ages
of the Church shall likewise be annulled ; since he has now
as good a right to name the persons that are to be consecrated
as the people then had. It is true, the tumults and other
disorders in those elections brought great scandal on the
Church, and so they were taken away and Synodical elec-
tions were set up; but as the former Ordinations were
I
114 BISHOPS NOMINATED BY THE CROWN.
good before these were set up, so it cannot be said that
these are indispensably necessary, otherwise there are no
good Ordinations at this day in the Church of Rome ; these
being all now put down, the Pope having among his other
usurpations taken that into his own hands.
" It is also known how much Christian Princes, Emperors,
and Kings in all ages and places, have meddled in the elec-
tion of Bishops. I need not tell how a Synod desired Va-
lentinian to choose a Bishop at Milan when St. Ambrose
was chosen ; nor how Theodosius chose Nectarius to be
Patriarch of Constantinople,, even when the second General
Council was sitting ; nor need I tell the law Justinian
made, that there should be three presented to the Emperor
in the elections of the Patriarch, and he should choose one
of them. These things are generally known, and I need
not insist on them. It is true, as there followed great con-
fusions in the Greek Empire till it was quite overrun and
destroyed, so there was scarce any one thing in which
there was more doing and undoing than in the election of
the Patriarchs ; the Emperors often did it by their own
authority ; Synodical elections were also often set up. At
length the Emperors brought it to that, that they deli-
vered the Pastoral Staff to the Bishop, by which he was
invested in his Patriarchate ; but it was never pretended,
neither by the Latin Church, nor by the contrary factions
in the Greek Church, that Orders so given were null.
And yet the Emperor's giving the Investiture with his own
hand is a far greater thing than our King's granting a
mandate for consecrating and investing them. For proof
of this about the Greek Church, I refer it to Habertf who
has given a full deduction of the elections in that Church,
from the days of the Apostles to the last age.
4 Tit. 17, Rit. Elec. Pair.
POPES CREATED BY THE EMPEROR. 115
"For the Latin Church, the matter has been so oft exam-
ined that it is to no purpose to spend much time about it.
It is known and confessed by Platinaf that the Emperor's
authority intervened when the Popes were created. And
Onuphrius 6 tells us that, by a decree of Viyilius, (A. D.
540,) the custom had got in, that the elected Pope should
not be consecrated till the Emperor had confirmed it, and
had by his letters-patent given the elect Pope leave to be
ordained ; and that licence was either granted by the Em-
perors themselves or by their lieutenants (or Exarchs] at
Ravenna: and. one-and- twenty Popes were thus conse-
crated ; Pelagius the Second only excepted, who, being
chosen during the siege of Home, did not stay for it, but he
sent Gregory (afterwards Pope) to excuse it to the Empe-
ror, who was offended with it. It continued thus till the
days of Constantine, called Pogonatus, who first remitted it
to Benedict the Second; and the truth of it was, the power
of the Greek Emperors was then fallen so low in Italy that
no wonder he parted with it. But so soon as the Empire
was again set up in the West by Charles the Great, Pope
Adrian, with a Synod, gave him the power of creating the
Pope, (as is set down in the very canon-law itself,) and of
investing all other Archbishops and Bishops ; and an ana-
thema icas pronounced against any that should consecrate a
Bishop that was not named and invested by him. This is
likewise told by Platina out of Anastasius.
ts It is true, though some Popes were thus chosen, yet the
weakness of Charles the Great's son, and the divisions of
his children, with the degeneracy of that whole race, served
the ends of the growing power of the Papacy. Yet Lewis
laid it down, not as an usurpation, but as a right of which
he divested himself: but his son Lothaire re-assumed it,
5 In Vita Silverii. 6 In Plat, in Pelag.
, 2
116 POPES ORIGINALLY CONSECRATED
and did confirm divers Popes ; and Amistasius tells us that
they durst not consecrate the Pope without the Imperial
authority ; and the thing was still kept up, at least in a
shadow, till Hadrian the Third, who appointed that the
Emperor's concurrence or license should not be thought
necessary in the creating of a Pope. And from Hadrian
the First, who died anno 795, till Hadrian the Third, there
were eighty-nine years ; and from Vigilius' days, who died
anno 555, there were three hundred and thirty years (viz.
from 555 to 885). So long were the Popes made upon the
Emperors' mandates. Nor did the Emperors part easily
with this right ; but after that, the Othos and the Henrys
kept up their pretension, and came oft to Rome, and made
many Popes : and though most of the Popes so made were
generally reckoned Anti-Popes and Schismaticks, yet some
of them, as Clement the Second, are put in the catalogues
of the Popes by Baronius and Binnius, and by the late
publishers of the councils, Labbe and Cossartius. There
was, indeed, great opposition made to this at Rome. But
let even their own historians be appealed to, what a series
of monsters, and not men, those Popes were. How infa-
mously they were elected, often by the whores of Rome,
and how flagitious they were, we refer it to Baronius
himself, who could not deny this, for all his partiality,
in his great work. But, in the end, Pope Gregory the
Seventh (A.D. 1080) got the better of the Emperors in
this particular.
" And now let the ingenuity of those men be considered,
who endeavour to invalidate our Orders, and call our
Priests and Bishops " Parliamentary Priests and Bishops"
because they are made upon the King's mandate, according
to the Act of Parliament : when it is clear, that for near
five hundred years together, their own Popes were come-
BY THE EMPEROR'S NOMINATION. 117
crated for the most part upon the Emperors mandate ; and
it is certain the Kings of England have as much power to
do the same here, as the Emperors had to do it at Rome.
" The Emperors were wont also to grant the Investitures
into all the Bishopricks by giving the Ring and the Staff,
which were the ceremonies of the Investiture ; and so they
both named and invested all the Bishops and Abbots.
This, Pope Gregory the Seventh thought was no more to
be suffered than their creating the Popes ; both being done
by the same authority. Therefore he resolved to wring
them out of the Emperor's hands, and take them into his
own ; and it was no wonder he had a great mind to bring
this about ; for the Bishopricks and Abbeys were then so
richly endowed that it was the conquest of almost the third
part of the Empire, to draw the giving of them into his own
hands. Therefore he first disgraced these Laical Investi-
tures by an ill name to make them sound odiously, and
called all so ordained " Simoniacks ;" as he also called the
married clergy " Nicolaitans." Now, every body knows
how much anything suffers by a scurvy nickname raised
on it. But he went more roundly to work, and deposed
the Emperor, and absolved his subjects from their obe-
dience. What bloody wars and unnatural rebellions of
the children against the father followed by the Pope's in-
stigation, is well enough known. In the end, his son that
succeeded him was forced to yield up the matter to the
Pope.
"In Spain it appears, both from the twelfth and sixteenth
Councils of Toledo," 1 that the Kings there did choose the
Bishops, which Daronius does freely confess.
" And Gregory of Tours, through his whole history, gives
so many instances of the Kings of France, of the Merovin-
7 See Ranchin's Review of the Council of Trent, lib. v., ch. 10.
118 ENCROACHMENTS OF THE COURT OF ROME.
gian race, choosing and naming the Bishops, that it cannot
be questioned : all the writers of the Gallicane Church do
also assert that their Kings gave the Investitures from the
days of Charles the Great. But the Popes were still
making inroads upon their authority, for securing which
Charles the Seventh caused the Pragmatic Sanction to be
made. It is true, afterwards Pope Leo the Tenth got
Francis the First to set up the Concordate in its place ;
against which the Assembly of the Clergy at Paris did
complain, and appealed to a General Council, and yet by
the Concordate the King retains still the power of naming
the Bishops.
"In England, 91 there are some instances of the Saxon
Kings choosing Bishops ; and though so little remains of the
Records or Histories of that time, that it is no wonder if
we meet with but few, yet it is clear that King William the
Conqueror and both his sons did give the Investitures to
the Bishops ; and though, upon a contest between King
Henry the First and Ansclm about them, the King did yield
them to him, yet upon Anselm's death he did re-assume
that power. I need not say more to show what were
the rights of the Crown in this matter, nor how oft they
were asserted in Parliament, nor how many laws were
made against the encroachments and tyrannical exactions
of the Court of Rome ; these are now so commonly known,
and have been so oft printed of late, that I need add
nothing about them. Only, from all I have said, I suppose
it is indisputably clear, that, if Ordinations or Consecrations
upon the King's mandate be invalid, which this paper drives
at, then all the Ordinations of the Christian Church are also
annulled, since for many ages they were all made upon the
mandates of Emperors and Kings. By all which you may
s Ibid.
DANGER OF APOSTACY. 119
see the great weakness of this argument." Burnet's
Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England,
pp. 51-99. 9
" To conclude," (in the language of Archbishop
Bramhall,} " as an impetuous wind doth not blow
down those trees which are well radicated, but
causeth them to spread their roots more firmly in
the earth, so these concussions of our adversaries
do confirm us in the undoubted assurance of the
truth, and validity, and legality of our holy Orders. 10
We have no more reason to doubt of the truth of
our Orders, because of the different judgment of a
handful of our partial countrymen, and some few
foreign Docters misinformed by them, than they
themselves have to doubt of the truth of their
Orders, who were ordained by Formosus, because
two Popes, Stephen and Sergius, one after another,
out of passion and prejudice declared them to be
void and invalid.
" But supposing ihat which we can never grant
without betraying both ourselves and the truth,
that there were some remote probabilities that
might occasion suspicion in some persons pre-
possessed with prejudice, of the legality of our
Orders ; yet, for any man, upon such pretended un-
9 See also Ranchin, lib. vii., caps. 5, 6.
10 The reader will be repaid by perusing attentively, in the Tracts
against Popery, Reflections on the Historical part of " Church Govern-
ment, pt. v," and Animadversions on the Eight Theses in " Church
Government, pt. v," 1687.
120 DANGER OF APOSTACY.
certainties, to leave the communion of that Church
wherein he was baptized, which gave him his Christ-
ian being, and to apostate to them, where he shall
meet with much greater grounds of fear both of
schism and idolatry, were to plunge himself in a
certain crime for fear of an uncertain danger."
Consecration of Protestant Bishops vindicated, p. 488.
THE END.
Printed by W. & H. POLLARD, North Street, Exeter.
THE REFORMERS
THE ANGLICAN CHURCH,
Jftr, fHacaulag's ^istorg of England
SECOND EDITION,
WITH LAEGE ADDITIONS,
AND
Cite
E. C. HARINGTON, A.M.
CHANCELLOR OF THE CATHEDRAL CHUHCH OF EXETER.
LONDON :
FRANCIS & JOHN RIVINGTON.
OXFORD : J. H. PARKER. CAMBRIDGE : MACMILLAN & CO,
EXETER: H. J. WALL-IS.
PLYMOUTH & DEVONPORT : ROGER LIDSTONE.
MDCCCI,.
PLYMOUTH :
Printed by LIDSTONE and BRBNDON,
George Street.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
THE Author, in presenting to the public, at the sug-
gestion of several friends, a Second Edition of his
strictures on that portion of Mr. Macaulay's History
of England, which relates to the Reformation, feels
some degree of satisfaction, in reflecting that the
statements which he advanced in the first edition
remain unrefuted. The remarks, which he felt him-
self called upon to make on certain passages of the
work in question, may, therefore, be deemed by him
to have been found substantially correct. Circum-
stances, which he is not at liberty to detail, induced
him to publish a Postscript; and he is gratified to
learn that this addition to quote the language of
the Christian Remembrancer renders " the case com-
plete," so far as the Author is concerned, against Mr.
Macaulay. The Author adds with pleasure, that, in
the fourth and subsequent editions of Mr. Macaulay's
History, certain modifications have been adopted, in
A2
some passages complained of : but whether these
alterations were in any way connected with the
Author's pamphlet, must, in the absence of any ac-
knowledgement, be left wholly to conjecture. The
passages, as altered, are, in justice to Mr. Macaulay,
added in the notes.
The Close, Exeter, Feb., 1850.
THE REFORMERS,
THE reader of Mr. Macaulay's History of England, 1
which has just issued from the press, if he be at all
conversant with the History of the Reformation in
this country, in the 16th century, will be startled and
pained by the sweeping censure which the author has
passed on Archbishop Cranmer, and not less astonished
and grieved by the assertions so lavishly advanced,
that "the founders of the Anglican Church" held the
most extreme Erastian views, denied the Divine Insti-
tution of Episcopacy, and " retained it" merely " as an
ancient, decent, and convenient ecclesiastical polity."
" Cranmer had declared, in emphatic terms," writes
Mr. Macaulay, (vol. i. p. 57) " that God had imme-
diately committed to Christian princes the whole cure
of all their subjects, as well concerning the administra-
tion of God's word for the cure of souls, as concerning
the ministration of things political. The thirty-seventh
article of religion, framed under Elizabeth, declares,
1 The History of England, from the Accession of James the Second.
By THOMAS BABINGTON MACAULAY. London, 1848.
6
in terms as emphatic, that the ministering of God's
word does not belong to princes."
Again (p. 53), "The founders of the Anglican Church
took a middle course (between Papists and Puritans).
They retained Episcopacy ; but they did not declare
it to be an institution essential to the welfare of a
Christian society, or to the efficacy of the Sacraments.
Cranmer, indeed, plainly avowed his conviction 2 that,
in the primitive times, there was no distinction between
Bishops and Priests, and that the laying on of hands
was altogether unnecessary."
Again (p. 55), " The king was to be the pope of his
kingdom, the vicar of God, the expositor of Catholic
verity, the channel of sacramental graces."
(P. 56.) "He (the king) appointed Divines of
various ranks to preach the gospel, and to administer
the Sacraments. It was unnecessary that there should
be any imposition of hands. The king such was the
opinion of Cranmer, given in the plainest words
might, in virtue of authority derived from God, make
a Priest ; and the Priest so made needed no ordination
whatever. These opinions Cranmer followed out to
their legitimate consequences 3 When 4 it was ob-
2 In the fourth, and subsequent editions, the passage is altered
thus : " Cranmer, indeed, on one important occasion, plainly avowed
his conviction that, in the primitive times, there was no distinction
between bishops and priests, and that the laying on of hands was
altogether superfluous"
3 Altered thus in subsequent editions : " These opinions Cranmer,
in spite of the opposition of less courtly divines, followed out to every
legitimate consequence."
4 See Postscript, upon the omitted passages.
jected, that a power to bind and to loose, altogether
distinct from temporal power, had been given by
our Lord to his Apostles, the 5 theologians of this
(Cranmer's) school replied, that the power to bind and
to loose had descended, not to the clergy, but to the
wiiole body of Christian men, and ought to be exer-
cised by the chief magistrate, as the representative of
the society." And, apparently referring to the period
at which the Formularies of our Church were drawn
up, Mr. Macaulay alludes to a Paper containing
matters to be discussed in Convocation, A.D. 1532 or
1534, and adds, " When it was objected that St. Paul
had spoken of certain persons whom the Holy Ghost
had made overseers and shepherds of the faithful, it
was answered, that King Henry was the very overseer,
the very shepherd, whom the Holy Ghost had ap-
pointed, and to whom the expressions of St. Paul
applied."
Now, my object in the following pages will be to
show, that these assertions, so far as they refer to
Cranmer and to the other Anglican Reformers, are
not in accordance with historical testimony ; that Mr.
Macaulay has limited his inquiries into the views of
the Archbishop and of the " founders of the Anglican
Church " to the year 1540 ; whereas in treatises so
early as 1537, and subsequently in 1543-48-51 and
52, Cranmer distinctly disavowed Erastian views,
defended the Divine Institution of Episcopacy, sup-
ported the doctrine of the Apostolical Succession, and
5 " Some Theologians of this school," in subsequent editions.
8
maintained the necessity of Episcopal Ordination for
the due administration of the Sacraments ; whilst the
framers of our Liturgy and Ordinal have not, so far
as I am aware, advanced any opinions which would
justify Mr. Macaulay's imputations. 6
6 Though, somewhat anticipating the subject-matter of my pam-
phlet, I cannot forbear to give my readers the benefit of a short
extract from Dr. Brett's Divine Right of Episcopacy. " Archbishop
Cranmer's notions which he had concerning Episcopacy and Ecclesi-
astical Offices, (in 1540,) were not agreeable to the doctrine of the
Primitive Church ; and, therefore, when he saw the answers made
by the opposite party, (to ' Some Questions concerning the Sacra-
ments,' J and had duly considered their opinion, he no longer insisted
upon the Latitudinarian answers he had here given, but went over
to them ; and the necessity of Episcopal Ordination and Succession
was at that time laid down as the received doctrine of the Church of
England ; as Bishop Burnet tells us, who says, that, ' In Cranmer's
Paper some singular opinions of his about the nature of Ecclesi-
astical Offices will be found ; but as they are delivered by him with
all possible modesty, so they were not established as the doctrine of the
Church, but laid aside as particular conceits of his own. And it
seems that afterwards he changed his opinion ; for he subscribed the
Book that was soon after set out, tvhich is directly contrary to those
opinions set down in this paper.' This I thought myself obliged to
take notice of, to do justice to the memory of that Prelate, that I
might show that howsoever being so long an Agent for his King
among the Lutherans in Germany, he had there imbibed some
Erastian, Latitudinarian notions, yet he was by no means tenacious
of them ; and though he set them down as his opinion hi the
answers he gave to King Henry's queries, yet, when he had better
considered the matter, he altered his mind, and readily subscribed
the contrary doctrines. And, therefore, those who urge Archbishop
Cranmer's authority, as the author of the Rights, (Tindal) and others
have done, to prove that there is no necessity of an Episcopal Com-
mission for the valid administration of Sacraments, ivould do well to
consider that this was not that Prelate's settled judgment; and how-
soever he did once give it under his hand as his opinion, yet he did
9
It is rather difficult, indeed, to ascertain the exact
parties to whom Mr. Macaulay refers, when he speaks
of" the founders of the Anglican Church." He alludes
to transactions, and treats of opinions expressed by
our Reformers, from the year 1532 to 1562, without
defining the precise period to which he refers, or
stating the persons who are involved in his censure.
I am, therefore, left only to conjecture ; and I take it
for granted that, when he speaks of the " founders of
the Anglican Church," he refers to the compilers of
the Liturgy, and the Commissioners appointed to draw
up the Ordinal, in the years 1548-49. Mr. Macaulay,
in speaking of the opinions of our Reformers, as con-
nected with the Formularies of our Church, alludes
to those who " retained Episcopacy as decent and con-
venient," but who " did not declare it to be an insti-
tution essential to the welfare of a Christian society,
or to the efficacy of the Sacraments." We must, there-
fore, inquire into the views of those who w^ere engaged
in preparing the Ordinal, Liturgy, and Articles. I
think it will be apparent, that Mr. Macaulay has
formed his opinion of the views entertained by the
" founders of the Anglican Church," on the subject of
Episcopacy, from the " Resolutions of several Bishops
and Divines of some Questions concerning the Sacra-
ments" in 1540. Certain it is that, in developing the
views of Archbishop Cranmer, he quotes this document
only ; with what fairness, I shall presently endeavour
not continue long in that mind, but subscribed the contrary doctrine
soon after." BKETT'S Divine Right of Episcopacy, fyc., p. 91.
10
to point out. In defending, therefore, the " founders
of the Anglican Church " against the imputations of
Mr. Macaulay, I shall briefly direct the attention of
my readers to the Ordinal and Articles of our Church ;
and then proceed to point out the opinions of the
framers of these Formularies, especially those of
Cranmer, on the subject of Church-government, so
far as they are recorded in the " Resolutions of several
Bishops and Divines," (which seem to have been the
basis upon which Mr. Macaulay has founded his as-
sertions,) and in other authorised documents. Before,
however, I proceed to this, the especial object of my
pamphlet, I would, without wishing to be offensive,
draw Mr. Macaulay's attention to the very great
facilities which he has, unintentionally perhaps,
aiforded to the readers of his History, for misun-
derstanding his meaning, and forming erroneous
conclusions upon questions of grave importance.
In endeavouring, for instance, to show that many
of the Divines in Elizabeth's reign were inimical to
the requirements connected with the discipline and
doctrine of the Anglican Church, he says (p. 51), that
" Archbishop Grindal long hesitated about accepting
a mitre, from dislike of what he regarded as the
mummery of consecration ; " and adds, by way of
elucidating his meaning, that " when it is considered
that none of these prelates belonged to the extreme
section of the Protestant party, it cannot be doubted
that, if the general sense of that party had been fol-
lowed, the work of Reform would have been carried
11
on as unsparingly in England as in Scotland." 7 Now,
it is true that Archbishop Grindal had scruples res-
pecting " Impropriations," " Episcopal Garments," the
7 It may be well in this place to say one word on the clause in the
55th Canon, where we are required to pray " for the Churches of
England, Scotland, and Ireland" Some writers have, most errone-
ously, I would submit, taken for granted that the Convocation in
1603, alluded in the above clause to Presbyterianism. It would,
however, appear certain, that the Convocation could not have referred
to Presbyterianism ; since, in 1600, " The Presbyterian form of Go-
vernment was, after eight years of intolerable agitation, abolished by
the King, with the full consent of an overwhelming majority of the
ministers, and the applause of the people, whose opinions seem to
have been changed by experience of its tyranny." STEPHENS'S
History of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. p. 417. The Scottish
Parliament had also passed an Act, in 1597, " That such Pastors
and Ministers as his Majesty should promote to the place, dignity,
and title of a Bishop, or other Prelate, at any time, should have a
voice in Parliament, as freely as any Ecclesiastical Prelate had in times
past." In the year 1600, the King informed the Assembly that
" there was a necessity of restoring the ancient government of the
Church ;" and consequently, under the sanction of Parliament,
" persons were nominated to the Bishoprics that were void," before
the end of the year. SKINNER'S Church History, vol. ii. pp. 234-6.
I am quite aware that this was the re-introduction of the Titular
Episcopacy only ; " the King and the wiser part yielding," as
Skinner expresses it, " to the times, with a view of getting all
rectified at a more convenient season." See Some Account of the
Nature and Constitution of the Ancient Church of Scotland. But
still " a shadow of Episcopacy was once more restored in Scotland,
and the King appeared to be satisfied for the present, till he could
get the substance properly and regularly recovered, which he seems
all along to have had in his eye." Thus we learn that, "in 1606,
the King called up a select number of Ministers to London, both of
such as favoured Episcopacy, and of such as stood up for the Genevan
parity, with Andrew Melvil at their head, who all attended at
Hampton Court, where the King had appointed four English
12
" Crucifix," &c. He " gave Martyr to understand how
offended many were with the Episcopal habits, and
those sacred garments, as they (the Papists) called
Bishops Barlow, of Lincoln, Buckridge, of Rochester, Andrews, of
Chichester, and King, of London to preach upon the subject of
Church Government, hoping thereby to remove the prejudices of the
Scottish faction, and to convince them of the reasonableness of what
he had been so long proposing to them." At length, in 1610, the
King called the Moderator, Spotswood, to London, who was accom-
panied by two other Titulars, and told them that he had with great
charge recovered the temporalities out of lay-hands, and bestowed
them, as he hoped, upon worthy persons. But as he could not make
them Bishops, nor could they assume that honour to themselves, he
had therefore called them to England to receive regular consecration
from the Bishops there ; that, on their return home^ they might
communicate the same to the rest, and thereby stop the mouths of
adversaries of all denominations." Accordingly, in October, 1610,
these three Titulars were duly consecrated by the Bishops of
London, Ely, and Bath and Wells, in the Chapel of London House.
And the three consecrated Bishops, on their return home, conveyed
the Episcopal powers, which they had now received in a canonical
way, to their former Titular brethren in Scotland, and thus was
Episcopacy restored after many years of confusion. See SKINNER'S
Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, vol. ii. Letters, 42-3. If the
above authorities are insufficient, I would refer to the " Compendium
of the Laws of the Church of Scotland," published by authority,
where we read that, " From the time that the Assembly of Perth
was held (1597) the Presbyterian Constitution of the Church, as
established in 1592, and the legitimate authority of its General
Assemblies and other judicatories, may be regarded as subverted by
the interferences of King James the Sixth. On the 19th December,
1597, soon after the Assemblies of Perth and Dundee, he brought
his projects under the consideration of Parliament ; when an Act
was passed ordaining that such Pastors and Ministers as his
Majesty should at any time please to invest with the office, place,
and dignity of Bishop, Abbot, or other Prelate, should, in all time
hereafter, have vote in Parliament, in the same way as any Prelate
13
them. He confessed that the garments, which they
termed holy, somewhat more stuck to him, so that he
wondered they should be more stiffly retained ; and
he wished all things in the service of God might be
done in the most simple manner." But I think
that Mr. Macaulay will find it difficult to adduce one
passage from Strype's " Life of Archbishop Grindal,"
or from any other author of note, which will bear out
the assertion, that the Archbishop hesitated to accept
a mitre from " a dislike of the mummery of consecra-
tion!" I subjoin the entire account of Grindal's
objections from Strype's Life of the Archbishop. 8
was accustomed to have ; declaring that all Bishoprics presently
vacant, or which might afterwards become vacant, should be given
by his Majesty to actual Preachers and Ministers. This was a
restoration of Episcopacy, which was rendered effectual by another
Act of Parliament, in 1606, whereby Bishops were reponed and
restored to their ancient and accustomed honours, dignities, prero-
gatives, privileges, livings, lands, teinds, rents, &c. ; and by a sub-
sequent Act, in 1612, it was enacted, that the indiction of General
Assemblies of the Kirk should belong to his Majesty, by the
prerogative of the royal crown. Henceforward, therefore, and indeed
from the Assembly at Perth, (1597,) the Church in Scotland must
be regarded as Episcopalian;" in principle, we may add, though not
fully developed. Compendium of the Laws of the Church of Scotland,
part ii. p. 36.
8 " He (Grindal) was one of the five first elects ; Parker, elect of
Canterbury ; Cox, of Ely ; Barlow, of Chichester ; and Scory, of
Hereford, being the other four, But our Bishop elect of London
remained under some scruples of conscience about some things ;
especially the habits and certain ceremonies required to be used of
such as were Bishops.
" For the reformed in these times generally went upon this
ground : that in order to the complete freeing the Church of
Christ from the errors and corruptions of Rome, every usage and
14
Again (page 56), Mr. Macaulay writes, "These
(Erastian) opinions Cranmer followed out to their
custom, practised by that apostate and idolatrous Church, should be
abolished, and that all their ceremonies and circumstances of
religious worship should be clearly abrogated ; and that the service
of God should be most simple, stripped of all that show, pomp, and
appearance, that had been customarily used before ; esteeming all
that to be no better than superstitious and anti-christian. This
commonly received opinion, which the late English exiles especially
had imbibed, was the cause that Grindal was now in doubt, whether
he might with a safe conscience accept of a bishopric, when he saw
he must submit to divers of these things if he did ; namely, such
things as were practised in the Church of England in the late reign
of King Edward. For so it was now determined, that religion
should be reformed according to the way and manner, wherein it
then appeared and was practised.
" In this scruple, therefore, he thought fit to consult with Peter
Martyr, one of the learnedest Protestant professors of divinity in
Europe in his time, and of excellent moderation, and at this time
public professor at Zurich, in Helvetia. And being Grindal's friend
and acquaintance, (for they had been at Strasburgh together,) in
the month of August he sent a letter to him, which, passing from
Strasburgh and so to Zurich, came not to Martyr's hands before
October. Therein Grindal communicated to him his doubts, desiring
his speedy resolutions of them, that he might, according to that
light he should give him, accept the Episcopal office or refuse it ; one
of these was concerning impropriations, which were to be annexed to
Bishoprics.
" For the Queen now (chiefly to gratify some of her courtiers)
made exchanges with her Bishops, by the authority of a late Act
of Parliament, taking to herself their ancient good manors and
lordships, and making over to them in exchange tithes and impro-
priations. A matter those first Bishops took very heavily, and
scrupled very much whether they could or should comply in a thing
so much to the injury of their respective sees, which must suffer
considerably by these exchanges, and whereby all hope should be
cut off of restoring the tithes, so long unjustly detained from the
respective Churches, for the maintenance of the incumbents.
15
legitimate consequences. 9 When it was objected
that a power to bind and to loose, altogether distinct
from temporal power, had been given by our Lord to
his Apostles, the 1 theologians of this (Cranmer's)
school replied, that the power to bind and to loose
had descended, not to the clergy, but to the whole
body of Christian men, and ought to be exercised
by the chief magistrate, as the representative of the
society." We are not told where these opinions are
expressed by the " founders of the Anglican Church,"
if by these are meant the framers of our Formularies;
but Mr. Macaulay proceeds to add that, " When it
Another point at which, he stuck, was wearing certain peculiar
garments, whether extra sacra or in sacris. He desired Martyr's
judgment briefly to these things.
" The same year our Bishop elect wrote two letters more to the
same reverend man, both in October and December, for his advice
and counsel ; for he cared not to trust to his own wit and learning in
the performance of his duty in matters not so clear to him. The
things he now wrote to Peter Martyr about were partly the same
about which he had consulted with him before, and partly some
other. One of Grindal's queries was, that seeing he was not left at
his liberty for the garments, whether he should accept of the
episcopal functions offered him, because of the imposition of the
matters aforesaid ?
" Peter Martyr's answer came late ; for Grindal had accepted the
Bishopric, and was made Bishop before it came to his hand.
" Grindal also gave Martyr to understand how offended many
were with the episcopal habits, and those sacred garments, as they
called them. But the divine told him, they might escape all blame,
if they also declared in their sermons that those garments displeased
them also, and that they would use their endeavour, at one time or
other, to get them laid aside." STRYPE'S History of the Life and
Acts of Archbishop Grindal, pp. 41-46. Edit. 1821.
9 See Note (3), p. 6. ' See Note, p. 7.
16
was objected that St. Paul had spoken of certain
persons whom the Holy Ghost had made overseers
and shepherds of the faithful, it was answered that
King Henry was the very overseer, the very shep-
herd, whom the Holy Ghost had appointed, and to
whom the expressions of St. Paul applied." The
"objection" and the "answer" seem to be the result
of a fertile imagination. Mr. Macaulay refers, I
suppose, to a " Paper directed to some great lord
about the king, that he would instruct that sort of
the clergy that were of the king's part in the Convo-
cation, how far they should go in advancing his
spiritual authority, against those who stood so stiffly
upon their spiritual jurisdiction." The date of this
Paper is about 1532 ; and among the points to be
proved in Convocation was this, " That this text of
Actuum 20, ' Attendite vobis et universo gregi, in quo
Spiritus Sanctus vos posuit episcopos, $e., was not
meant of such bishops only as be now of the clergy ;
but was as well meant and spoken of every ruler and
governor of the Christian people. 2 How far this
2 I would draw the reader's especial attention to the following
extracts from Burnet, as tending to elucidate the opinions of Cranmer
and the Divines of his day, on the subject immediately before us.
" There is another original paper extant, signed at this time (1538,)
by eight Bishops ; from which I conjecture those were all that were
then about London. It was to show, ' That, by the Commission
which Christ gave to Churchmen, they were only Ministers of his
Gospel to instruct the people in the purity of the Faith ; but that,
by other places of Scripture, the authority of Christian Princes over
all their subjects, as well Bishops and Priests as others, was also
clear. And that the Bishops and Priests have charge of souls
17
accords with Mr. Macaulay's statement, the reader
will readily form an opinion. Strype adds, " I leave
the reader at liberty (seeing we are left to conjecture)
within their cures, power to administer the Sacraments, and to
teach the Word of God: to the which Word of God, Christian
Princes acknowledge themselves subject. And that in case the
Bishops be negligent, it is the Christian Prince's office to see them
do their duty.' This being signed by John Hilsey, Bishop of
Rochester, must be after the year 1537, in which he was conse-
crated ; and Latimer and Shaxton also signing, it must be before
the year 1539, in which they resigned. But I believe it was signed
at the same time that the other was, 'A Declaration against the
Pope's Pretensions,' signed by all the Bishops in England ; and the
design of it was to refute those calumnies spread at Rome, as if the
King had wholly suppressed all Ecclesiastical officers, and denied them
any divine authority, making them wholly dependent on the civil
power, and acting by commission only from him. And, therefore,
they explained the limits of both these powers in so clear and
moderate a way, that it must have stopped the mouths of all
opposers." History of the Reformation, pt. i. b. iii. p. 238. The
document to which Bishop Burnet refers is the following : " The
Judgment of some Bishops concerning the King's Supremacy" An
original, ex MSS. D. Stillingfleet. " The words of St. John, in his
20th chapter, ' Sicutmisit me Pater, et ego mitto vos,' &c., hath
no respect to a King's or a Prince's power, but only to show how
that the Ministers of the Word of God, chosen and sent for that
intent, are the messengers of Christ, to teach the truth of his
Gospel, and to loose and bind sin, &c., as Christ was the messenger
of his Father. The words also of St. Paul, in the 20th chapter of
the Acts, ' Attendite vobis et universo gregi, in quo vos Spiritus
Sanctus posuit Episcopos regere Ecclesiam Dei,' were spoken to the
Bishops and Priests, to be diligent pastors of the people, both to
teach them diligently, and also to be circumspect that false preachers
should not seduce the people, as followeth immediately after in the
same place. Other places of Scripture declare the highness and
excellency of Christian Princes' authority and power ; the which, of
a truth, is most high, for he hath power and charge generally over
all, as well Bishops and Priests as others. The Bishops and Priests
B
18
to place this notable Paper here, or to bring it under
the year 1534, when an act was made that the King
and his heirs should be reputed supreme head of the
Church of England ; about which act the King con-
sulted with his Council and with his Bishops ; and
they in their Convocation discussed the point, and
declared that the Pope had no jurisdiction, warranted
by God, in this kingdom." STRYPE'S Ecclesiastical
Memorials, vol. i. pt. i. p. 209, ed. 1822. The date of
the Paper removes it from all connection whatever
with our Formularies, which were drawn up subse-
quently to the year 1548 ; and the writer, moreover,
is stated by Strype to have been, not Cranmer nor
any of his " school," but, in all probability, Stephen
Gardiner, a virulent Papist !
Once more, speaking of Whitgiftf Jewel* Cooper?
have charge of souls within their own cures, power to minister the
Sacraments, and to teach the Word of God ; to the which Word of
God, Christian Princes acknowledge themselves subject. And in
case the Bishops be negligent, it is the Christian Prince's office to
see them do their duty.
" T. CANTTJARIEN. THOMAS ELIEN.
JOANNES LONDON. NICOLATJS SARISBUKIEN.
CUTHBEB.TUS DTTNELMEN. HUGO WTGOKN.
Jo. BATWELLEN. J. ROFFEN."
Collection of Records, b. iii. p. 167, pt. i.
3 Strype thus records the sentiments of Whitgift on the discipline
of the Church of England, as set forth in her formularies : " Our
doctor, towards the latter end of his answer, gave his judgment of
this new (Presbyterian) platform, (that such a stir was made to
introduce,) set down by the authors in the second ' admonition ;'
where they prescribe the manner of electing ministers, where they
treat of their exercises, of their equality, of the government of the
Church, &c. ' This surely,' writeth he, ' being well considered, will
19
and other eminent Divines, in the reign of Elizabeth,
Mr. Macaulay says, that they "defended prelacy as
innocent, as useful, as what the state might lawfully
appear not only a confused platform, without any sound warrant of
God's word, but also a fantastical device, tending to the overthrow
of learning, religion, yea, the whole state of the government of the
Commonwealth.' " STRYPE'S Life of Whitgift, vol. i. p. 84. Again,
Dr. Bowden (in his Letters to Miller) remarks, that " The first
attack made upon it (episcopacy) was by Cartwright and his asso-
ciates, in the year 1572, twenty-four years after the Reformation.
They published a book entitled, An Admonition to the Parliament,
the design of which was to subvert the government of Bishops. An
answer was given to this book by Dr. Whitgift, then Vice-Chancellor
of the University of Cambridge. Strype says of this book, that ' it
contained a very learned and satisfactory vindication of the Church
of England, and especially of the government of it by Bishops.'
Some years afterwards, Sir F. Knollys, a great Puritan, complains
of Whitgift, that in this book he ' had claimed, in the right of
Bishops, a superiority belonging to them over all the inferior clergy,
from God's own ordinance.' In 1593, Whitgift, when promoted to
the see of Canterbury, wrote a letter to Beza, in which he expostu-
lates with him for intermeddling in the dispute between the Church
and the Puritans. In that letter he says, ' We make no doubt, but
that the Episcopal degree which we bear, is an institution apostolic and
divine ; and so hath always been held by a continual course of times,
from the Apostles to this very age of ours.' Again, ' You may
remember, learned sir, the beginnings of that episcopacy, which you
make to be only of human institution, are referred by the Fathers,
with one mouth, to the Apostles, as the authors thereof ; and that
the Bishops were appointed as successors of the Apostles ; especially
in certain points of their function. And what Aaron was to his sons
and to the Levites, this the Bishops were to the Priests and Deacons ;
and so esteemed of the Fathers to be by divine institution.' "
BOWDEN'S Apostolic Origin of Episcopacy Asserted, vol. ii. p. 58.
The following is extracted from STRYPE'S Life of Archbishop
Whitgift ; and though directly referring to Bishop Hutton, throws
considerable light on the Archbishop's opinion on the divine institu-
tion of episcopacy : " In this interim (A.D. 1589), while the calling
B 2
20
establish, as what, when established by the state, was
entitled to the respect of every citizen."* I have
subjoined the opinions of Whitgift and Jewel, that
of Bishops and their authority, as founded upon Scripture, was so
much opposed as contrary thereunto ; a very learned discourse was
seasonably made, in conference with the Lord-treasurer and Secretary
Walsingham, the Queen's two great counsellors of state, at their
motion, by Hutton, Bishop of Durham, a man well studied in
divinity, and sometime the public professor of that faculty in
Cambridge, immediately before Whitgift ; and for whom the said
Whitgift, now Archbishop, had a great esteem for his learning.
Those two great men, for their own satisfaction, heard that Bishop
discourse accurately this and some other points, mightily now-a-
days insisted on by Puritans. An account whereof the said Bishop
wrote soon after, in the month of October, to his friend the said
Archbishop, which is well worthy the recording in history. This
discourse consisted of three heads. 1 . Concerning the judicial law
of Moses. 2. The authority of a Prince in causes ecclesiastical.
3. The authority and lawfulness of Bishops. This Bishop being at
Court, the Lord-treasurer had his company in his private chamber
to dinner ; where none was present but himself, the Secretary, and
the Bishop. There designedly these two statesmen, for their better
satisfaction, desired to hear what that well-learned and grave man
could say on those greatly contested arguments. His resolutions
whereof, as himself penned them down in his letter, dated from
York, to the Archbishop, being somewhat long, I have reposited in
the Appendix. Wherein we may see and understand what were
the judgments of the Bishops of the realm, and the learnedest
divines in those times nearest the reformation of this Church ; and
so best knew the true constitution of it." Book iii. ch. 24.
In the Appendix of Records and Originals, No. 44, book iii., we
have an account of this " Discourse" in a letter from Bishop Hutton
to Archbishop Whitgift. The following extract refers to the
question before us : " The third question was, of the authority
and warrant of a Bishop. My answer was, Hujus ret gratid reliqui
te in Creta, ut quce desunt pergas corrigere, &c., Tit. i. Also,
* See Postscript, upon the omitted passages.
21
the reader may judge for himself; whilst the fact of
Bishop Cooper having been the subject of Martin
Marprelate's libellous pen, in certain pamphlets en-
Adversus presbyterum ne accipias accusationem, &c., 1 Tim. v. Here
is the chief office of a Bishop set down ; to appoint and constitute
Priests in parishes, and to amend things amiss in the Church.
Whereby it appears, that both Titus and Timothy did exercise the
office of Bishops. Therefore both Hierom and Eusebius affirm that
they were Bishops ; the one of Crete, and the other of Ephesus.
And, albeit, that it cannot be denied, but that these names,
Episcopus and Presbyter, in the New Testament, are often used for
one thing, for Priests and Ministers of the Word and Sacraments ;
as Acts xx. St. Paul sent from Miletus for the Priests that were
at Ephesus ; and speaking unto them, he called them Bishops ;
Attendite vobis, et univcrso gregi, in quo vos posuit Spiritus Sanctus
Episcopos. Whom before St. Luke called Elders, or Priests, St.
Paul calleth Bishops. Likewise, Tit. i., first, he calls them Priests ;
Ut constituas oppidatim presbyteros : then he calls them Bishops ;
Oportet enim episcopum irreprehensibilem esse ; also in the first to
the Philippians, he saluteth ' the Saints at Philippi,' together with
the ' Bishops and Deacons.' Bishops in this place do signify
Elders or Priests. For it is not like that there were many Bishops
in that one city at that time, as the word doth now signify. Yet it
is certain, that there was an office in the Apostles' time, which
Titus and Timothy did exercise, which was distinct from the office
of them who had only authority to preach and minister the Sacra-
ments, but not to appoint Priests and censure offenders. No ; by
a general Council of all the Church, they which do execute the same
office which Titus and Timothy did, by the appointment of the
Apostles, are called Episcopi, the other are called Presbyteri or
Saccrdotes ; and, since the Apostles' times, have been distinct^ both
name and office. And this was done, in schismatis remedium, as
Hierom said upon the Epistle to Titus, and in an Epistle that he
writeth to Evagrius. In which, albeit, he confoundeth the names,
yet liketh he well of the distinction of the offices. For as Christ is
Apostolus, Heb. iii. ; and Episcopus, 1 Peter ii. ; and St. Peter doth
call himself Presbyter, 1 Peter v. ; and St. Hierom saith, that St.
John the Evangelist and Apostle calleth himself Presbyter in his two
22
titled, " Have yee any more work for a Cooper ?" and
" More work for a Cooper" " written," as Strype tells
us, "in answer to what the Bishop of Winchester,
last Epistles, (for there he seemeth to ascribe those Epistles to John
the Apostle,) yet may ice not confound the offices of JSlder or Priest,
Bishop and Apostle.
" I alleged, last of all, that Epiphanius, writing against Aerius,
concludeth it for a heresy to say, Idem est episcopus et presbyter.
And he allegeth against that heretic and that heresy, some of those
places I cited before, to prove that they are distinct offices. He
addeth, furthermore, that presbyter glgnit filios, meaning, by preach-
ing the Gospel ; but Episcopus gignit patres, meaning, that he doth
appoint presbyters unto the Church, which were Fathers."
Again, we have " The opinion of Matthew Hutton, Archbishop
of York, touching certain matters, like to be brought in question
before the King's Most Excellent Majesty, at the Conference at
Court:" written, October 9, Imo. Jacobi, to the Archbishop of
Canterbury : " Whereas, indeed, Bishops have their authority, not
by any custom or decree of man, but from the Apostles themselves, as
Epiphanius proveth plainly against Aerius the heretic ; who, being
a proud man, because he could not get to be Bishop himself, thought
that Idem est episcopus et presbyter. With this opinion St. Augustine
doth charge that heretic, in his book De Hceresibus, ad Quod-vult-
Deum. But Epiphanius doth show the difference to be, not only
because the Bishop hath authority over the Priests, but because the
Presbyter begetteth children to the Church by preaching and
baptizing, the Bishop begetteth Fathers to the Church by giving
of Orders. Hujus rei gratia reliqui te in Greta, ut qua desunt
pergas corrigere ; constituas oppidatim presbyteros, Sec. And so it
hath continued in the Church ever since." Appendix, No. 44, book
iv. The reader will find the opinions of Bancroft, Bilson, Hooker,
Andrews, Hall, Bramhall, &c., &c., in favour of the divine right
of episcopacy, fully detailed in my Second Ordination Sermon,
pp. 157, 63. (Second Edition.)
4 The following is " the judgment of that reverend Father, Jewel,
some time Bishop of Sarum, on this assertion, Archiepiscoporum et
archidiaconorum nomina, simid cum muneribus et officiis suis, sunt
abolenda. How know you that the fourth chapter ad Ephes. is a
23
whose name was Cooper, had wrote in vindication of
the Bishops and the Church of England" will at once
relieve him from the imputation of undervaluing
Episcopacy: and I can only express my deep regret
that such hasty and unsupported statements state-
ments involving matters of the deepest importance
should have had the aid of Mr. Macaulay's powerful
pen, to give them currency amongst those who are
unable or unwilling to search for themselves.
perfect pattern of all ecclesiastical government ? We have now
neither Apostles, nor Evangelists, nor Prophets, and yet are they
the chief in that pattern. Neither have we there either Bishop, or
Presbyter, or Diaconus, or Catechista, or Lector. And yet are these
necessary parts in ecclesiastical government. Therefore that pattern
is not perfect to hold for ever. The Church is not governed by
names, but by offices. Every Bishop then was called papa. And
Anacletus, that was next after Peter, (if there be any Aveight in his
words,) nameth Archbishops." Again, " In the primitive Church
God raised up Apostles and Prophets, and gave them power extra-
ordinary, as the gift of tongues, the gift of healing, the gift of
government, &tc., in place whereof, he hath given now Bishops,
Archbishops, &c." Bishop Jewel was also one of the disputants on
the Protestant side, at a disputation in 1559, between the Papists
and Protestants at Westminster, when the latter maintained against
the former, who were anxious to lower the episcopal in favour of the
papal dignity, that " the Apostles' authority is derived upon after
ages, and conveyed to the Bishops, their successors." The eminent
names of Scory, Grindal, Cox, Aylmer, Guest, Jewel, and Horn,
may be mentioned as the Protestant disputants who maintained the
above proposition.
5 I am, indeed, at a loss to understand why Mr. Macaulay should
have added the name of Bishop Cooper. Was it because he was
accused by Martin-Marprelate of being a Papist, on account of a
sermon which he preached at St. Paul's Cross, in June, 1572, " In
vindication of the Church, its Liturgy, and its Rites ?" Or for the
aid which he rendered to Archbishop Whitgift, in the latter's
reply to the " Admonition ?"
24
Let me now direct the reader's attention to the
Preface to the Ordination Service* as contained in our
own Prayer-book. This office 6 was drawn up in the
year 1549, under the authority of King Edward VI.,
by the Archbishop, six Bishops, and six other eminent
Reformers, Cranmer 7 being the chief. The act of
Parliament, under which this Ordinal was framed,
runs thus : " It is requisite to Jiave one uniform
fashion and manner for making and Consecrating of
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Be it, therefore, enacted
by the King's Highness, with the assent of the Lords
spiritual and temporal, and the Commons, in this pre-
sent Parliament assembled, and by authority of the
same, that such form and manner of making and
Consecrating Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, and Dea-
cons, be devised, and set forth," &c. ; whereby it is
evident, that different offices were contemplated and
actually framed for different Orders. Now mark the
opinions expressed in the Preface : 8 " It is evident
6 See MASON'S Vindicice Ecdesia Anglican, pp. 183 198; and
the Author's Succession of Bishops, Sec., p. 76.
7 See JENKTNS'S Remains of Cranmer, Preface, p. 53.
8 " That our Church did believe our Bishops to succeed the
Apostles in those parts of their office, I shall make appear by these
things. In the Preface before the Book of Ordination, it is said,
that ' It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture
and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been
these orders of ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and
Deacons.' What is the reason that they express it thus, 'from
the Apostles' time,' rather than ' in the Apostles' time,' but that
they believed, while the Apostles lived, they managed the affairs of
government themselves ; but as they withdrew, they did, in some
Churches sooner, and in some later, as their own continuance, the
25
unto all men diligently reading the Holy Scriptures
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 reverent estimation, that
no man, by his own private authority, 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, approved and ad-
mitted thereunto. And, therefore, to the intent these
Orders should be continued and reverently used and
esteemed in the Church of England, it is requisite
condition of the Churches, and the qualification of persons were,
commit the care and government of Churches to such persons whom,
they appointed thereto ? Of which we have an uncontrollable
evidence in the instances of Timothy and Titus ; for the care of
government was a distinct thing from the office of an Evangelist ;
and all their removes do not invalidate this, because, while the
Apostles lived, it is probable there were no fixed Bishops, or but
few. But as they went off, so they came to be settled in their
several Churches. And as this is most agreeable to the sense of
our Church, so it is the fairest hypothesis for reconciling the different
testimonies of antiquity ; for hereby the succession of Bishops is
secure from the Apostles' times, for which the testimonies of Irenseus,
Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and others, are so plain ; hereby room is
left to make good all that St. Jerome hath said, and what Epipha-
nius delivers concerning the differing settlements of Churches at
first ; so that we may allow for the community of names between
Bishop and Presbyter for a while in the Church, i. e. while the
Apostles governed the Churches themselves ; but afterwards, that
which was then part of the Apostolical office, became the Episcopal,
which hath continued from that time to this, by a constant succes-
sion in the Church." SXILLINGFLEEX'S Unreasonableness of Sepa-
ration, p. 269.
26
that no man, (not being at this present Bishop, Priest,
nor Deacon,) shall execute any of them, except he be
called, tried, examined, and admitted, according to the
form hereafter following." 9 Now, the Divine appoint-
ment of the several Orders 1 is expressly declared in
the first and subsequent Ordinals. " Almighty God,
giver of all good things, who by thy Holy Spirit hast
appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church ;
9 See the Bishop of Exeter's Ordination Sermon, (1843,) p. 27.
1 " As a further proof that the Reformers maintained a distinction
of offices in the Church, they expressly said in their Preface to the
old Ordinal, ' It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy
Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' 1 time there have
been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests,
and Deacons.'" Still further, the prayers in the old Ordinal
expressly mentioned the appointment of divers orders by the Holy
Ghost. Thus, at the Ordination of a Bishop, the prayer was just
the same as it is now. ' Almighty God, giver of all good things,
who by thy Holy Spirit hast appointed divers orders of ministers in
thy Church, mercifully behold this thy servant now called to the
work and ministry of a BISHOP,' &c. The same declaration that
the Holy Spirit appointed ' divers orders' in the Church, was like-
wise in the prayers used at the Ordination of a Priest, and of a
Deacon.
" Now, it is a consequence, obvious to common sense, that when
a committee was appointed for the express purpose of composing
distinct offices for the ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ;
when three distinct offices were actually composed; when in the
Preface to these offices three distinct orders icere particularly enume-
rated ; and when in the prayers of each office it is expressly declared
that divers orders were appointed by the Holy Ghost ; and, lastly,
when in the service for consecrating a Bishop it is explicitly said that
the elect is to be admitted into the office of a Bishop ; when, I say,
these things are considered, it is obvious to common sense, that the
Reformers believed that Bishops were superior to Presbyters by
Apostolic institution''' DR. BOWDEN'S Testimony of the Reformers,
Letter xiv. p. 24.
27
mercifully behold this thy servant, now called to the
work and ministry of a Bishop," or Priest, or Deacon,
as the case may be. The Preface remained the same,
and the forms, with one or two trifling alterations, in
the Prayer-book of 1552, and the slight variations in
the Preface, and the alterations in the forms them-
selves, adopted at the last Review, in 1662, tend to
develope more clearly the views of our Church in
favour of Episcopacy and the doctrine of the Apos-
tolical Succession.
The 23rd and 36th Articles of our Church next
demand our attention. I need hardly state, that
these Articles were drawn up by Cranmer and certain
Bishops and other Divines, in the year 1552 : they
were revised in 1562, under Archbishop Parker : and,
"when framed, and finished, and decreed, were," in the
language of Strype, 2 " mostwhat the same with those
made and constituted by the Synod under King
Edward, in the year 1552." The 23rd, which I am
now about to quote, was precisely the same : " It is
not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of
public preaching or ministering the Sacraments in
the Congregation, before he be lawfully called and
sent to execute the same ; and those we ought to
judge lawfully" (that is, according to the law of
God ; for the judges, not the clergy, are the proper
expositors of the law of the land,} " called and sent,
which be chosen and called to this work by men who
have public authority given unto them in the Congre-
2 Annals, vol. i. pt. i. ch. 27.
28
gallon, to call and send Ministers into the Lord's
vineyard." The 36th Article, as revised in 1562,
says, " The Book of Consecration of Archbishops
and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons,
lately set forth in the time of Edward VI., and con-
firmed at the same time by authority of Parliament,
doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration
and Ordering ; neither hath it anything that of itself
is superstitious and ungodly : and, therefore, who-
soever are consecrated and ordered according to the
rites of that book, since the second year of the afore-
named King Edward unto this time, or hereafter
shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same
rites ; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and
lawfully consecrated and ordered." This declaration
of the Church was afterwards confirmed by act of
Parliament, in the eighth year of Elizabeth. Let any
man compare these Articles with the " Preface to the
Ordination Service," where he will read, that " to the
intent these Orders (of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon,
which have been from the Apostles' time in Christ's
Church,) should be continued, and reverently used and
esteemed in this Church of England, it is requisite
that no man (not being at this present Bishop, Priest,
nor Deacon,) shall execute any of them, except he be
called, tried, examined, and admitted, according to the
form hereafter following:" let a man, I say, compare
these "Articles" with the " Preface to the Ordination
Service," and the service itself all drawn up under
the same Archiepiscopal head and I think that he
will not doubt the sentiments of Cranmer and the
29
other Anglican Reformers on the question of Episco-
pacy, and the necessity of a Divine Commission.
A little diligence would, indeed, have enabled Mr.
Macaulay to have avoided the serious misrepresenta-
tions in which he has unhappily indulged. In broadly
asserting that the "founders of the Anglican Church"
held extreme Erastian views, he doubtless referred to
the answers which were given by the Bishops and
Divines to the questions propounded in the Commis-
sion 3 issued by Hemy VIII. in the year 1540, nine
3 " But this matter deserves to be a little more particularly treated
of. The King (Hen. VIII.) had appointed several of the eminent
Divines of his realm to deliberate about sundry points of religion
then in controversy, and to give in their sentences distinctly. And
that in regard of the Germans And also in regard of a
more exact review of the Institution of a Ghristian Man, put forth
about two or three years before, (1537,) and now intended to be
published again, as a more perfect piece of religious instruction for
the people. The King, therefore, being minded thoroughly to sift
divers points of religion, then started and much controverted, com-
manded a particular number of Bishops, and other his learned
Chaplains and Dignitaries, (1540,) to compare the rites and cere-
monies and tenets of the present Church by the Scriptures, and by
the most ancient writers ; and to see how far the Scripture or good
antiquity did allow of the same. And this, I suppose, he did at the
instigation of Archbishop Cranmer. The names of the commis-
sioners were these, Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury ; Lee,
Archbishop of York ; Bonner, Bishop of London ; Tunstal, Bishop
of Durham ; (Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester ;) Barlow, Bishop of
St. David's ; Aldrich, Bishop of Carlisle; Skyp, Bishop of Hereford;
Hethe, Bishop of Rochester; Thirlby, Bishop elect of West-
minster ; Doctors, Cox, Robinson, Day, Oglethorpe, Redman,
Edgeworth, Symonds, Tresham, Leyghton, Curwen, and Crayford.
And first, the doctrine of the Sacraments was examined, by pro-
pounding seventeen distinct questions, drawn up, as I have reason to
conclude, by the Archbishop, on which the Divines were to consult;
30
years prior to the office of Ordination being reformed.
Supposing Mr. Macaulay's assertion to be true, that
Erastian views were then maintained by the " founders
of the Anglican Church," how can the " peculiar
conceits," 4 as Burnet calls them, of some of the
but each one was to set down in writing his sense of every of these
questions singly and succinctly." STKYPE'S Memorials of Arch-
bishop Cranmer, vol. i. p. 110.
It is important to remark, that the answers of these Bishops and
Divines formed the data for drawing up the Erudition of a Christian
Man, in 1543. See LINGARD'S History of England, vol. iv. p. 310 ;
TODD'S Life of Archbishop Cranmer, vol. i. pp. 298 and 332 ; and
WHEATLY, on the Common Prayer, p. 25.
4 As the " Resolutions of several Bishops and Divines of some
Questions concerning the Sacraments" in 1540, have been, and are
frequently quoted, to show that our Reformers were " Presbyterian
in their principles," and only " retained episcopal ordination as
decent and convenient," I will give the following summary of their
opinions from Courayer :
" Now it appears by the answers made to the Questions above
mentioned, that the majority of the prelates and divines were not of
the same opinion with Cranmer.
" As for instance, upon the seventh question, excepting Cranmer
and Barloiu, almost all agree upon the efficacy of the Sacraments ;
' Conveniunt omnes, prceter Menevensem, naturam septem Sacramen-
torum nobis tradi in Scripturis. Eboracensis effectus singulorum
enumerat, item Carliolensis.' Upon the ninth question, viz., ' Whether
the Apostles, lacking a higher power, as in not having a Christian
King among them, made Bishops by that necessity, or by authority
given by God ?' They all agreed that ' Christ had given this poiver
to his Apostles ;' ' Omnes convenient Apostolos divinitus accepisse
potestatem creandi Episcopos :' and I do not find that any one fell into
Cranmer's error, who was of opinion that there was no necessity for
any further ceremonies to make a Bishop, than there was for any
lay magistrate ; and that the rites made use of were more for decency
than out of necessity. Upon the eleventh question, 'Whether a
Bishop hath authority to make a Priest by the Scripture, or no?
31
Bishops and Divines, in 1540, affect the clear and au-
thoritative testimony borne by the Church of England
and whether any other but a Bishop only may make a Priest ?'
All, excepting Barlow, Bishop of St. David's, were of opinion, that
' Bishops had the said power ;' ' Convenit omnibus prceter Menevensem,
Episcopos habere authoritatem instituendi Presbyteros ;' and almost
all agree that they alone have this power : ' Eboracensis videtur
omnino dcnegare aliis hanc potestatem. Redmaynus, Symmons,
Robertsonus, Leightonus, Thirlby, Correnus, Roffensis, Edgivorthus,
Oglethorpus, Carliolcnsis, nusquam legerunt alias usos fuisse hac
potestate' To the twelfth query, which regards the necessity of
Ordination, almost all were of a contrary opinion to Cranmer and
Barloiv, and did acknowledge the necessity of Consecration. ' Re-
spondent Eboracensis, Londinensis, Carliolensis, Leighton, Tresham,
Robcrtsonus, Sfc., Consecrationem esse reqttisitam. Redmaynus ait
earn receptam esse ab Apostolis, atque a Spiritu Sancto institutam ad
conferendam gratiam. Dayus, Roffensis, Symmons aiunt Sacer-
dotium conferri per manuum impositionem, idque e Scripturis ; Con-
secrationem vero diu receptam in Ecclesia. Coxus institutionem cum
manuum impositione sujficere, neque per Scripturam requiri Consecra-
tionem,' &c. To the fourteenth, ' Whether it be forefended by God's
law, that (if it so fortune that all the Bishops and Priests of a region
were dead, and that the Word of God should remain there un-
preached, and the Sacrament of Baptism and others unministered,)
the King should make Bishops ?' &c., few were of Cranmer' s opinion.
' Fatentur, utprius, omnes Laicos posse docere. Eboracensis, Symmons,
Oglethorp, negant posse ordinare Presbyteros ; tamen concedit Ebora-
censis baptizare, et contrahere matrimonia ; Edgworth, tantum
baptizare posse ; nam sufficere dicit ad salutem,' Sfc. These opposite
sentiments of the majority of the prelates and divines to those of
Cranmer, make it plain enough that the Reformation of the Liturgy
was not blindly abandoned to the views and erroneous opinions of
this Archbishop.
" It is, therefore, not true (as it was supposed) that those em-
ployed to reform the Liturgy* were Presbyterians in their principles,
* I shall examine, by and bye, more at large the above " Resolutions," so far as
they were expressed by the Compilers of the Book of Common Prayer and the
framcrs of EdtcarcFs Ordinal.
32
in the year 1549, in the Preface 5 to the Ordinal in
question, as to there " having been from the Apostles'
time these orders of ministers in Christ's Church,
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ? which offices (says
the Church) were evermore had in such reverent es-
timation, that no man, by his own private authority,
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, ap-
proved and admitted thereunto:" it being, moreover,
apparent, that an express declaration, on the part of
the Church, as to the Divine Institution of Episcopacy
pervades the entire Ordinal. 6 And as regards the
or that they only preserved Episcopal Ordination for form's sake, or
that they looked upon Consecration to be useless. The errors of some
cannot with justice be imputed to the whole : and at the very time
when the charms of novelty increased the number of the innovators,
a great many divines, and a good part of the clergy, remained firm
in the defence of the Hierachy ; and there has not been found in
any Church more zealous defenders of Episcopacy than have appeared
in the Church of England since the Schism. 1 "* Defence of the
Validity of English Ordinations, p. 154. See also TODD'S Life of
Cranmer, vol. i. pp. 299 310.
5 Probably drawn up by Archbishop Cranmer.
6 It has been well remarked that " the Church of England is not
bound by the errors of Cranmer. She has her own symbolical
Books, her own Formularies ; and by these her doctrine and dis-
cipline may be seen. What she holds on this subject {Apostolical
Episcopacy) is stated in the Preface of her Ordinal, beginning with
these words : " It is evident unto all men diligently reading the
Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time
there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church,
* My readers must bear in mind that the author quoted was a Romanist.
33
framers of our Liturgy and Ordinal having held
opinions inimical to the Divine Right of Episcopacy,
I maintain, that there was not one of them, with the
exception of Cranmcr, of whom I shall presently
speak more at large, who expressed the sentiments
imputed to them by Mr. Macaulay ; nay, I will prove
that they did (so far as they expressed their views)
record opinions 7 directly the reverse. I presume that
Mr. Macaulay admits, with Heylyn* and other writers,
that " the same persons who had been before em-
ployed in compiling the Liturgy, 9 were now made
use of to draw up our Ordinal." 1 If this be not
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons." A Letter, Sfc., on Apostolical Epis-
copacy, by the REV. PREBENDARY SCOTT, p. 14; a careful perusal
of which will amply repay the reader.
7 That this is not a mere hasty assertion, my readers may learn
from the fact, that of the thirteen compilers of the Liturgy, Cranmer,
Skyp, May, Cox, Redmayne, Robertson, and Goodrich, had been
engaged in drawing up the " Declaration of the Functions and
Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests' 1 '' (1536-8); that Thirlby
was one of the compilers of the ERUDITION (1543); that Taylor
and Ridley were members of the sub-committee for preparing the
Reformatio Legum (1551); and that Day was an avowed Papist.
The other two were Bishop Holbech and Dr. Heyncs.
6 " The number of the Bishops and the learned men, which are
appointed by this Act, assure me that the King made choice of the
very same whom he had formerly employed in composing the
Liturgy." History of the Reformation, p. 82.
9 "The Commission" (to draw up the English Liturgy) "is
probably not upon record ; and in the Statute the Archbishop only
is named. The other Commissioners are there called " most learned
and discreet Bishops, and other learned men of the realm." See
Note in SHEPHERD'S Introduction, fyc., p. 26.
1 Courayer, upon the authority of Heylyn, gives the names of the
thirteen Bishops and Divines mentioned in a subsequent note, as
the framers of Edward's Ordinal. See p. 187, edit. 1844.
C
34
admitted, we shall, I believe, look in vain for further
information as to the names of the Commissioners;
for Strype 2 tells us that he " does not meet with any
of their names, excepting that of Hethe, Bishop of
Worcester," who declined to act. He adds, that " the
chief of them, no doubt, was the Archbishop." Taking
for granted, then, that the compilers of the Liturgy?
2 Life ofCranmer, vol. i. p. 273, edit. 1812.
3 The compilers of our Liturgy, according to the authority of
Strype, Memorials vol. ii. pt. 1. p. 134, edit. 1822, and of Fuller,
Church History, p. 386, and of Heylyn, History of the Reformation,
p. 57, and of Collier,* Eccl. Hist., vol. v. p. 246, edit. 1840, and of
Wheatly, on the Common Prayer, p. 86, and of Shepherd, Elucida-
tion of the C. P. Introduction, p. 36, (where see note,] and of Nichols,
on the Common Prayer, Preface, p. 5, and of Gloucester Ridley, in
his Life of Bishop Ridley, p. 222, and of Downes, Lives of the
Compilers, <$fc., p. 152, were the following : " Archbishop Cranmcr,
Bishops Ridley, Goodrich, Holbech, Thirlby, Skyp, and Day ; and
Drs. Taylor, Cox, May, Robertson, Heynes, and Redmayne.f The
list given by Courayer, though ostensibly that of the compilers,
seems to be that of the " godly Bishops, and other learned and
religious men, who were no less busily employed (the same year)
in the Castle of Windsor, appointed by the King's command to
consult together about one uniform Order for administering the
* Notwithstanding the note, p. 16, in the new edit, of Courayer, (1844,) I must
still claim Collier as a testimony in my favour. I think, with deference, that a
perusal of the passages referred to in Collier and Heylyn, and even in Burnet,
prove that Collier, in speaking of " a different list," alludes to the list of commis-
sioners for drawing up an " Order for administering the Holy Eucharist in
English," and not to that for revising the Liturgy. He distinctly says, speaking
of the shorter list of thirteen commissioners, "these were the persons who after-
wards made the first Liturgy.'' 1 The Editor will pardon me for drawing his atten-
tion to a misprint in the above note, viz , 1520 instead of 1550. I must add, that
I much regret not having had the advantage of consulting the very valuable notes,
&c., by the learned Editor of Courayer, until I had nearly completed my labours.
f The above list of the compilers of the Liturgy is adopted by Bishop Mant,
Bishop Short, the author of the History of the Church of England, (J. B. S.
Carwithen,) and other modern writers.
35
and the Commissioners appointed to draw up the new
Ordinal* constituted one and the same body, may I be
allowed to ask the name of any one Commissioner,
(with the above exception, which I shall examine by
and bye,) who held the Erastian views attributed to
them ain I am aware that some confusion arises
from the difficulty of ascertaining the precise sense in
which " the Bishops and Divines," in their replies to
" some Questions concerning the Sacraments," in
1540, used the terms "making" "consecrating" &c.
&c. In the language of Dr. Redmayne, one of the
respondents, " It is to be considered, that in this
question, with other like, this word 'maker of a
Holy Communion in the English tongue, under both kinds, of bread
and wine." Published in March, 1548. See Heylyn's Hist of Ref.,
p. 57. Heylyn thinks that these framers of the new Communion
Office, and the compilers of the Liturgy, were one and the same
body, and gives the above names as constituting the Commissioners.
Nichols makes the same assertion, adding that the same thirteen
persons prepared the public services for other special occasions. At
all events, Courayer would by his references make the number of
the framers of the Ordinal 24, whereas they were limited to tivelve
by the Act of Parliament; neither is this passage consistent with
that referred to in the previous note ; nor does Collier, to whom he
refers, substantiate his assertion. The reader must bear in mind,
that there were three commissions issued, one for drawing up " a
new Office for the Communion only," (published in March, 1548,)
another for compiling " a complete Liturgy, or Form of Public
Prayer," set forth by an Act of 2 and 3 Edw. VI., (adopted by
Parliament, November, 1548,) and a third for drawing up the
Ordinal, pursuant to the 3 and 4 Edw. VI., published in March,
1549. See KENNETT'S Hist, of Eng., vol. ii. p. 290, note; and
JENKTNS'S Remains of Archbishop Cranmer, Preface, pp. 50 52,
and vol. i. p. 375, note.
4 The number was limited to twelve by the 3rd of Edw. VI., c. 12.
c2
36
Bishop or Priest' may be taken two ways: for, under-
standing the word to ' ordain,' or ' consecrate,' so it is
a thing which pertaineth to the Apostles and their
successors only ; but if by this word ' making,' be
understood the appointing or naming to the office, so
it pertaineth especially to the supreme heads and
governors of the Church, which be Princes." Again,
in the reply of Dr. Cox to the twelfth question,
" Whether in the New Testament be required any con-
secration of a Bishop and Priest, or only appointing
to the office be sufficient 1 " viz. " that by Scripture
there is no consecration of Bishops and Priests re-
quired, but only the appointing to the office of a
Priest, cum impositione maminm" it is evident that he
attached a different sense to the word consecration
from that which it bears now, or, in fact, was applied
to it at the time by the other Divines. 5 It will be ob-
served that Cox speaks of the consecration of Bishops
and Priests as not being required, but only the ap-
pointing to the office of a Priest, "per impositionem
manuum" admitting the necessity of Ordination. 6 To
the ninth question, " Whether the Apostles, lacking
a higher power, as in not having a Christian King
among them, made Bishops by that necessity, or by
authority given them of God]" Dr. Cox replies,
5 And we may add, by Dr. Cox himself, when, in 1549, he
assisted in drawing up " The Form of CONSECK AXING of an Arch-
bishop or Bishop.'"
6 Dr. Cox was one of the Divines who drew up the Reformatio
Legum, 1551, and The Institution of a Christian Man, in 1537; in
the latter of which " the invisible grace imparted at Ordination by
the imposition of the Bishop's hands'" is distinctly admitted.
37
"Although the Apostles had no authority to force
any man to be Priest ; yet they, moved by the Holy
Ghost, had authority of God to exhort and induce men
to set forth God's honour, and so to make them Priests"
And again, to the eleventh question, " Whether a
Bishop hath authority to make a Priest by the
Scripture, or no ? " Dr. Cox replies, " Bishops have
authority, as is aforesaid, of the Apostles, in the tenth
question, to make Priests" That the term " conse-
cration" was used by the different Divines in a very
different sense, may be learnt from the answers of
Dr. Day and others. Thus Bishop Hethe, who held
the Divine Right of Episcopacy, says, " the Scripture
speaketh de impositione manus et de oratione ; and of
other manner of consecrations I find no mention in
the New Testament expressly; but the old authors
make mention of Inunctions" Dr. Day (who was, as
Strype tells us, " a strong Papist") says, " Consecra-
tion of Bishops and Priests, I read not in the New
Testament ; but ordinatio per manuum impositionem
cum oratione is read there ; and the only appointment
to the office of a Priest, as I think, is not sufficient"
And yet he replies to the question as to " the authority
of a Bishop to make a Priest," that " Bishops have
authority by Scripture to ordain Bishops and Priests,
John xx., ' Hujus rei gratia reliqui te Cretce, ut con-
stituas oppidatim presbyteros,' " Tit. i., Acts xiv. Drs.
Redmayne, Robertson 1 , Leighton, Tresham, and others,
7 I should add, that Dr. T. Robertson also, with Dr. Cox, was
engaged, in the year 1537, in drawing up The Institution of a
Christian Man, in which the Episcopal functions are clearly
maintained.
38
say that, " Besides the appointing to the office, it
appeareth that, in the primitive Church, the Apostles
used certain consecration of the Ministers of the
Church, by imposition of hands, and prayer, and with
fasting. (Redmayne.) " Opinor requiri consecrationem
quandam, hoc est, impositionem manuum, orationem,
jejunium" &c. (Robertson.) " I suppose that there
is a consecration required, as by imposition of hands ;
for so we be taught by the ensample of the Apostles."
(Leighton.) " There is a certain kind of consecration
required, which is imposition of the Bishop's hands,
with prayer ; and the appointment only is not sufficient."
(Tresham.) It will be seen by these extracts that
though Drs. Cox and Day objected to the term
consecration? which was admitted by most of the
other Divines, yet that they all agree as to the mode
of conveying the commission, "per manuum imposi-
tionem." My readers must not, however, suppose that
the Bishops and Divines, who were principally con-
cerned in framing the new Ordinal, had, on any
occasion, recorded opinions even as vague and loose
as those of Drs. Cox and Day. It will hardly be
believed, after Mr. Macaulay's positive assertions as
8 It is, however, worthy of remark, that in the new Ordinal of
1549, of which Drs. Cox and Day were compilers, the titles ran
thus, " The Form of Consecrating of an Archbishop and Bishop"
" The Form of Ordering Priests." In the Review of 1662, the first
title was altered thus, " The Form of Ordaining or Consecrating of
an Archbishop or Bishop." Perhaps, after all, the position then
held, and still maintained by the Church of Rome " Quamvis
UNITS sit Sacerdotii OKDO, non tamen unus est Sacerdotum gradus"
may be the simplest elucidation of the above supposed discrepancies.
See Cat. Condi. Trident. Pars. ii. cap. vii. Qucest. 25.
39
to the views of " the founders of the Anglican
Church," that only six (we might, perhaps, say but
Ji't'c) of the framers of the new Ordinal expressed any
opinion (it all, as far as we have any record, on the
subject of the Questions propounded in 1540. Of
these six, Drs. Robertson and Redmayne thus speak :
" Opinor (says the former) Apostolos authoritate divina
creasse Episcopos et Presbyteros, ubi publicus magis-
tratus permisit." Again, " Opinor Episcopum habere
aiithoritatem creandi sacerdotem He then adds,
" ordinat. conferr. gratiam, vide. EC. Homil. Ix." Dr.
Redmayne, (whom Strype calls " one of the solidest
and best read Divines in the land,") writes, " Christ
gave his Apostles authority to make other Bishops and
Ministers in his Church, as He had received authority
of the Father to make them Bishops ;" and adds, that
" it was meet that they which were special and most
elect servants of our Saviour Christ, and were sent
by Him to convert the world, and having most abun-
dantly the Holy Ghost in them, should have special
ordering of such ministry as pertained to the planting
and increasing of the faith." He then says, that " to
ordain or consecrate is a thing which pertaineth to the
Apostles and their successors only" Again, Dr. Red-
mayne writes, " As for making, that is to say, ordaining
and consecrating of Priests, I think it specially
belongeth to the office of a Bishop, as far as can be
showed by Scripture, or any example, as I suppose,
from the beginning" The opinions of Drs. Day and
Cox we have considered already, and have seen that
they are very far from supporting the statement of
40
Mr. Macaulay; and we must bear in mind that Dr.
Cox had, in 1537, subscribed to the declaration, that
" Orders is a holy rite or ceremony, instituted by
Christ and his Apostles in the New Testament, and
doth consist of two parts; that is to say, of a spiritual
and invisible grace, and also of an outward and a
visible sign. The invisible gift or grace conferred in
the Sacrament (of Orders) is nothing else but the
power, the office, and the authority before mentioned.
The visible and outward sign is the prayer and impo-
sition of the Bishop's hands upon the person that
receiveth the said gift or grace. And to the intent
the Church of Christ should never be destitute of
such Ministers, as should have and execute the said
power of the keys, it was also ordained and commanded
by the Apostles, that the same Sacrament should be
applied and administered by the Bishop, from time to
time, to such other persons as had the qualities
necessarily required thereunto; which said qualities
the Apostles did also very diligently describe, as it
appeareth evidently in the 3rd ch. 1st Tim. and 1st
ch. Tit." Institution of a Christian Man. Dr. Cox
also assisted in drawing up the Reformatio Legum, in
1551. But what will my readers think, when I re-
peat that Dr. Day also, (then Bishop of Chichester,)
though appointed a Commissioner for compiling the
Liturgy, and subsequently for framing* the new Or-
9 Doivnes says, upon the authority of Heylyn, that Day's name
was omitted in the latter Commission ; but Heylyn seems to have
hazarded a conjecture. Courayer gives the name of Bishop Day,
when he enumerates the Commissioners.
41
dinal, was " a strong Papist" notwithstanding his
replies to the seventeen Questions; that he was de-
prived of his See for not taking down the Popish
altars in his diocese; that he reproved his College for
favouring the Reformation and leaving off masses;
sided with Gardiner against Cranmer ; and in Mary's
reign was a violent persecutor of the Protestant
Bishops and others ! " In truth, (says Strype, 1 ) in the
composing of that Office, (the Common Prayer,) choice
was made, not so much of men with respect to their
opinions, as to their great learning and knowledge in
the usages and practice of the ancient Church. For
Bishop Day, another of them, (besides Redmayne,}
was a strong Papist ; and so was Robertson affected,
and not much otherwise was Bishop Skyp!" Be it
remembered, that Bishop Skyp (and probably Bishop
Day) and Drs. Robertson and Redmayne assisted in
drawing up the Ordinal, in which Mr. Macaulay says
" Episcopacy was retained" only " as an ancient,
decent, and convenient Ecclesiastical polity!" But
we must proceed with the " Resolutions." The re-
maining two were those of Archbishop Cranmer and
Bishop Thirlby. Bishop Thirlby 2 thus writes :
" Making of Bishops hath two parts ; appointment,
and ordering. Appointment, which the Apostles by
necessity made by common election, and sometimes
by their own several assignment, could not then be
1 Memorials Ecclesiastical, vol. ii. pt. 1, p. 529, edit. 1822.
2 According to Strype, Life of Cranmer, vol. i. p. Ill, and vol. ii.
p. 749, edit. 1812. See also Bishop Thirlby 's opinions, as stated by
Burnet, in the Collection of Records, Book iii. No. 21.
42
done by Christian Princes, because at that time they
were not; and now at these days appertaineth to
Christian Princes and Rulers. But in the ordering,
wherein grace is conferred, (as afore,) the Apostles did
follow the rule taught by the Holy Ghost, per manuum
impositionem, cum oratione et jejunio." Again : " A
Bishop, having authority of his Christian Prince to
give orders, may by his ministry, given to him of God
in Scripture, ordain a Priest. And we read not that
any other, not being a Bishop, hath, since the beginning
of Christ's Church, ordered a Priest" Again : " Only
appointment is not sufficient, but consecration ; that is
to say, imposition of hands, with fasting and prayer,
is also required. For so the Apostles used to order
them that were appointed ; and so have been used con-
tinually; and we have not read the contrary."* I have
thus examined the opinions of five 4 of the Commis-
sioners, who on a previous occasion had recorded
their sentiments on the authority of the Episcopate ;
and I again ask, whether the imputations against
these "founders of the Anglican Church," on the
3 The substance of what I have above stated has already appeared
in a previous work, " The Succession of Bishops in the Church of
England Unbroken ;" and as the positions there advanced have not
been refuted, and are, I believe, irrefutable, I have taken advantage
of my previous labours in preparing my present publication.
4 Of the remaining seven compilers (whose opinions on Episcopacy,
it will be remembered, are not recorded in the celebrated " Resolu-
tions") Bishop Skyp is accused by Strype of having been affected
with Popery; and Bishops Goodrich and Ridley, and Drs. Taylor
and May, were four of the committee for drawing up the Reformatio
Legum, in which Episcopacy is clearly maintained in all its effi-
ciency. See JENKYNS'S Remains of Archbishop Cranmer, Preface,
p. 110, note.
43
subject of Episcopacy, are supported by historical
testimony] whether it would appear that they "re-
tained Episcopacy as an ancient, decent, and con-
venient Ecclesiastical polity" only; "but had not
declared that form of Church Government to be of
Divine Institution 1 "
The opinion of Archbishop Cranmer alone remains
to be considered. Mr. Macaulay tells us (p. 53), that
" Cranmer plainly avowed his conviction, that, in
the primitive times, there was no distinction be-
tween Bishops and Priests, and that the laying on
of hands was altogether unnecessary." 5 "It was
unnecessary that there should be any imposition of
hands. The King such was the opinion of Cranmer,
given in the plainest words might, in virtue of au-
thority derived from God, make a Priest; and the
Priest so made needed no ordination whatever. These
opinions Cranmer followed out to their legitimate con-
sequences." 6 " The founders of the Anglican Church
had retained Episcopacy as an ancient, decent, and
convenient Ecclesiastical polity, but had not declared
that form of Church Government to be of Divine In-
stitution. We have already seen how low an estimate
Cranmer had formed of the office of a Bishop." The
Author adds much more to the same effect. Now, is
this quite fair ? Is this a full, true, and correct repre-
sentation of Cranmer's real sentiments ? Would not
any reader imagine that the above were the known,
deliberate, and often expressed opinions of Arch-
bishop Cranmer 1 Would any reader guess that the
5 See Note 2, page 6. See Note 3, page 6.
44
Archbishop had, in The Institution of a Christian Man,
published in 1537, in The Declaration of the Functions
and Divine Institution of 'Bishops and Priests, in
1536-8, in The Erudition of a Christian Man, in 1543,
in his Catechism, in 1548, in the jReformatio Legum
Ecdesiasticarum, in 1551, and in the Preface" 1 to the
Ordinal, which was probably written by Cranmer
himself, in 1549, clearly, distinctly, and unequivo-
cally, to quote the language of Dr. Hickes, (Preface
to the Divine Right of Episcopacy asserted, p. 40J
" derived the order and mission of Bishops and
Priests from Christ to the Apostles, and from them
successively to others, unto the world's end;" and
that Cranmer had actually cancelled the replies to the
' Questions concerning the Sacraments,' upon which
Mr. Macaulay founds his assertions respecting the
Archbishop's views ! I am willing to admit that, in
the Archbishop's replies in 1540, certain " singular
opinions" 8 seem to be recorded on the " Ecclesiastical
Functions," which are not conformable to the prin-
ciples maintained throughout the new Ordinal of
1549; but I think that, in fairness, Mr. Macaulay
should have informed his readers that Cranmer had,
as Bishop Burnet expresses himself, quite " laid aside
7 See JENKTNS'S Remains of Cranmer, Preface, p. 36.
8 Jenkyns, speaking of Cranmer' s Answers to the Questions on
the Sacraments, says, " The opinions thus elicited from him, afford
a curious evidence of the fluctuations of a mind which, in escaping
from the errors of Rome, did not immediately arrive at the truth ;
for several of them are wholly untenable, and have, consequently,
though he afterwards abandoned them, exposed him to no little
animadversion." Remains of Cranmer, Preface, p. 32.
45
those peculiar conceits of his own" six years at least
prior to the rejection of the Roman Pontifical and
the introduction of the new Ordinal ; and that in the
years 1537 9 and 1538 he had not embraced these
"singular opinions." 1 I have said that certain "sin-
gular opinions" seem to be recorded in the replies of
the Archbishop in 1540, because I believe that some
of Cramner's answers may be capable of an inter-
pretation very different 2 from that which is generally
attached to them. How otherwise can we reconcile
the opinions expressed in The Institution of a Christ-
ian Man, drawn up under the immediate direction
of the Archbishop, 3 and published in 1537, of which
he was the principal compiler, and similar senti-
ments to which he subscribed in 1536-8, when he
signed a document 4 containing " The Judgment of
9 See Note from Bishop Burnet, p. 16.
1 At the end of Cranmer's replies to the seventeen questions
appears this paragraph, written by the Archbishop himself:
" T. Cantuarien. This is my opinion and sentence at this present,
which nevertheless I do not temerariously define, but refer the
judgment thereof wholly unto your Majesty."
2 See Dr. BOAVDEN'S Apostolic Origin of Episcopacy Asserted,
vol. ii. p. 6; HOBAKT'S Apology for Apostolic Order, p. 135; and
the Healing Attempt Examined.
3 " It has long been believed that the Reformers were mainly
indebted to Cranmer for the larger Formulary of Doctrine above
alluded to, entitled The Institution of a Christian Man. And this
fact is now established beyond dispute, by the recent publication in
the State Papers of some letters to Crumwell from Bishops Latymer
and Fox (1831). These two prelates were members of the Com-
mission to which the preparation of the work was entrusted ; they
had, therefore, abundant opportunities of being well informed."
JENKYNS'S Remains of Cranmer, Preface, p. 17.
4 See Note, page 16.
46
some Bishops concerning the King's Supremacy," and
also "^4 Declaration* made of the Functions and
5 " A Declaration made of the Functions and Divine Institution of
Bishops and Priests" signed by thirty-eight Bishops, Divines, and
Canonists ; amongst whom were seven of the compilers of the Book
of Common Prayer, viz., Cranmer, Skyp. Robertson, Redmayne,
May, Cox, and Goodrich. " It declares that the power of the Keys,
and other Church functions, is formally distinct from the power of
the Sword. That this power is not absolute, but to be limited to
the rules that are in the Scripture, and is ordained only for the
edification and good of the Church : that this power ought to be still
preserved, since it loas given by Christ as the means of reconciling
sinners to God. Orders were also declared a Sacrament, since they
consisted of an outward action, instituted by Christ, and an inward
grace conferred with them ; but that all inferior orders, Janitor s y
Lectors, &c., were brought into the Church to beautify and adorn it,
and were taken from the Temple of the Jews ; and that in the New
Testament there is no mention made but of Deacons or Ministers,
and Priests or Bishops. Nor is there belonging to Orders any other
ceremony mentioned in the Scripture but prayer and imposition of
hands." BTTENET'S Hist, of the Ref., vol. i. p. 345, and WILKINS'S
Concilia Mag. Brit., vol. iii. p. 834. The reader will find in
Burnet (idem, p. 346,) some explanatory remarks on the words
" Priests or Bishops." Though the " Declaration" is, in fact,
nearly the same as the Exposition upon Orders in the Institution of
a Christian Man, it appears to have been a distinct document, and to
have preceded the publication of the latter. A very interesting and
important document will be found in Jenkyns's Remains of Archbishop
Cranmer, (vol. iv. p. 300,) entitled " De Ordine et Ministerio
Sacerdotum et Episcoporum" from the pen of Cranmer. The date
is supposed to be about 1538. The following brief extracts will
suffice to show the opinions of the Archbishop at that time :
" Sacerdotum et Episcoporum ordinem ac ministerium, non humana
auctoritate sed divinitus institutum, Scriptura aperte docet
Proinde potestatem seu functionem lianc Dei verbum et sacramenta
ministrandi cceterasque res agendi qiias ante recensuimus, Christus
ipse Apostolis suis dedit, et in illis ac per illos eandem tradidit, haud
promiscue quidem omnibus, sed quibusdam duntaxat hominibus, nempe
47
Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests" with the
replies of 1540, as commonly interpreted I And we
should bear in mind that assertions equally strong
in favour of Episcopacy pervade The Erudition of
a Christian Man, published in 1543, which was
" chiefly," Strype 6 tells us, " of the Archbishop's 7
composing," and his Catechism* published in 1548.
I shall leave the solution of the question in the
hands of my readers ; but the following extracts
from the Bishop's Book will show what were Cran-
mer's sentiments in 1537.
" We think it convenient (that is, proper and right)
that all Bishops and Preachers shall instruct and
teach the people committed unto their spiritual
charge ; 1st. How that Christ and his Apostles did
institute and ordain in the New Testament, that,
besides the civil powers and governance of Kings
and Princes, which is called potestas Gladii, " the
power of the Sword," there should also be continually
Episcopis et Preslyteris, qui ad istud muneris initiantur et admit-
tuntur" Throughout the document the two Orders are distinguished,
" Presbyteri et Episcopi."
6 Memorials of Cranmer, book i. chap. xx. an. 1540.
7 " The principal director seems to have been Cranmer himself.
He is named in the minutes of the proceedings in Convocation, as a
member of all the select committees appointed to examine its several
divisions ; and he is proved also to have been an efficient member,
by the fact of his carrying some of the amendments which he had
suggested three years before, even though they were opposed to
those of Henry VIII." JENKYNS'S Remains of Cranmer, Preface,
p. 38, and vol. ii. p. 96, note.
8 See TODD'S Life of Archbishop Cranmer, vol. ii. ch. iii.
48
in the Church Militant certain other ministers or
officers, which should have special power, authority,
and Commission, under Christ, to preach and teach the
Word of God unto His people; to dispense and
administer the Sacraments of God unto them, and by
the same to confer and give the graces of the Holy
Ghost; to consecrate the blessed Body of Christ in the
Sacrament of the altar ; to loose and absolve from sin
all persons which be duly penitent and sorry for the
same ; to bind and to excommunicate such as be guilty
in manifest crimes and sins, and will not amend their
defaults; to order and consecrate others in the same
room, order, and office, whereunto they be called and
admitted themselves. It appeareth evidently that this
power, office, and administration, is necessary to be
preserved here in earth for three special and principal
causes. 1st. For that it is the commandment of
God it should be so, as it appeareth in sundry places
of Scripture. 2nd. For that God hath instituted
and ordained none other ordinary mean or instrument,
whereby He will make us partakers of the recon-
ciliation which is by Christ, and confer and give the
graces of His Holy Spirit unto us, and make us the
right inheritors of everlasting life, there to reign with
Him for ever in glory, but only His Word and Sacra-
ments. And, therefore, the office and power to minister
the said Word and Sacraments, may in no wise be
suffered to perish or to be abolished. 3rd. Because the
said power and office, or function, hath annexed unto
it assured promises of excellent and inestimable
things ; for thereby is conferred and given the Holy
49
Ghost, with all his graces, and finally our justifica-
tion and everlasting life. Again, This office, this
power, and authority, was committed and given by
Christ and his Apostles unto certain persons only ;
that is to say, unto Priests or Bishops, whom they did
elect, call, and admit thereunto, by their prayer and
imposition of their hands .... Orders is a holy rite or
ceremony instituted by Christ and his Apostles in the
New Testament, and doth consist of two parts ; that
is to say, of a spiritual and invisible grace, and also
of an outward and a visible sign. The invisible gift
or grace conferred in this Sacrament is nothing else but
the power, the office, and the authority before mentioned.
The visible and outward sign is the prayer and impo-
sition of the Bishop's hands upon the person that
receiveth the said gift or grace. And to the intent the
Church of Christ should never be destitute of such
ministers as should have and execute the said power of
the Keys, it was also ordained and commanded by the
Apostles, that the same Sacrament should be applied
and administered by the Bishop, from time to time,
unto such other persons as had the qualities necessarily
required thereunto ; which said qualities the Apostles
did also very diligently describe, as it appeareth evi-
dently in the third chapter of the first Epistle to
Timothy, and the first chapter of his Epistle to
Titus."
These were the Archbishop's sentiments in 1537.
That Cranmer had, moreover, completely relinquished
the loose opinions imputed to him on the subject of
Church government, some years before the new Ordinal
D
50
was framed, may be learnt from his recorded senti-
ments on the same topic, as given in the Erudition
of a Christian Man, published in 1543, and from
his Catechism, 9 published in 1548. 1 In the former of
9 Dr. Lingard says, " It is remarkable that in this Catechism the
Archbishop leans more than usual to the ancient doctrines ; and
attributes the origin of ecclesiastical jurisdiction to Christ, in a
manner which seems to do aivay his former opinion on the same sub-
ject" History of England, vol. iv. p. 395. See also some interest-
ing remarks on this head in JENKYNS'S Preface to the Remains of
Archbishop Cranmer, p. 34.
1 I must, even at the risk of being accused of repetition, give the
reader the benefit of the following succinct statements, relative to
the Archbishop's opinions, both before and after the year 1540,
on the subject immediately before us, from the respective pens of
Mr. Jenkyns and Mr. Palmer. Speaking of Cranmer's answers to
the Questions concerning the Sacraments, the former writes, " Thus
extreme were the opinions into which the abuses of ecclesiastical
power had driven him. But even at the moment of expressing
them, he seems to have had some misgivings respecting their sound-
ness ; and as he had but lately adopted, so he very quickly saw
reason to forsake them. Shortly before, in 1537, he had held,
' that Christ and his Apostles did institute and ordain, in the New
Testament, that, besides the civil powers and governance of Kings
and Princes there should also be continually in the Church
militant certain other ministers and officers, which should have
special power, authority, and commission under Christ, to preach
and teach the Word of God unto his people ;' that ' the said power
and office hath annexed unto it assured promises of excellent and
inestimable things ;' and that it ' was committed and given by
Christ and his Apostles unto certain persons only, that is to say,
unto Priests or Bishops, whom they did elect, call, and admit
thereunto by their prayer and imposition of hands.' {Institution of
a Christian Man, pp. 101, 104, Oxford, 1825. See also HENEY
VIII.'s Corrections of the Institution, JENKYNS'S Remains, vol. ii.
p. 41, &c.) And shortly afterwards, in 1543, he had returned, in a
great degree, to these earlier opinions. For in the Necessary Doc-
trine (p. 277,) to which he then assented, it is laid down, that
51
these he tells us, that " Order is a gift or grace of
ministration in Christ's Church, given of God to
Christian men, by the consecration and imposition of
' Order is a gift or grace of ministration in Christ's Church, given of
God to Christian men by the consecration and imposition of the
Bishop's hands upon them.' " (JENKYNS'S Remains of Cranmer,
Preface, p. 33.) Again, Mr. Palmer writes, " The subjects on
which Cranmer's opinions have been condemned, are the Eucharist,
and the powers of the civil Magistrate in connexion with the
Ministry and ordinances of the Church. Of the first I have already
spoken above, and in chapter vi. ; with reference to the latter, it is
not to be disputed that Cranmer did, at one time, entertain privately
opinions which merit censure. It appears, from his answer to
queries concerning the Sacraments, and the appointment and power
of Bishops and Priests, (1540,) that he held several strange errors;
such as that the Clergy are as much Ministers under the King as
the civil officers ; that ordination is unnecessary ; that popular
election or appointment by the civil Magistrate confers a sufficient
mission ; that Bishops and Priests were not two offices originally ;
and that excommunication was not allowable if the law of the land
forbade it. These doctrines, as maintained by Cranmer, seem,
certainly indefensible ; but we may observe that they were only
private opinions, not made public, but merely given in answer to
certain queries of the Government. Secondly, he did not hold
them firmly ; for he added, ' this is mine opinion and sentence at
this time present, which, nevertheless, I do not temerariously
define ;' and besides, it is fairly to be presumed that he afterwards
corrected his error ; for in 1543 he allowed, in the Necessary
Doctrine, that ' order is a gift or grace of ministration in Christ's
Church, given by God to Christian men by the consecration and
imposition of the Bishop's hands upon them.' His Catechism
(1548) in the article on the Keys, insists on the Divine commission,
apostolical succession, and sacred character of the Priesthood. He
was instrumental in drawing up the Preface to the Ordinal, in which
it is declared that no man might ever exercise the office of Bishop,
Priest, and Deacon, without being admitted to the same by lawful
authority, with imposition of hands ; and, therefore, no one shall be
accounted lawfully ordained in this Church, unless he be episcopally
D2
52
the Bishop's hands upon them ; and this was conferred
and given by the Apostles, as it appeareth in the Epistle
of St. Paul to Timothy, whom he had ordained and
consecrated Priest; where he saith thus : 'I do exhort
thee that thou do stir up the grace of God. the which
is given thee by the imposition of my hands.' And
in another place he doth monish the same Timothy,
and put him in remembrance of the room and ministry
that he was called unto, in these words : ' Do not
neglect the grace which thou hast in thee, and the
which is given thee through prophecy and with im-
position of hands, by the authority of Priesthood ;'
whereby it appeareth that St. Paul did Consecrate
and Order Priests and Bishops by the imposition of his
hands. And as the Apostles themselves, in the begin-
ning of the Church, did Order Priests and Bishops,
so they appointed and willed the other Bishops after
them to do the like, as St. Paul manifestly showeth
in his Epistle to Titus, saying thus : ' For this cause
left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain Elders
in every city, according as I have appointed thee.'
And to Timothy he saith, ' See that thou be not
hasty to put thy hands upon any man.'" Collier 2
tells us that Cranmer subscribed the Erudition, coun-
tenanced it in his diocese, and checked Joseph, a
Clergyman, who took the liberty to preach against it.
Again, in the Catechism, which was published in
ordained. It appears, therefore, that Cranmer did not continue to
maintain these errors." Treatise on the Church of Christ, vol. i.
p. 544.
* Eccl. Hist., vol. v. p. 125, edit. 1840.
53
CranmerV own name, we read that " the ministration
of God's Word, which our Lord Jesus Christ did first
institute, ivas derived from the Apostles unto others after
them, by imposition of hands and giving the Holy Ghost,
from the Apostles' time to our own days ; and this was
the consecration, and orders, and unction of the Apostles,
whereby they, at the beginning, made Bishops and Priests;
and this shall continue in the Church unto the world's
end" &c. ; from which it is clear, as Dr.Hickes 4 remarks,
3 See TODD'S Life of Archbishop Cranmer, -vol. ii. ch. iii.
4 " I have (says Dr. Hickes) made this sermon public again,
because I think the doctrines set forth in it are as beneficial to the
Church now, as when they were published one hundred and sixty
years ago. I say the doctrines, for in order to explain the power of
the Keys, he hath treated of the sacerdotal mission of God's ministers,
to whom the power of the Keys is committed, and delivered his
doctrine about it in several propositions ; as 1st. That it is neces-
sary to have preachers, or ministers of God's most Holy Word.
2nd. That they must not aspire to that high office, before they are
called, ordained, and appointed to it, and sent to us by God. 3rd.
That, except they be so called and sent, they cannot fruitfully
teach, because God doth not work with the preacher whom he hath
not sent, &c. I have set all this in the reader's view, for the honour
of Archbishop Cranmer 's memory, to show that, when he wrote this
book, he could not be of the opinion, that ' the form of Church,
Government is mutable, that there is no distinction between a Eishop
and a Priest, and that a man appointed to be a Bishop or a Priest,
needs no consecration by the Scripture; election, or appointment,
being sufficient thereunto, as is said of him, with great triumph, in
the 178th page of the book of Rights.* These loose opinions, which
are so apparently contrary to what the Archbishop published in this
sermon, that fraudulent writer took from a manuscript, as cited by
Dr. Stillimj/eet in the 8th ch. of the 2nd book of his Irenicum ;
* By Matthew Tindal, answered by Turner, in his Vindication of the Rights
of the Christian Church, and by JIickes,\n his Christian Priesthood, and Dignity
of the Episcopal Order. Sec Preface.
54
that Cranmer " derived the orders and mission of
Bishops and Priests from Christ to the Apostles, and
from them to others, and from them successively to
others, unto the worlds end."
though Dr. Durel, who saw the manuscript afterwards, told the
world how it was manifest from it, that the Archbishop changed his
opinion, and came over to that of Dr. Leyghton* who, in answer to
the llth question, asserted, that ' a Bishop Jiad authority from God
in Scripture, as his minister, to make a Priest, and that he had not
read that any other man had authority to make a Priest by Scripture,
or Jcneio any example thereof. 1 And in answer to the 12th he said,
' I suppose that there is a consecration required, as by imposition of
hands, for so ice be taught by the emample of the Apostles;' who, in
answer to the 10th question, he had said, ' were made Bishops and
Priests by Qhrist] and that ' after them the seventy-two] Disciples
were made Priests' This account of the Archbishop changing his
opinion as to the point of Church Government, Dr. Durel, after-
wards Dean of Windsor, gavej from the manuscript itself, wherein
it appeared that Th. Cantuariensis was written with the Archbishop's
own hand underneath Leyghton's opinion, to signify his approbation
of it ; and his sermon, which I have here reprinted, shows that it
was his final opinion, and that he thought the people were to be
instructed in it, as part of the Erudition of a Christian Man. Dr.
Stillingfleet, afterward Bishop of Worcester, never wrote, or, that I
heard, said anything to contradict Dr. Durel' s account of his manu-
script, all his life long. And the Bishop of Sarum also acknowledges,
that the Archbishop did retract his opinion, though he printed his
manuscript in another order and method than the original is written
in, contrary to the advice of Dr. Stillingjleet, as Dr. Grove told the
world in his shuffling answer to Dr. Loivth's letter to Dr. Stilling-
fleet ; which was a fancy, or rather a liberty in his Lordship, which,
perhaps, he would censure in another historian. I am sure it cannot
be justified in any, and, in matters of law, it would be called altering
* Collection of Records in the 3rd Book of the Bishop of Sarum's History of
the Reformation, page 227.
f On the Number of Disciples, whether 70 or 72, see Heylyn's Hist, of Epis. p. 19.
J Vindicicc Ecclesice Anglican, cap. xxvi. p. 326.
55
Again, the Archbishop says " Teachers, unless
they be called and sent, cannot fruitfully teach ; for
the seed of God's Word doth never bring forth fruit,
unless the Lord of the harvest doth give the increase,
and by his Holy Spirit, do work with the sowers.
But God doth not work with the preacher whom he
hath not sent ; as St. Paul saith, ' How shall they
preach if they be not sent 1 ' Wherefore it is re-
quisite that preachers should be called and sent of
God; and they must preach according to the au-
thority and commission of God granted unto them."
And to the intent that we may know to whom this
commission is granted, the Archbishop adds :
" Again, our Lord Jesus Christ himself hath both
ordained and appointed ministers and preachers, to
teach us his holy Word, and to minister his Sacra-
ments ; and also hath appointed them what they shall
a record. I must also observe, that Archbishop Cranmer's book
must be written in 1547, or some time before, because it was
printed in 1548. Which also further shows the great mistake of
Bishop Stillingrfleet, when he wrote his Irenicum, in dating the
birth of his manuscript from the first settlement of King Edward VI.,
as a paper containing the principles upon which the Reformation
proceeded in 1547,* to the great dishonour of our Reformers, and
the disgrace of our Reformation, and giving our adversaries of Rome
great occasion to misrepresent our Church to be Erastian in its
foundation, as giving the Prince the power of the Apostles, and
other unconsecrate laymen authority to ordain Bishops and Priests,
and to excommunicate, and administer the Sacraments, if the law of
any kingdom alloivcth thereunto." Dr. HICKES'S Preface to the
Divine Eight of Episcopacy Asserted, pp. 38-41.
* It may be added that Edward, Archbishop of York, who subscribed the
Paper of Questions, died in 1544.
56
teach in his name, and what they shall do unto us.
He called and chose his twelve Apostles. And, after
Christ's ascension, the Apostles gave authority to other
godly and holy men to minister God's Word; chiefly
in those places where there were Christian men
already, which lacked preachers, and the Apostles
themselves could not longer abide with them. Where-
fore, when they found godly men, and meet to preach
God's Word, they laid their hands upon them, and gave
them the Holy Ghost, as they themselves received of
Christ the same Holy Ghost, to execute their office.
And they that were so ordained were indeed, and also
were called, the Ministers of God, as the Apostles
themselves were, as St. Paul saith unto Timothy ; and
so the ministration of God's Word, which our Lord
Jesus Christ did first institute, was derived from the
Apostles unto others after them, by imposition of hands
and giving the Holy Ghost, from the Apostles' time
to our own days : and this was the consecration, and
orders, and unction of the Apostles, whereby they, at
the beginning, made Bishops and Priests; and this
shall continue in the Church unto the world's end.
Wherefore, good children, you shall give due reve-
rence and honour to the ministers of the Church,
and shall not meanly or lightly esteem them in the
execution of their office, but you shall take them
for God's ministers, and the messengers of our Lord
Jesus Christ. For Christ himself saith in the Gos-
pel, * He that heareth you, heareth me ; and he that
despiseth you, despiseth me.' And whatsoever they
do to you, as when they baptize you, when they give
57
you absolution, and distribute to you the body and
blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, these you shall so
esteem as if Christ himself in his own person did speak
and minister to you ; for Christ hath commanded his
ministers to do this unto you ; and he himself, although
you see him not with your bodily eyes, is present with
his ministers, and worketh by the Holy Ghost in the
administration of his Sacraments."
But I shall further prove that Cranmer, probably
before the publication of the Erudition in 1543. had
repudiated the Erastian views imputed to him, by can-
celling his replies to the " Questions concerning the
Sacraments," which, on presenting them to the King,
he had declared, though " at present his opinions and
sentence," he did " nevertheless not temerariously de-
fine." 5 Dr. Durel, it appears, examined " Bishop
Cranmer's MS." (cited in the Irenicum) with Stilling-
fleet himself, and not only discovered that the date of
the MS., as stated in the Irenicum, viz., 1547, was
incorrect, but found that Cranmer had subscribed to
the opinions of Dr. Leighton; '" Th. Cantuariensis'
being written with the Archbishop's own hand under
Leighton's opinion, to signify his approbation of it."
" Tantus, inquam, fuit Cranmeri candor, et tantus
amor 6 veritatis, (writes Dr. Durel,) ut in hanc Leigh-
5 " Even at the moment of expressing them, he seems to have had
some misgivings respecting their soundness : and, as he had lately
adopted, so he very quickly saw reason to forsake them." JENKYNS'S
Remains of Arclibisliop Cranmer, Preface, p. 33.
6 After having heard so much of late respecting the compliant,
dishonest, and time-serving spirit of Archbishop Cranmer, it will be
a positive relief to peruse the following extract from Strype, wherein
58
toni sententiam, proprid mutatd, concedere non dubita-
verit. Quod ex eodem Cl. Stillingfleeti manuscripto
libro manifestum est; in quo scilicet videas 'Th. Can-
tuariensis' nomen manu propria ad calcem Leightonian<s
sententice appositum, in signum approbations. Cran-
merus itaque non modo in Formulae Ordinandi Prse-
he shows " the honesty and courage of the Archbishop in discharge
of a commission:" "The next year, viz., 1540, the Archbishop
lost his great friend and assistant in carrying on the Reformation ;
I mean the Lord Crumwell. And when he was, by popish craft and
malice, taken off, their next work was to sacrifice Cranmer. And
many were the accusations that were put up against him ; and trial
was made many ways to bring him to his death, or at least to bring
him in disgrace with the King. And first, they thought to compass
their ends against him by occasion of a Commission now issued out
from the King to a select number of Bishops, whereof the Arch-
bishop was one, (which Commission was confirmed by Act of Parlia-
ment,) for inspecting into matters of religion and explaining some of
the chief doctrines of it. These Commissioners had drawn up a set
of articles favouring the old popish superstitions ; and meeting
together at Lambeth they produced them, and vehemently urged
that they should be established, and that the Archbishop would
yield to the allowance of them ; especially seeing there was a
signification that it was the King's will and pleasure that the
articles should run in that tenor. But they could not win the
Archbishop, neither by fear nor flattery ; no, though the Lord
Crumwell, at this very time, lay in the Tower. There was not one
Commissioner now on his part, but all shrank away, and complied
with the time; and even those he most trusted to, viz., Bishop
Hethe, of Rochester, and Bishop Skyp, of Hereford. The Arch-
bishop, as he disliked the book already drawn up by them, so he
presented another book, wherein were divers amendments of theirs.
After much arguing and disputing, (nor could the Archbishop be
brought off,) Hethe and Skyp, with a friend or two more, walked
down with him into his garden at Lambeth, and there used all the
persuasion they could ; urging to him that the King was resolved
to have it so, and the danger, therefore, of opposing it. But he
59
fatione, sed in eo ipso qui penes est Cl. Stillingfleetum
manuscripto totus nosier est" 7 Dr. Hickes, referring
to this point, says* that " Dr. Stillingneet, afterwards
Bishop of Worcester, never wrote, or, that I heard,
said anything to contradict Dr. Durel's account of his
manuscript, all his life long."
honestly persisted in his constancy ; telling them, ' that there was
but one truth in the Articles to be concluded upon, which if they
hid from his Majesty, by consenting unto a contrary doctrine, his
Highness would, in process of time, perceive the truth, and see how
colourably they had dealt with him. And he knew,' he said, ' his
Grace's nature so well, that he would never after credit and trust
them. And they being both his friends, he bade them beware in
time, and discharge their consciences in maintenance of the truth.'
But though nothing of all this could stir them, yet what he said
sufficiently confirmed the Archbishop to persist in his resolution.
The Archbishop, standing thus alone, went himself to the King, and
so wrought with him that his Majesty joined with him against all
the rest of them ; and the Book of Articles passed on his side.
When, indeed, this stiffness of Canterbury was the very thing his
enemies desired ; thinking that for this opposition the King would
certainly have thrown him into the Tower ; and many wagers were
laid in London about it. So that this ended in two good issues ;
that the Archbishop's enemies were clothed with shame and disap-
pointment, and a very good book, chiefly of the Archbishop's com-
posing, came forth for the instruction of the people, known by the
name of A Necessary Erudition of any Christian Man" Memorials
of Archbishop Cranmer, vol. i. p. 108.
7 The following summary of Cranmer's views, from 1537 to 1550,
on the point we are considering, is from TODD'S Life of Archbishop
Cranmer, vol. i. p. 307. " It will be seen, that in Cranmer's paper,
as Burnet has stated it, there are some singular opinions about the
nature of Ecclesiastical Offices ; but they were not established as
the doctrines of the Church. They were laid aside as particular
conceits of his own. Indeed, he soon afterwards changed his
Preface to the Divine Right of Episcopacy Asserted, p. 43.
60
Now, what were the opinions of Dr. Leighton to
which Cranmer subscribed ? " To the ninth question,
I say, that the Apostles (as I suppose) made Bishops
opinions; for he subscribed the book that was formed in consequence
of these discussions, (The Necessary Erudition, published in 1543,)
which is directly contrary to the opinions delivered in his paper ; as
the reformed Ordinal, in the time of Edward, is, of which he was one
of the compilers (1549). On mature consideration, he abandoned
those dangerous principles, which subject the validity of the Sacra-
ments of Christ's Church to the caprice of every tyrant, who may
choose to call himself a Christian. He had, before the artful questions
of his Sovereign were circulated, entertained sentiments very different
from his present answers. I have already briefly noticed them. He
was then in perfect agreement with the Archbishop of York, eleven
other Prelates, and several Canonists and Theologians, in declaring,
on Henry's abolition of the inferior Orders in the Church of Rome,
such as Subdeacons, Janitors, Lectors, and the like, that in Scripture
those Orders are not to be found : this being the sole object of
their declaration in answer to certain Romanists, who represented
the partial, as a general suppression of ecclesiastical offices. He
had also been the principal compiler of the Institution (1537) ; his
opinions in which, as to the government of the Church, and the
functions of the Hierarchy, the reverse of those in his present
answers, are, as I have before said, recovered in the Necessary
Erudition. In not proclaiming now (1540) the Apostolical insti-
tution of Episcopacy, he had been, perhaps, led by the King to aim
at an acknowledgment of the Sovereign's right to exercise every
office in the Church. But in these answers he met with little
support." The "pliability" of the Archbishop has been adduced
as the cause of his apparent inconsistency ; but if we refer to his
Annotations on the King's Book, being remarks on Henry's correc-
tions of the Institution, we shall find that Cranmer was not such a
" cowardly time-server to a dogmatical tyrant," as some writers are
apt to imagine. "It will be found, on the contrary, that he criti-
cised both the grammar and the theology of his master with a
caustic freedom, which might have given offence to an author of
far humbler pretensions than a Sovereign who had entered the lists
with Luther, and who prided himself on his titles of ' Defender of
61
by authority given unto them of Christ ; howbeit I think
they would and should have required the Christian
Princes' consent and license thereto, if there had been
any Christian Kings or Princes." " To the tenth:
the Apostles were made of Christ Bishops and Priests,
both at the first ; and after them septuaginta duo
discipuli were made Priests." "To the eleventh: I
suppose that a Bishop hath authority of God, as his
minister, by Scripture to make a Priest ; but he ought
not to admit any man to be Priest, and consecrate
him, or appoint him to any ministry in the Church,
without the Prince's license and consent, in a Christian
region. And that any other man hath authority to make
a Priest by Scripture, I have not read, nor any example
thereof." " To the twelfth : I suppose that there is a
consecration required, as by imposition of hands ; for so
we be taught by the ensample of the Apostles."
Dr. Durel adds, 8 " Didicimus disceptationem, quee in
eo manuscripto continetur, factam fuisse ante exactum
annum millesimum quingentesimum quadragesimum quar-
tum, quo anno diem suum demum obiit Edvardus Lee,
Eboracensis Archiepiscopus, cujus nomen manu pro-
the Faith,' and ' Supreme Head of the National Church.' It is true
that he softened the severity of his criticisms by an apology for his
presumption, in being ' so scrupulous, and as it were a picker of
quarrels to his Grace's book.' But even when these excuses have
been allowed their full weight, there will still remain enough of
boldness to surprise those, who have no other idea of Henry than
that he was a dogmatical tyrant, or of Cranmer, than that he ivas a
cowardly time-server.' 11 JENKYNS'S Remains of Archbishop Cranmer,
Preface, p. 19, and vol. 2, p. 65.
8 Ecclesitc Anglicancc Vindicia-, pp. 327-8.
62
pria in eo libro, eodem tempore et eadem occasione
cum caeteris scriptum legitur." " Which also farther
shows (remarks Hickes) the great mistake of Bishop
Stillingfleet, when he wrote his Irenicum, in dating
the birth of his manuscript from the first settlement
of King Edward VI., as a paper containing the prin-
ciples upon which the Reformation proceeded in 1547;
to the great dishonour of our Reformers, and the dis-
grace of our Reformation, and giving our adversaries
of Rome great occasion to misrepresent our Church to
he Erastian in its foundation, as giving the Prince
the power of the Apostles, and other unconsecrate
laymen authority to ordain Bishops and Priests, and
to excommunicate, and administer the Sacraments, if
the law of any kingdom alloweth thereunto" Thus
wrote Dr. Hickes, 9 at the close of the seventeenth cen-
tury. It is also worthy of remark, that, in the margin
of the paper of " Resolutions," attributed by Strype to
Bishop Thirlby, portions of which I have previously
quoted, the names of Cranmer and others are written,
" for what purpose (says Strype) I do not know, unless
to signify their judgments as agreeable with his." It
will be seen from the passages quoted, that the judg-
ment of this Bishop, upon some of the seventeen
Questions bearing on the subject before us, was in
favour of the Apostolical Succession and of Episcopal
Ordination ; and to each reply, as given above, is
added in the margin, " Abp. Cant"
I ought perhaps to add, that the same opinions in
9 Preface to the Divine Right of Episcopacy Asserted, p. 44.
63
favour of Episcopacy and the necessity of a Divine
Commission, transmitted through the medium of Ordina-
tion, which are found in The Institution of a Christian
Man 1 (1537); the Declaration of the Functions and
Dhinc Institution of Bishops and Priests (1536-8) ; the
Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian
Man (1543); and Cranmer s Catechism (1548), are
distinctly stated in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasti-
? drawn up at the close of 1551, of which the
1 How far Cranmer was concerned in drawing up this Formulary
will be seen in JENKYNS'S Preface to Cranmer 's Remains, p. 17.
See also Note, p. 39.
2 I subjoin the chapters referred to in the original, as the work is
somewhat scarce. Tit. " De Ecclesia, et Ministris ejus, illorumque
officiis." Cap. 3. De Diaconis. " Diaconus erit patronus pauperum,
ut languidos confirmet, soletur vinctos, inopes juvet, eritque pater
orphanis, patronus viduis, et solatium afflictis et miseris, quantum
in illo est, omnibus. Nomina etiam pauperum Parocho diligenter
deferet, ut ejus suasu ecclesia tota permota necessitatibus illorum
prospiciat, ne mendicantes late fratres obambulent, eodem et ccclesti
patre nati et pretio redempti. Pastoribus suis, a quibus adsciti
fuerint, in sacris precationibus et offieiis perpetuo adsint. Lectiones
ex verbo Domini quotidianas populo recitabunt, et, si quando ne-
cessitas incumbat, concionabuntur, et sacramenta (modd id Episcopi
aut Ordinarii permissione faciant) administrabunt. His officiis nisi
diligenter eos invigilasse per presbyteros ecclesiae demonstratum sit,
Episcopi illos ad altiorem gradum non promoveant."
De Preslyteris, cap. 4. "In Presbytero mores eluceant a D.
Paulo descripti ad Tim. iii., et ad Titum primo. Gregem Dei sibi
commissum verbo vitae subinde nutriant, et ad sinceram turn Deo
turn magistratui ac in dignitate positis obedientiam assidue eliciant,
et ad benevolentiam mutuam Christianos omnes sedulo invitent.
Non sint compotores, non aleatores, non aucupes, non venatores,
non sycophantae, non otiosi, aut supini, sed sacrarum literarum
studiis et prsedicationi verbi et orationibus pro ecclesia ad Dominum
diligenter incumbant. Nullus expers conjugii mulierem sexaginta
64
principal matter was furnished by the Archbishop.
In the third, fourth, tenth, and subsequent chapters,
we have the offices of Deacon, Priest, and Bishop,
annis natu minorem in sedibus sinat diversari, nisi sit ejus mater,
aut amita, aut matertera, aut soror. Presbyter quivis Biblia sacra
habeat propria, non Anglice modo, verum etiam Latine ; vestis sit
decens, et gravis, quae ministrum deceat, non militem, juxta arbit-
rium Episcopi."
De Episcoporum gradu, ac dignitate in Ecclesia., cap. 10. " Epis-
copi, quoniam inter caeteros ecclesiae ministros locum principem
tenent, ideo sana doctrina, gravi authoritate, atque provido con-
cilio, debent inferiores ordines cleri, universumque populum Dei,
regere ac pascere, non sane ut dominentur eorum fidei, sed ut seipsos
vere servos servorum Dei exhibeant, sciantque authoritatem et juris-
dictionem ecclesiasticam non alia de causa sibi praecipue creditam
esse, nisi ut suo ministerio et assiduitate homines quam plurimi
Christo jungantur ; quique jam Christi sunt, in eo crescant et
exsedificentur ; atque si nonnulli deficiant, ad pastorem Christum
Dominum reducantur, et per salutarem poenitentiam instaurentur."
De obedientia Episcopis exhibenda, cap. 11. " Omnes in ecclesia
cum pacem sectari debeant, et ad concordiam quantum licet incum-
bere, Episcopo qui Ecclesia3 praeficitur, non solum decanus, archidia-
conus, archipresbyter, et reliqui ministri parebunt, sed omnia etiam
Christi membra ejus curse commissa sic ad ejus se voluntatem
accommodabunt, ut et in his quae juxta verbum Dei praecipiunt,
et in illis etiam quae mandabunt ad Christianam disciplinam, et ad
nostras ecclesiasticas leges pertinentia, paratissime morem gerant."
De variis et multiplicibus Episcopi muneribus, cap. 12. "Verbi
Dei sanam doctrinam cum primis turn per seipsum, turn per alios,
Episcopus tradat in sua ecclesia, quanta diligentia et sedulitate fieri
potest : sacros ordines opportune tempore conferat ; sed nemini, vel
mercede conductus, vel temere manus imponat; idoneos ministros
ad ecclesiastica beneficia instituat ; indignos verd, ubi graves causae
ac morum perversitas id requisierint, submoveat, et ab ecclesiae admi-
nistratione dejiciat; ecclesiae testimonia et querelas de suis pastoribus
audiat ; rixas inter ministros et ecclesias subortas componat ; vitia,
et contaminates mores, censuris ecclesiasticis corrigat ; edicta ad
meliorem vivendi formam praescribat ; eos qui pertinaciter et obsti-
65
clearly and specifically stated. The Deacon was to
preach, and administer the Sacraments, "modo Episcopi
permissione." The chapter on the office of Presbyter
refers us to the 3rd ch. of 1st Epis. to Tim. and to the
1st ch. of Epis. to Tit. for an elucidation of their official
character ; and speaks of the flock of God committed to
them: which Commission we learn, from the Ordination
Service, (which was drawn up two years before, under
the same authority, and again printed in 1552, with a
few alterations,) is imparted by the imposition of the
Bishop's hands. The chapter on the Order and dignity
of Bishops, and the subsequent chapters on the obe-
dience due to them, are still more explicit. The
first speaks of the Bishops as holding the chief place
among the ministers of Christ's Church, and gives
them authority to govern the inferior orders of the
Clergy, " inferiores ordines Cleri"; the others allude
to the Ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction of the
Bishops; and declare that the whole diocese, both
nate reluctantur, excommunicet ; pocnitentes vero in gratiam recipiat ;
diocesim totam, tarn in locis exemptis quam non, tertio quoque anno
visitet, et consuetas procurationes accipiat : ut vero aliis temporibus,
quoties visum fuerit, visitet propter novos casus qui incidere possint,
ci liberum esto ; modo suis impensis id faciat, et nova onera stipen-
diorum aut procurationum ab ecclesiis non exigat ; statis temporibus
annuatim synodos habeat : Illi quoque sit curae ut in Catechismo
instructos certo anni tempore confirmet ; testamenta quoque appro-
bet. Et demum omnia et singula Episcopis curse sunto, quse ad eos
ex Dei praBscripto spectant, et nostrae leges ecclesiasticse illorum
cognitioni et judiciis commiserunt."
See some interesting and valuable remarks connected with the
Reformatio Legum, in " Archdeacon Reynolds's Historical Essay
iipon the Government of the Church of England, ch. 4."
E
66
Clergy and Laity, " omnia Christi membra ejits cunc
commissa" were to be under the Bishop, and to be
governed by his discipline and direction, not only on
those points which are clearly specified in the Word
of God, but on such as appertain to the maintenance
of Church discipline, and the carrying out the re-
quirements of the Ecclesiastical Laws. A subsequent
chapter speaks of the Bishop as conferring Holy
Orders, " sacros Ordines conferat;" and alludes to the
imposition of the Bishop's hands as the mode of con-
ferring these Orders, "nemini temere manus imponat."*
I should likewise state that Cranmer, Goodrich, Ridley,
Cox, Taylor, and May, six of the compilers of the
Liturgy and the Ordinal, together with three others,
formed a sub-committee to prepare the above code. 4
I think, then, that my readers and even Mr.
Macaulay's readers will regard his assertions, that
3 The reader will pardon me for referring him to my second
Ordination Sermon (p. 102) for further extracts, in the original,
from the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum.
4 " But the matter," says Strype, " was in effect wholly entrusted
by the King to the Archbishop, who associated to himself, in the
active part of this work, Taylor, Martyr, and Haddon." "And this
account is confirmed by the numerous corrections in the handwriting
of Cranmer and Peter Martyr, which may still be seen in a manu-
script copy of the projected code preserved in the British Museum.
Thus the Archbishop's share in its composition seems to have been
much more than that of mere general superintendence. If he did
not actually assist in drawing it up, as is most probable, his inter-
ference must be supposed to have at least extended to the exclusion
of any thing which he thought objectionable. It may therefore be
safely referred to as an authentic record of his opinions. "
JENKYNS'S Remains of Cranmer, Preface, p. 110. See also TODD'S
Life of Cranmer, vol. ii. ch. 13.
67
"the founders of the Anglican Church retained Episco-
pacy," not as of Divine Institution, but "as an ancient,
decent, and convenient Ecclesiastical Polity;" that,
according to Cranmer and the theologians of his school,
" the King was to be the Pope of his kingdom, the
Vicar of God, the expositor of Catholic Verity, the
channel of sacramental graces ; " that he was to
have " the whole power of the keys;" that, "in the
opinion of Cranmer, given in the plainest words, the
King might, in virtue of authority derived from God,
make a Priest, and the Priest so made needed no
ordination whatever," and that " Cranmer carried out
these opinions to their legitimate consequences;" 5
as statements which militate against historical testi-
mony, give a very unfair and imperfect view of the
opinions of our Reformers, and are contrary to the
mature and deliberate judgment both of the compilers
of our Ordinal and of Archbishop Cranmer himself:
and I may be allowed to add, that, though Mr.
Macaulay is a very attractive writer, he is not a very
safe guide in matters Ecclesiastical. 6
5 See Notes on these passages, page 6.
6 In proof of the truth of this assertion, I would, for a moment,
revert to the passage in Mr. Macaulay's History, where he refers
to Archbishop Whityift, and Bishops Cooper and Jewel, as having
retained and " defended Prelacy as innocent, as useful, as what the
state might lawfully establish, as what, when established by the
state, was entitled to the respect of every citizen." Is it possible
that Mr. Macaulay could have taken the trouble to ascertain the
opinions of these eminent Reformers on the subject of Episcopacy ?
And, without having exercised a little diligence, ought he to have
indulged in such dangerous and erroneous statements ? In addition to
the exposition of their views already given, (notes pp. 18, 23) I would
68
call the reader's attention to the fact, that Whitgift and Cooper were
accused by Martin Marprelate of being Papists, for their several
vindications of the Church of England and of her Liturgy ! "Martin
Marprelate mentioned, among other particular Popish points, wherein
as he supposed they agreed, his (the Archbishop's) maintenance of
the hierarchy of Bishops, and his ascribing the name of Priest unto
the Ministers of the Gospel." To this objection, viz., that " the
calling of Bishops, as superior to other Ministers of Christ, was a
Popish principle," the Archbishop gave this answer; "acknowledging
that he was persuaded that there ought to be, by the word of God,
a superiority among the Ministers of the Church ; and that it was
sufficiently proved in his books against T. C., and in Dr. Bridges'
book likewise. And that he was at all times ready to justify it by
the Holy Scriptures, and by the testimony of all antiquity. And
added, that Epiphanius and Augustin accounted them heretics that
held the contrary. And that as for the arguments to the contrary,
they were vain ; their answers were absurd ; the authority they
used shamefully abused ; and the Scripture they made use of for
their purpose wrested. That angry author would also have it an
agreement with the Church of Rome, that the Ministers were com-
monly called Priests. The Archbishop answered to this, that he
had shewed sufficient reason in his book against T. C. why the
Ministers of the Gospel might be called Priests. That the ancient
Fathers so called them ; that the Church of England embraced
that name, and that by the authority of the highest Court in England.
The Archbishop proceeded, and said, that in these points he did agree
with the Holy Scriptures, with the Universal Church of God, with
all antiquity, and in some sort ivith the Church of Rome!" (SXKYPE'S
Life of Whitgift, book iii. ch. 22.) Something more, methinks, is
here expressed than the 'innocency,' 'decency,' or 'utility' of 'the
calling of Bishops.' And as regards Bishop Cooper, he, " one of our
learnedest Bishops, was, together with other Bishops and learned
men," consulted upon, and in fact, revised Whitgift's answer to
" An Exhortation to the Bishop to answer the Admonition" in which
he defends the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England,
upon " the testimonies of ancient councils and learned Fathers,
which those unlearned men (the writers of the Admonition} un-
learnedly contemned." This same Bishop was the object of Mar-
prelate's virulence, as a Papist, for " magnifying the English Service
Book, and defending the ungodly titles and unjust lordship of
69
Bishops." He was also attacked for papistical views, exhibited, as
alleged, in a sermon which he preached at St. Paul's Cross, on the
27th of June, 1572, "In Vindication of the Church, its Liturgy,
and Rites." And in a sermon preached at the Queen's Chapel, in
1588, Bishop Cooper says, " For the truth of the doctrine, according
to the Word of God ; for the right administration of the Sacraments ;
for the true worship of God in our prayers, laid down in the Book
of Service ; since the Apostles' age unto this present age of the
restoring of the Gospel, there was never Church upon the face of
the earth so nigh the sincerity of God's truth, as the Church of
England is at this day." STRYPE'S Annals, b. i. ch. 21 ; Preface
to the Life of PARKER, p. 15 ; Life of WHITGIFT, b. i. ch. 7.
Bishop Jewel also is mentioned as one of the Divines of Elizabeth's
day, who regarded Episcopacy as ' innocent and useful,' and nothing
more. Again Mr. Macaulay is most unfortunate in his selection.
We read in his ' Apology,' (p. 19,) that " we believe that there is
one Church of God ; that this Church is the kingdom, the body ?
and spouse of Christ; that Christ is the only prince of this king-
dom ; that there are in the Church divers orders of Ministers ; that
there are some who are Deacons, others who are Presbyters, and
others who are Bishops, to whom the instruction of the people, and
the care and management of religion, are committed ; that a minis-
ter ought to have a lawful call, and be duly and orderly preferred in
the Church of God, and that no man ought at his own will and
pleasure to intrude into the sacred ministry." Let Mr. Macaulay
try whether he can reconcile his opinion of Jewel with the following
extracts. " The truth is, this Church hath been persecuted because
she alone, of all the Churches in Europe, has had the blessing and
singular favour of God to reform with prudence, moderation, and
an exact and regular conduct, after great and wise deliberation, by
the consent of our Bishops, Convocations, States, and Princes, with-
out tumults or hasty counsels. So that the Papists themselves do
ever envy our primitive doctrine, government, and discipline, and
both fear and hate us more than any other of the Reformed Churches.
They are the same things that have raised the spleens and animosi-
ties of the other side, with whom whatever is older than Zuinglius
and Calvin, is presently Popery, and must be destroyed. Tell them
that Episcopacy was settled in all Churches in the days of the very
Apostles, and by them, and they reply, the mystery of iniquity began
then to work ; intimating, if not affirming, that Holy Order was
70
part of it." Preface to Apology. Whether, then, "Whitgift,
Cooper, and Jewel, defended prelacy as innocent, as useful, as what
the State might lawfully establish, as what when established by the
State, was entitled to the respect of every citizen," thus, regarding
it as a mere human institution ; or whether they and ' the founders
of the Anglican Church,' " constantly and clearly insisted," to adopt
the language of Mosheim, (Eccl. Hist. vol. ii.p. 237,) "on the Divine
Origin of the Government and Discipline of the Church of Eng-
land," are questions which, to an unprejudiced mind, will admit of
an easy solution.
POSTSCRIPT.
SINCE the publication of my Pamphlet, on " The
Reformers of the Anglican Church, and Mr. Macau-
lay's History of England," it has been objected, that
I have not done Mr. Macaulay justice, inasmuch
as I have omitted two passages which might have
considerably elucidated his meaning ; the first, re-
ferring to the Commission which was taken out
by Cranmer, on the death of Henry ; the second, to
the opinions of the Elizabethan Divines respecting
Christian communities who were not under Episcopal
government. I must confess that I cannot see the
force of the objections: but as Mr. Macaulay or his
friends may object, and as some have objected, to the
omissions, I hasten to rectify the error, if error it be.
In page 14, and again in page 43, I have endea-
voured to point out the erroneous exposition of
Cranmer's views by Mr. Macaulay, on the subject of
Episcopacy, and of the power and authority of Bishops.
With this intent, I quoted a passage from p. 53 ;
" Cranmer, indeed, plainly avowed his conviction, that
in the primitive times there was no distinction between
Bishops and Priests, and that the laying on of hands
72
was altogether unnecessary." 1 This passage occurs at
the end of a paragraph, and nothing, of course, could
be added thereto by me to elucidate the meaning of
the author. I would, in passing, submit that the
assertion is directly contrariant to the opinions of
Cranmer, as expressed in the works of the Archbishop,
which I have quoted at large, viz. " The Institution of
a Christian Man" " The Erudition" the " Catechism"
containing his " Sermon of the Authority of the Keys"
&c. I added, in page 43, another passage, taken from
page 56 of Mr. Macaulay's History, and which I had
shewn, at page 6, to be a passage distinct from the
above. It is this " It was unnecessary that there
should be any imposition of hands. The King such
was the opinion of Cranmer, given in the plainest
words might, in virtue of authority derived from
God, make a Priest ; and the Priest so made needed
no ordination whatever. These opinions Cranmer
carried out to their legitimate consequences." 2 The
passage omitted, and which immediately follows, is
this: "He held that his own spiritual functions,
like the secular functions of the Chancellor and
Treasurer, were at once determined by a demise of
the crown. When Henry died, therefore, the Arch-
bishop and his suifragans took out fresh commissions,
empowering them to ordain and to perform other
spiritual functions 3 till the new Sovereign should
1 See Note 2, page 6. 2 See Note 3, page 6.
3 The passage is altered thus in the 4th and 5th editions : -
" When Henry died, therefore, the Archbishop and his Suifragans
took out fresh commissions, empowering them to ordain and to
73
think fit to order otherwise." Now, in order that the
passages which I have quoted should, in the opinion
of the reader, be at all affected by those which I have
omitted, he must admit, what I was not prepared to
admit, that Mr. Macaulay intended to imply that
Cranmer " carried out " the opinions previously ex-
pressed " to their legitimate consequences," by taking
out a fresh Commission on the death of Henry. And
what were "these opinions'?" We are told in the
previous page ; "What Henry and his favourite Coun-
sellors meant 4 by the supremacy was certainly nothing
less than the whole power of the Keys. The King was
to be the Pope of his kingdom, the Vicar of God, the
Expositor of Catholic verity, the Channel of sacra-
mental graces" 5 Mr. Macaulay having further eluci-
dated his statement, adds, " The King such was the
opinion of Cranmer, given in the plainest words
might, in virtue of authority derived from God, make
a Priest ; and the Priest so made needed no ordina-
tion whatever."
These opinions were, I allow, too clearly implied in
some of his answers to "Questions concerning the
Sacraments," in 1540, and I have said so: but I did
not, and do not see one word in the Commission, which
implies that Cranmer held the above opinions in
govern the Church till the new Sovereign should think fit to order
otherwise."
4 Altered thus: "What Henry and his favourite counsellors
meant, at one time, by the supremacy, was certainly nothing less
than the whole power of the keys."
5 The italics are mine.
74
1546, but quite the reverse ; and therefore I did not,
in fairness, impute such an interpretation to Mr.
Macaulay. I would only add, that as respects the
omission of passages in quoting Mr. Macaulay, from
an idea that there is no immediate connection with
the sentences immediately preceding, the fault is not
altogether on the side of those who may be blamed
for so doing. In the 56th page, for instance, of which
I have been speaking, it is impossible to read the
sentences as referring to consecutive events : " The
opinions of Cranmer given in the plainest words,"
refers to 1540 ; his taking out a fresh Commission, to
1546; and the subsequent passages, which at first sight
would appear to be an elucidation of the former, to
1532 or 1534.
With regard to the immediate point at issue, I can-
not more clearly state my views respecting Cranmer's
Commission, than by giving the following passages
from Charles Leslie's " Case of the Regale and of the
Pontificate stated" in which he gives " a short and
clear state of the case lately discoursed (at a con-
ference) concerning the Regale, or power of the State
over the Church, as to her purely spiritual character.
First. It was agreed on all hands, that the State
cannot deprive Bishops of their Episcopal character;*
6 In the first three editions a passage occurred, at page 55, which
ran thus : " He (the King) proclaimed that all jurisdiction, spiritual
as well as temporal, was derived from him alone, and that it was in
his power to confer the Episcopal character, and to take it away."
In the subsequent editions, the latter part of the sentence is altered
thus : " And that it was in his power to confer Episcopal authority,
and to take it away."
75
but that they remain Bishops still ; and their ordina-
tions, confirmations, and other Episcopal acts are
valid ; except such acts of jurisdiction as respect that
particular diocese out of which they are ejected by
the State ; as visiting and censuring the Clergy and
others, conferring benefices, &c." In the course of the
conference, it was advanced, " That it is certain the
Levitical Priesthood was set up by God four hundred
years before there was a King in Israel ; as the Evan-
gelical Priesthood was three hundred years before
there was a Christian King in the world ; and there-
fore, that neither the one nor the other could be made
dependent upon Kings Here one interposed, and
desired to know how all this would agree with our
present laws, and since the Reformation ; and in-
stanced the Statutes 25 Henry VIII. c. 19, and 37
Henry VIII. c. 17, &c., with the Commission that
Archbishop Cranmer took out for his bishopric from
Edward VI., which is inserted in Bishop Burnet's
History of the Reformation, part ii., Collection of
Records to Book i. No. 2, p. 90 ; and the like done
by other Bishops, whereby they held their bishoprics
during pleasure of the King, and owned to derive all
their power, even Ecclesiastical, from the crown, Velut
a supremo capite, et omnium infra regnum nostrum ma-
gistratuum fonte et scaturigine, as from the fountain
and original of it, &c."
"To this it was said, 1st, That all this is to
be understood only of the civil power and authority,
which, by the laws of the land, were annexed to
the sacred office; as the civil jurisdiction that is
76
granted to the Bishops' Courts, to the Bishops them-
selves, as Lords of Parliament, &c. ; to the civil
penalties which follow their excommunications, and
the legal protection to their Ordinations., and other acts
of their office ; and these are derived only and solely
from the King. Nothing of this was granted to the
Apostles, or the Bishops, their successors, by Christ ;
and as the state granted these, they may recall them,
if there be sufficient reason for it. That, in that very
Commission before-mentioned, which was given to
Cranmer for his bishopric, there is an exception ;
Per (prater) et ultra ea qua tibi ex sacris literis cli-
vinitus commissa esse dignoscuntur ; i.e., Over and
above those powers and authorities which the Holy
Scriptures do testify are given to thee by God. These
the King did not take upon him to grant, but only
what was over and above these, that is, the protection
and civil privileges granted by the State, which were
annexed to fortify and encourage these. And take
notice, that that of which the King is here called the
head and fountain, is omnium magistratuum, of all the
magistracy within his dominions, as well ecclesiastical
as temporal ; for there is a civil magistracy annexed
by the laws to the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction ; and of
this only ought these expressions to be meant ; because
we see the other, the spiritual authority, which, in Holy
Scripture, is granted to the Church, is expressly ex-
cepted ; and that Ecclesiastical authority, which in
this Commission is said to flow from the King, is
juris dicendi authoritas, et qucecunque ad forum ecclesi-
asticum pertinent ; that is, the Episcopal jurisdiction
77
considered as a forum, a court established by the secular
power, and part of the laws of the land. That in the
said History of the Reformation, part i., in the Ad-
denda, No. 5, p. 321, there is " A Declaration made
of the Function and Divine Institution of Bishops
and Priests," subscribed by Lord Cromwell, then
Vicegerent to King Henry VIII. in Ecclesiastical
matters, by Archbishop Cranmer, with the Archbishop
of York, eleven other Bishops, and twenty Divines and
Canonists, declaring that the power of the keys, and
other Church functions, is formally distinct from the
civil power,' fyc. And ibid. Collect. Records, No. 10,
p. 177, there is the judgment of eight Bishops con-
cerning the King's supremacy, whereof Cranmer is
the first, asserting that the Commission which Christ
gave to his Church, had " no respect to Kings' or
Princes' power;" but that the Church had it by the
" Word of God, to which Christian Princes acknowledge
themselves subject." They deny that the Commission
Christ gave to his Church did extend to civil power
over Kings and Princes ; and they own that the civil
power was over Bishops and Priests, as well as other
subjects ; that is, in civil matters, which the Church
of Rome did deny : but they assert that " Bishops and
Priests have the charge of souls, are the Messengers of
Christ, to teach the truth of his Gospel, and to loose
and bind sin, Sfc., as Christ was the Messenger of his
Father 8 :" which sure was independent of all Kings
and Powers upon earth." 9
7 See Note 2, page 46. 6 See Note 2, page 16.
9 Consonant with the above positions is the reply of the Bishop
78
" Here one desired it might not be forgot, that
Bonner took out the same Commission for his
bishopric from Henry VIII. as that before mentioned
of Rochester to the eleventh ' Question concerning the Sacraments,'
in the celebrated ' Resolutions,' so often referred to. Question.
" Whether a Bishop hath authority to make a Priest by the Scrip-
ture, or no ? and whether any other but only a Bishop may make
a Priest?" Answer. " The Scripture showeth by example, that
a Bishop hath authority to make a Priest; albeit no Bishop,
being subject to a Christian Prince, may either give orders to
excommunicate, or use any manner of jurisdiction, or any part of
his authority, without commission from the King, who is Supreme
Head of that Church, whereof he is a member ; but that any other
man may do it besides a Bishop, I find no example, either in Scripture
or in Doctors." See COLLIER'S Eccles. Hist. vol. ix. p. 205, edit.
1841. Again, Dr. Redmayne replies to the same question : "Truth
it is, that the office of a godly Prince is to oversee the Church, and
the Ministers thereof ; and to cause them to do their duty, and also
to appoint them special charges and offices in the Church, as may
be most for the glory of God, and edifying of the people ; and thus
we read of the good Kings in the Old Testament, David, Joas,
Ezekias, Josias. But as for making, that is to say, ordaining and
consecrating of Priests, I think it specially belongeth to the office of a
Bishop, as far as can be shewed by Scripture, or any example, as I
suppose, from the beginning." So also to the ninth Question :
" Whether the Apostles, lacking a higher power, as in not having
a Christian King among them, made Bishops by that necessity, or
by authority given them by God?" the same general principles are
recognized. " We find in Scripture (replies the Archbishop of
York) that the Apostles used the power to make Bishops, Priests,
and Deacons ; which power may be grounded upon these words :
' Sicut misit me vivens Pater, sic ego mitto vosj &c., and we verily
think, that they durst not have used so high power unless they had
authority from Christ ; but that their power to ordain Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons, by imposition of hands, requireth any other
authority than authority of God, we neither read in Scripture, nor
out of Scripture." Thus Dr. Robertson: " Opinor Apostolos
authoritate divina creasse Episcopos et Presbyteros, ubi publicus
79
of Cranmer from Edward VI. which is verbatim
inserted in the said History of the Reformation, pt. i.,
Collect, of Records to Book iii. p. 184 ; and that the
Magistrates permittit." Dr. Oglethorpe : " Apostoli. authoritate
et mandato Dei, ordinabant ac instituebant Episcofws, pctita ac
obtenta prius facilitate a Principe ac Magistratu (ut opinor) qui
turn praeerat." Dr. Tresham : " I say that the Apostles had au-
thority of God to make Bishops ; yet if there had been a Christian
King in any place where they made Bishops, they would, and
ought, to have desired authority also of him for the executing of
such their godly acts, which no Christian King would have denied."
And lastly, Dr. Leyghton : " I say, that the Apostles (as I suppose)
made Bishops by authority given unto them of Christ ; howbeit I
think they would and should have required the Christian Princes'
consent and license thereto, if there had been any Christian Kings
or Princes." See COLLIEK, vol. ix. pp. 197-206, edit. 1841. These
were the opinions of the " Bishops and Divines'' in 1540. And to
these ' Resolutions' we may, I think, refer for a solution of a
passage in Bonner's and Cranmer's ' Commission,' (received from
the King in 1546,) which is frequently misapplied by Cranmer's
opponents : " Nos tuis in hac parte supplicationibus humilibus in-
clinati, et nostrorum subditorum commodis consulere cupientes,
Tibi vices nostras sub modo et forma inferius descriptis committen-
das fore, Teque Licentiandum esse decernimus, ad Ordinandum igitur
quoscunque infra Dioces. tuam Cant, ubicunque oriundos, quos mori-
bus et literatura praevio diligenti et rigoroso examine idoneos fore
compereris, ad omnes etiam Sacros et Presbyteratus Ordines promo-
vendum, ordinandum," &c. ; the passage implying, I would submit,
nothing more than that the exercise of the inherent powers of the Epis-
copate, derived from Christ, the Head of the Church, through the
Apostles, would receive a legal sanction, " obtenta prius facilitate a
principe ac Magistratu, qui turn prceerat' n (to quote Dr. Oglethorpe);
but it by no means follows, as some would infer, that purely Episcopal
acts, done ' authoritate Divina-J would not be perfectly valid, ' facilitate
a principe non obtenta,' though they would be irregular, and might
subject the party officiating to Ecclesiastical censures. The lan-
guage of Cranmer in ' The Institution of a Christian Man,' in
1537, is at least perfectly plain and intelligible : " How shall men
80
Convocation who made that submission of the Clergy,
25 Henry VIII., were all Roman Catholics ; for it
was before the beginning of the Reformation, before
the King's supremacy was enacted, which, when en-
acted afterwards, was grounded upon this submission
of the Popish Clergy, and the acknowledgment of
both Convocations before that time, (22 Henry VIII.)
who owned the King as supreme head of the Church
within his own dominions. This was the first time ;
and these Popish Bishops and Clergy were the first
who bestowed that title upon the King, with which
they have ever since upbraided the Reformation."
" 2nd. It was further said, that, as our laws stand at
present, the Church is left wholly independent on the
State as to her purely spiritual power and authority.
Because our Kings claim no other Ecclesiastical
authority than was granted by God to the Kings in
Holy Scripture; and what that was, we have seen
before to have nothing in it but mere civil power;
though it might be exercised over Ecclesiastical
persons, (who are subject, as all others, as Christ
himself was, to the civil powers in all civil things,)
and in Ecclesiastical causes too, to punish with
temporal pains, as well blasphemers, idolaters, and
dare take upon them to preach and shew of God, unless they he first
sent with AUTHORITY AND COMMISSION FROM GOD so to do ?
And, therefore, it is said by the Prophet Esai, Blessed be the feet
of those preachers, which, being authorised and sent by God, do
preach and shew unto us the peace and benefits which we receive
by Christ" (on the Sacrament of Orders). See Formularies of
Faith, p. 104, edit. 1825. See also Note at the end.
81
heretics, as thieves, robbers, &c. ; as well the trans-
gressors against the first as second table." ( Case of
the Regale and of the Pontificate stated; Works, vol. iii.
page 279 and 323, sixth edition, 1832, Oxford.)
Should the reader desire to prosecute the subject, he
will find much interesting matter connected with the
point, in Bishop SANDERSON'S " Episcopacy, as estab-
lished by law in England, not prejudicial to Regal
Power ; " Bishop SMALLRIDGE'S " Reflections on the
Historical part of ( Woodhead) Church Government,
part 5," especially reply to ch. iii. iv. ; BRETT'S " Inde-
pendency of the Church on the State ; " and GRAY'S
" Hampton Lectures" from the fourth of which I
extract the following passage : " When the rights of
the Church were investigated at the Reformation in
this country, the same moderation and regard to just
claims were preserved in this important point as in
others : and while the genuine privileges of the dif-
ferent orders of the ministry were reverenced, their
fictitious pretensions were rejected. Every just power,
which could be derived in virtue of a transmitted au-
thority, was asserted on the ground of a legitimate and
uninterrupted succession from the Apostles ; whatever
of exclusive right, whatever of permanent jurisdiction,
could be justly challenged by the Priesthood, as com-
posed of ' Ambassadors of Christ, rightly called to
their office, and ordained by the laying on of hands,'
and duly appointed ' Stewards of the mysteries of
God,' however affected or infringed by transient
declarations, was finally respected and ratified. Such
power, indeed, and such jurisdiction, it was perceived,
82
could only be of a spiritual nature, importing a right
to offer and to withhold the Sacraments; to admit
and to reject from the fellowship of Christ's kingdom;
to superintend its discipline and administration, and
to impart to others that authority, which they had
been empowered by their commission to exercise." 1
(pp. 153-5.)
1 The following reply, on the subject of Cranmer's commission,
addressed by Professor Bowden to Dr. Miller, will give the reader a
succinct view of the question, and will, I think, be found very much
to the purpose :
" You say ' Another circumstance, which serves to shew that
Archbishop Cranmer considered the Episcopal system in which he
shared, as founded rather in prudence and the will of the Magistrate,
than the Word of God, is, that he viewed the exercise of all Epis-
copal jurisdiction as depending on the pleasure of the King, and
that, as he gave it, so he might take it away at pleasure. Agree-
ably to this, when Henry VIII. died, the worthy primate regarded
his own Episcopal power as expiring with him ; and therefore
would not act as Archbishop till he had received a new commission
from King Edward.' There is, Sir, nothing easier than to mis-state
facts, and superinduce false colours upon truth. Your unlearned
and prejudiced readers have, no doubt, been greatly misled by your
numerous mis-statements, and your extremely plausible assertions.
No doubt you mean what you say, and are perfectly free from any
intention of giving a wrong view of the subject. But how to acquit
you from negligence in the investigation of facts, I declare, Sir, I do
not know ; and therefore shall not attempt it. That Archbishop
Cranmer took out a new commission for the exercise of his office,
is true ; but it was not upon the principle which you mention. It
is undeniable that it tvas the doctrine of the King, the Bishops, and
the ^ohole Nation, that authority to administer the Sacraments, and to
perform all other spiritual offices, was derived, not from the Crown,
but from Christ. This doctrine was explicitly maintained in ' The
Institution of a Christian Man,' as you will see by consulting Collier.
And that it was maintained by the King, is evident from a letter
of his to the Convocation of the province of York, explaining the
83
The other omission referred to is at page 76, of
Mr. Macaulay's History, and at page 18, of my Pam-
phlet. " Once more, speaking of Whitgift, Jewel, and
Cooper, and other eminent Divines, in the reign of
Elizabeth, Mr. Macaulay says, that ' they defended
Prelacy as innocent, as useful, as what the State might
lawfully establish, as what, when established by the
State, was entitled to the respect of every citizen.' "
Mr. Macaulay adds that which I have omitted
" But they never denied that a Christian community
without a Bishop, might be a pure Church. On the
contrary, they regarded the Protestants of the Con-
tinent as of the same household of faith with them-
Supremacy. That letter you will find in Dr. Chandler's ' Appeal
defended,' p. 54. Therein the King makes a clear distinction
between the temporal and spiritual powers of the Bishops ; the
former he derives from the State, the latter from Christ. It is,
therefore, evident, that what was meant to be given by the King,
was nothing more than a legal right to exercise that spiritual function
which was derived from Christ, and jurisdiction relating to matters
testamentary, matrimonial, &c., which was derived from the State.
Afterwards, in the reign of Edward VI., from 1548 to 1553, Bishops
were commonly appointed by the King's Letters Patent. ' By those
letters,' says Bishop Burnet, ' it is clear, that the Episcopal function
was acknowledged to be of Divine appointment, and that the person
was no other way named by the King, than as lay patrons present
to livings ; only the Bishop was legally authorized in such a part of
the King's dominions, to execute that function which was to be
derived to him by imposition of hands.' This, Sir, is the true state
of the matter ; and it evidently shows how very incorrect you are,
when you advance Cranmer's taking out a new commission after
the death of Henry, as a proof that he believed Episcopacy was a
mere human institution." BOWDEN'S Apostolic Origin of Episco-
pacy Asserted, vol. ii. p. 14.
F2
84
selves.* Englishmen in England were, indeed, bound
to acknowledge the authority of the Bishop, as they
2 I have, however, yet to learn, even after a careful perusal of
" OWEN'S Validity of the Dissenting Ministry, or the Ordaining
Power of Presbyters evinced from the Neiv Testament and Church
History," I have yet to learn, that the Church of England, either
at the period of the Reformation, or in the days of Elizabeth, or at
any other period, recognized, directly or indirectly, the Validity of
Presbyterian Ordination. Mr. Owen, indeed, says that, " in Queen
Elizabeth's reign, Ordination by Presbyters was publickly allowed,"
and refers to the cases of Whittingham and Travers to prove his
assertion ; and these instances are still complacently quoted by
every writer who is hostile to Episcopacy. Supposing the cases
good, they would, in fact, not touch the point in question ; but as
they are, they are most unfortunate examples to adduce in favor
of the recognition of Presbyterian Ordination ; since Whittingham's
" orders tvere called in question by Archbishop Whitgift" and a
" commission was issued to report thereon ;" which, but for his
death, would have ended in his being " deprived (to quote Whitgift's
language) icithout special grace and dispensation :'' and Travers was
actually " inhibited by Archbishop Whitgift from preaching" the
Archbishop " objecting chiefly against him his foreign ordination;'"
for " this was the Archbishop's great reason for his disallowance of
Travers, and his refusal to restore him to his ministry, viz., his Ordi-
nation at Anticerp, and his denying to receive the orders of the
Ministry according to the English Book of Ordination." See
STRTPE'S Life of Whitgift, vol. i. p. 448 and 478 ; Annals, vol. ii.
pt. ii. pp. 167, 175. As this is a question of deep interest, I will
give extracts from " Mr. Travers" s reasons ; that his being made
minister at Antwerp should not be sufficient cause of his restraint ; or,
that he ought to be made minister again ; with Archbishop Whitgiffs
marginal animadversions thereupon." Travers: "Making of a mi-
nister is such an action, as being once lawfully done, ought not by
the Word of God to be repeated. Aaron and the Priests in the old
law were but once to be called and consecrated. Proved thus*
Heb. v. 4, ' No man taketh this honor to himself, but he that was
called to it of God, as was Aaron ; ' and Levit. viii. 33, ' Ye shal
not depart from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation
85
wore bound to acknowledge the authority of the
Sheriff and of the Coroner; but the obligation was
seven days, until the day of the consecration be at an end. For
seven days shal he consecrate you.' "
Whitgift's Animad. " I think this to be true. But Mr. Travers
his schoolmasters think and practice otherwise ; as Danceus Isagog.
lib. ii. c. 18."
Travers. " Pastors and teachers of the Church, in the New
Testament, have in like manner, by the same word, their calling to
their ministry but once given to them ; which sufficeth, and is not to
be reiterated ; as may appear by the speech of the Holy Scripture,
in al the rules and examples that concern the vocation. Of which
sort are these ; ' Appoint elders in every city,' Tit. i. 5 ; ' Look to
yourselves, and al the flock, whereof the Holy Ghost hath made
you overseers,' Acts xx. 28 ; ' Lay hands hastily on no man ;
neither communicate with other men's faults,' 1 Tim. v. 22 ; ' Stir
up the grace which is in thee, by the laying of my hands,' 1 Tim.
iv. 14; 'Neglect not the grace which is in thee; which is given
thee to prophesy, by laying on of the hands of the eldership,'
2 Tim. i. 6 ; ' They ordained them elders in every Church,' Acts
xiv. 23."
Whitgift's Animad. "These Scriptures prove not his purpose."'
Travers. " The reiterating in one dominion of any such action,
as being once sufficiently don, ought not for ever to be repeated,
(because it is don in the kingdom of another civil prince,) for it
taketh from Christ his authority, given him of God in al places ;
as it is said, ' I will give thee the ends of the world for thine inheri-
tance,' Psalm ii., ' and al nations to be possessed by thee.' "
Whitgift's Animad. ''And yet the French Churches practise
otherwise; neither wil they admit any of our Ministers, ordained
according to the laws of this Church, to exercise his function among
them, ivithout a new kind of calling according to their platform."
Travers. " The universal and perpetual practice of al Christen-
dom, in al places and in al ages, proveth the Ministers lawfully
made in any Church of sound profession in faith, ought to be ac-
knowledged such in any other."
Whitgift's Animad. " Excepting always such Churches as allow
of PRESBYTERY, and practise it."
86
purely local." It has been suggested, that the ad-
dition of four lines to the extract which I gave in
Travers. " In the primitive Church we read, when Polycarpus
came out of the East country, whereof he was, being minister of
the Church of Smyrna, to Rome, in the West ; that with the good
consent, and at the request of Victor, their pastor there, he dealt
in the ministry, and administered the Lord's Supper."
Whitgift's Anlmad. " This is true ; but Mr. Travers his case is
far differing from it. For Polycarpus ivent not to Rome to be made
minister ; but being ordained minister, according to the order of the
Church wherein he lived, icas suffered to execute his function at
Rome. But Mr. Travers, misliking the order of his country, ran to
be ordered elsewhere, by such as had no authority to ordain him, to
the contempt of the ministry of this Church, and the manifest main-
tenance of Schism. And as well may Mr. Cartwright and his
adherents now make ministers at Warwick, to serve in this Church of
England, as he and Villiers might have done at Antwerp."
Travers. " In this Church of England, many Scottish men and
other, made ministers abroad, have been so acknowledged, (viz., to
execute the office of the Priesthood,) and executed their ministry
accordingly ; and yet do still amongst us."
Whitgiffs Animad. " I KNOW NONE SUCH : and yet their case
is far differing from his.' 1 ''
Travers. " Afore Mr. Whittingham's case, there was never any
question moved in this Church to the contrary. The question being
moved about him, yet was neither the Word of God, nor the law
of the land found to be against him. But notwithstanding that
exception, he continued in his place and ministry after to his
death."
Whitgiffs Animad. " THIS is TTNTETTE. For if Mr. Whit-
tingham had lived, he had been deprived ivithout special grace and
dispensation. Although his case and Mr. Traverses are nothing like.
For he in time of persecution ^cas ordained minister by those ivho had
authority in the Church persecuted. But Mr. Travers, in the time of
peace, refusing to be made minister at home, gaddeth into other
countries to be ordained by such as had no authority, condemning
thereby the kind of ordering ministers at home."
Travers. " Popish priests, notwithstanding they were made after
87
the pamphlet, would have tended to elucidate Mr.
Macaulay's meaning. I must again confess that I
another order, and that against the Word of God, yet to the 13th
of the Queen's reign, they were suffered to deal, by virtue of their
calling, with duties of the ministry, without any question moved of
it. Anno 13th Eliz. When question was made of their calling,
the Parliament appointed not that they should be ordered again,
according to the form established in the first year of her Majesty's
reign ; but only that they should subscribe to the articles concern-
ing Christian doctrine and faith, agreed on in the Convocation,
anno 1562; and so doing, enabled them to al duties and benefits
of the ministry."
Whitgiffs Animad. " When the like act is made for his ministry,
then may he alledge it. But THE LAWS OF THIS REALM REQUIRE
THAT SUCH AS ARE TO BE ALLOWED AS MINISTERS IN THIS
CHURCH OF ENGLAND, SHOULD BE ORDERED BY A BISHOP, and
subscribe to the Articles before him"
Travers. " In the said book of Articles, the doctrin whereof is
authorised by the said Parliament, it is thus set down in the 23rd
Article : ' It is not lawful for any man to - take upon him the office
of public preaching or ministering the sacraments in the congre-
gation, 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 publick authority
given unto them in the congregation to cal and send ministers into
the Lord's vineyard.' "
Whitgiffs Animad. " This doth not justify his calling"
Travers. " Last of al : The late Archbishop of Canterbury,
being made privy and acquainted with this my calling in the minis-
try abroad, was contented I should preach in England. The
Bishop of London was likewise contented I should preach at the
Temple, which I have don now almost six years. And the present
Archbishop of Canterbury hath taken no exception against me,
since his coming to this province, to forbid me preaching in it
until this time. Upon consideration of these reasons, I humbly
pray to be suffered to precede, as I have don, in my place and
ministry again."
Whitgiffs Animad. " This is to abuse our patience. He never
am quite unable to see the force of the objection. I
was not contending as to the opinions of the Eliza-
bethan Divines, respecting the " Reformed Churches 3
beyond the Seas" which had not retained Episcopacy ;
but I was objecting, as strongly as I could, to Mr.
Macaulay's extraordinary assertion, that "Whitgift,
Jewel, and Cooper, 4 and other eminent Divines in the
reign of Elizabeth, defended Prelacy as innocent, as
useful," &c. ; when, in fact, they defended it, as I
have shewn, on the grounds of its being of Apos-
tolical and Divine Institution ; 5 in perfect consonance
allowed of your kind of calling ; neither CAN HE ALLOW OF IT."
STRYPE'S Life of Whitgift, vol. Hi. pp. 182-6, ed. 1822. See
also FOULIS'S Cabala, or the Mystery of Conventicles Unvailed, p. 34.
3 The reader will see this question fully elucidated in DTJREL'S
" View of the Government and Publick Worship of God in the
Reformed Churches beyond the Seas." See also MILBOURN'S
Legacy to the Church of England, Vindicating her Orders from the
Objections of Papists and Dissenters, vol. i. pp. 284, 292.
4 See Notes in Pamphlet, pp. 18 and 67.
6 "It is evidently uncandid and unfair, to urge that, because
Hooker and other Divines maintain what is, in fact, a Church
principle, that in an extensive sense there is no precise form of
Church government, in all its parts, prescribed in the Word of
God, they therefore give up Episcopacy as a divine institution.
They expressly maintain, in the strongest language, all that is
essential to Episcopacy, that Bishops are superior to Presbyters
and Deacons by ' divine and apostolical institution.' It is equally
uncandid and unfair to urge, from particular expressions of some
of the Reformers, at an early period of the Reformation, that the
Church of England was not constituted upon the principle that
Episcopacy was instituted by Christ and his Apostles. Such were
the arbitrary pretensions of Henry VIII., and such, unhappily, for
some time, the submission of some of the English Reformers to
those pretensions, that they were led to submit to Erastian princi-
89
with the principles on which the Ordinal was drawn
up, (as clearly expressed in the Preface, which was
pies, which, viewing the Church merely as a creature of the State,
tended to subvert entirely her spiritual authority. Happily, how-
ever, the Church of England was not founded on these principles,
and those of the Reformers who once avowed, finally disclaimed
them. We want no stronger evidence of this, than the fact, that
the Church of England, at the Reformation, preserved the Epis-
copal succession. She formed all her public offices on the principles
that there are the three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ;
that these 'Orders' were 'constituted' by Almighty God, by 'His
Divine Providence,' and by His ' Holy Spirit;' and that the Bishops
alone have the power of Ordination. When, therefore, the
opponents of Episcopacy urge that the Reformers of the Church of
England, and many of her most eminent Divines, did not maintain
that Episcopacy was the Institution of Christ and his Apostles,
Episcopalians have only to reply The sense of the Church of Eng-
land, as to Episcopacy, is to be learnt from her public offices, and
from her practice, and not from the sentiments of individuals.
" Will you allow that the Church of Scotland is Anti-Calvinistic
in her doctrines, because many of her most eminent Divines are
confessedly so ? The Church of England receives no one as a
minister, who has not been Episcopally ordained. Some of the
Reformers entertained, at a certain period, lax notions on the
subject of Episcopacy. But they were, at the same time, equally
erroneous in many of their opinions concerning some of the funda-
mental doctrines of the Gospel. If Oranmer's sentiments were at
one time favourable to the equality of Bishops and Priests, so were
they also to transubstantiation. But he renounced his errors on
both these points. You will not dispute Bishop Burnet's authority,
who asserts, ' In Cranmer's Paper some singular opinions of his
about the nature of Ecclesiastical offices will be found ; but as
they are delivered by him with all possible modesty, so they were
not established as the doctrine of the Church, but laid aside, as
particular conceits of his own : and it seems that afterwards he
changed his own opinion; for he subscribed the book which was
soon after set out, which was directly contrary to those opinions.'
90
written by Cranmer,) and on which the nineteenth,
twenty-third, and thirty-sixth Articles were framed:
He published also a Catechism, in which, according to Bishop
Burnet, 'he fully owns the Divine institution of Bishops and
Priests.'
" It is useless then (the Episcopalian may continue to address his
opponents) to dispute, whether some of the Divines of the English
Church did not acknowledge that there is no precise form of
government, in all its parts, of Divine right. This is not bringing
the matter to a point ; ' it is not taking the question by the proper
handle.'
"The only essential question is 'Were Bishops, Priests, and
Deacons, with their distinctive and subordinate powers, instituted
by Christ and his Apostles?' And on this question will you
acknowledge, with the Church of England, and the Episcopal
Church in this country, that ' it is evident unto all men diligently
reading Holy Scriptures and ancient authors, that, from the
Apostles' times there have been these Orders of Ministers, Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons ?' Will you maintain, with these Churches,
that ' Almighty God, by His Divine Providence and Holy Spirit,
appointed divers Orders of Ministers in His Church ; ' and that
these orders are ' Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ? ' Will you
adopt the practice of those Churches, and acknowledge none as
* lawful ministers among you, who have not had Episcopal Conse-
cration or Ordination?' Will you maintain, with Cranmer, who
adopted those ordination services, the ' Divine institution of
Bishops and Priests?' Will you assert, with Whitgift, 'that the
Episcopal degree is an Institution Apostolical and Divine ? ' Will
you allow, with Hooker, that ' Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, had
their beginning from Christ and his blessed Apostles ? ' And ' that
besides these last times, which for insolency, pride, and egregious
contempt of all good order are the worst, there are none, wherein
ye can truly affirm, that the complete form of your discipline, or
the substance thereof, was practised?' Will you adopt the rea-
soning of Chillingworth, in his celebrated tract, in which he demon-
strates ' the Apostolical institution of Episcopacy ? '
91
whereas Mr. Macaulay says, in the passage imme-
diately preceding that which refers to the Elizabethan
Divines, that ' ; the founders of the Anglican Church
had retained Episcopacy as an ancient, a decent, and
a convenient Ecclesiastical polity ; but had not declared
that form of Church government to be of Divine Insti-
tution. We have already seen how low an estimate
Cranmer had formed of the office of a Bishop ; ' ' 6 re-
"If the non-Episcopalian will make these concessions, and will
hold this language, he fairly gives up his cause. He maintains all
that the Episcopalian could wish. And we shall be glad to hear
on what grounds he will justify his rejection of the ' originally
constituted order,' and of degrees of the ministry, who had ' their
beginning from Christ and His blessed Apostles.'" HOBABT'S
Apology for Apostolic Order, pp. 134-40.
6 These are consecutive sentences : but surely the name of
Cranmer, and the reference to his opinions, either expressed in the
'Resolutions' of 1540, or implied (as supposed) in the language of
his ' Commission,' could not have been introduced as elucidating the
principles upon which "the founders of the Anglican Church
retained Episcopacy." " There is but one consideration (to quote
the language of Dr. Bowden) necessary to be mentioned ; that is,
that the whole Ordinal of the Church proceeds upon the ground of a
Divine Institution. And (adds Dr. Bowden) that any man who
can consult the Common Prayer Book of the Church of England,
should ever venture to assert that her Reformers did not place the
superiority of Bishops on the ground of Divine Right, is to me
most extraordinary. Even Mosheim declares that the Church of
England ' constantly insisted on the Divine Origin of its govern-
ment and discipline.' " Eccl. Hist., vol. ii. p. 231.
One word, however, respecting the 'Resolutions' of 1540, and
' the founders of the Anglican Church.' I must refer my readers
to pp. 35 43 of this Pamphlet, for a more full exposition of the
opinions of so many of the ' Bishops and Divines' as were framers
of the Ordinal, touching the point in question, as detailed in the
'Resolutions.' The following clear and succinct statement from
92
ferring, as I supposed, to the " Resolutions" of 1540,
and, as I now may add, to the " Commission" which the
Archbishop took out under Edward VI. The opinions
the pen of the Rev. Prebendary Scott will, however, leave little
to be added or explained. " The fact is, that Henry VIII. drew
up, with Cranmer's assistance, (the rough draft is extant in
Cranmer's writing,) a set of Seventeen Questions on debated theo-
logical points, with a view to the compilation of his ' Necessary
Doctrine and Erudition of any Christian Man.' These were pri-
vately submitted to a Committee of twenty-one Divines, among
whom were the two Archbishops, and six Bishops ; ' generally
learned and moderate men, and such as, we may conjecture, the
Archbishop had the nomination of to the King,' says Strype : and
the answers of fourteen out of the whole number, with a summary
of the others, are contained in the document alluded to. The
questions which concern us are four, Nos. 9 12 ; and are as follow ;
(Appendix to Collier, No. 49, p. 40, fol.) :
9. ' Whether the Apostles, lacking a higher power, as in not
having a Christian King among them, made Bishops by that
necessity, or by authority given them by God ? '
All, except Cranmer, answer that it was by the authority of GOD :
some adding, that if there had then been Christian Princes, their
license would have been asked.
10. ' Whether Bishops or Priests were first ; and if the Priests
were first, then the Priest made the Bishop ? '
Cranmer answers in the words which you have quoted ; but he
finds only four persons who agree with him.
11. ' Whether a Bishop hath authority to make a Priest by the
Scripture or no ? And whether any other but only a Bishop may
make a Priest ? '
Cranmer says that not only Bishops, but also Princes make
Priests : which is denied by all the rest ; two, however, excepting
cases of great necessity ; and two mentioning, as a solitary excep-
tion, the consecration of Aaron by Moses, [" by singular privilege of
God," says Dr. Redmayne ; " by a special commission, or revelation,
from God, without which he never would have so done," says Dr.
Edge worth.]
12. 'Whether in the New Testament be required any consecra-
93
expressed in the former, Cranmer has himself amply
refuted in his several treatises, as I have already
proved ; the latter, I submit, after what I have urged,
tion of a Bishop and Priest, or only appointing to the office be
sufficient ?'
Cranmer says that the appointment is sufficient ; but no one is
found to agree with him. One other only says ' appointment with
imposition of hands.'
' Now, Sir, you have indeed shewn that at this time, (the autumn
of 1540,) Cranmer, like yourself, held views concerning Episcopacy
at variance with Scripture and antiquity. But if there had been
any thing authoritative in the proceedings, the opinion of Cranmer,
which you quote, must have been formally condemned. Virtually
condemned it was, when the ' Necessary Doctrine and Erudition' was
published ' by authority, ' in 1543; for there it is laid down that
' Order is a gift or grace of ministration in CHRIST'S Church, given
of GOD to Christian men by consecration and imposition of the
Bishop's hands upon them.'' " (A Letter, &c., on Apostolical Epis-
copacy, by the Rev. Prebendary Scott, j And I would add, as more
immediately bearing upon the point at issue, that Cranmer did not
hold these 'singular opinions' in 1536-8, as may be learnt by
referring to the ' Declaration made of the Functions and Divine
Institution of Bishops and Priests,'' which ' Cranmer, together with
thirty-eight Bishops, Divines, and Canonists, at that period sub-
scribed ; and also by referring to ' The Institution of a Christian
Man,' called ' The Bishop's Book," to which he assented in 1537,
and of which, in fact, he was the principal compiler. And as he
had but lately adopted, so he very quickly saw reason to forsake
his ' peculiar conceits' (on Episcopacy) ; for in ' The Erudition of a
Christian Man,' published in 1543, and " which was chiefly,"
Strype tells us, " of the Archbishop's composing," it is laid down,
that " Order is a gift," &c., as quoted above by Mr. Scott. We
must also bear in mind that Cranmer had, probably before the pub-
lication of the Erudition, in 1543, cancelled his replies to the
' Questions concerning the Sacraments,' and subscribed to the
opinions of Dr. Leighton. (See Sup. pp. 43 66, where these
points are distinctly proved. See also JENKYNS'S Remains of
Archbishop Cranmer, Preface, p. 33 ; DURELLI Sanctce Ecclesice
94
does not prove, but rather disproves, Mr. Macaulay's
position. My view of the question will be best ex-
pressed, by giving the reader the benefit of Dr.
Bowden's statement, in his Apostolic Origin of Epis-
copacy Asserted. " The question between us is not,
whether the Reformers of the Church of England
believed that Presbyterian ordination is valid, where
no other can be had; but whether Episcopacy is of
Apostolic and Divine Institution 1 That they (the
Reformers) believed it is, has been proved beyond all
reasonable contradiction; (by a consideration of the
Articles, Ordinal, &c.) It was not the business of
the Reformers to say in the above Article (the 23rd),
that the Divine Institution of Episcopacy necessarily
precludes from the character of Churches, those which
have not the order of Bishops. They said enough,
when they declared that 'it is evident unto all men dili-
gently reading Holy Scripture, and ancient Authors,
that from the Apostles' time there have been these
Orders of ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons ;' 7 and when they said, that ' no
AnglicancB Vindicice, ch. xxviii. p. 328 ; and Dr. HICKES'S Preface to
the Divine Right of Episcopacy Asserted, pp. 38 41.)
7 " You have these words in the Books of Consecration of Arch-
bishops and Bishops, which is confirmed by Parliament : ' It is
evident to all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient
authors, that, from the Apostles' 1 time, there have been these orders
of ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.'
And again, the prayer in the form of consecrating Bishops :
' Almighty God, giver of all good things, who by thy Holy Spirit
hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church; merci-
fully behold this thy servant now called to the work and ministry of
95
man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful
Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in the Church of England,
or suffered to execute any of the said functions,
except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted
thereunto, according to the form hereafter following,
or hath had formerly Episcopal Consecration or Ordi-
nation.' It is clear, beyond all controversy, from the
above declarations, that the Reformers maintained the
Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy ; and therefore,
when they say, in the twenty-third Article, that ' it
is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office
of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in
the congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent
to execute the same ;' the words 'before he be lawfully
called and sent,' must necessarily be interpreted by the
a Bishop.' And in the question to the person to be consecrated
Bishop, ' Are you persuaded that you be truly called to this minis-
tration, according to the mil of our Lord Jesus Christ,' &c. I
beseech you, Sir, consider whether these words, or the prayer,
could fall from any man not possessed with this tenent, that Epis-
copacy is of Divine riglit ? For if the three Orders may be found
by reading Scripture, together with ancient authors, if men are
taught to pray, that God 'by His Spirit hath appointed divers
Orders in His Church,' and this be made the ground of praying for
the present Bishop, if the person to be consecrated must profess,
that he is ' called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ ;'
either all this must be nothing but pure pageantry, and then the
Parliament mocked God by their confirmation of the office ; or else
Episcopacy is grounded on Scripture, is appointed by the Spirit of
God, is according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ; and all
this hath not ' been said of late only,' and ' countenanced solely by
some few of the more lordly clergy.'" A Discourse of Episco-
pacy and Sacrilege, written in 1640, by Richard Steward, D.D.,
Clerk of the Closet to King Charles the First, p. 4.
96
words in the Preface to the Ordinal; viz., 'No man
shall be accounted or taken for a lawful Bishop, Priest,
or Deacon, except he be called according to the form
hereafter following, or hath had formerly Episcopal
Consecration or Ordination.' 8 Here it is evident that
8 The words in the Preface to the Ordinal, in 1552, were these :
" And therefore to the intent these orders should be continued
and reverently used and esteemed in this Church of England ; it is
requisite that no man (not being at this present Bishop, Priest, nor
Deacon) shall execute any of them, except he be called, tried,
examined, and admitted, according to the form hereafter following."
Dr. Bowden's words were adopted at the Savoy Conference. I
would only add that in "the form hereafter following," in 1552,
occur, as at present, these words, "Almighty God, giver of all
good things, who by thy Holy Spirit hast appointed divers orders of
Ministers in thy Church, mercifully behold this thy servant, now
called to the office of" Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, as the case may
be. Let any man compare these words with the following passages
in the Preface, and he will be at no loss to learn the opinions of our
Reformers on the Apostolical and Divine Institution of Episcopacy :
" It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture, and
ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there hath been these
orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and
Deacons : which offices were evermore had in such reverent esti-
mation, that no man by his own private authority 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, approved
and admitted thereto." Then follows the passage which I have
given above. " We see, therefore, that our Church rejects the
ministry of all who have not been thus (Episcopally) ordained, even
though they come from foreign countries thus seeming to imply
the absolute necessity of Episcopal Ordination, to confer the minis-
terial character ; for, by the most universally admitted rule of
Christian communion, all who are constituted Christ's ministers in
any one portion of his Church, carry with them their character and
commission in every other into which they may migrate." The
BISHOP of EXETEK'S Ordination Sermon, 1843, page 27.
97
the Reformers consider none as lawful Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons, without Episcopal ordination ;
at the same time, they say nothing about Presbyterian 9
9 Mr. Macaulay, referring to a later period, tells us (p. 76), that
" It was even held that Presbyterian ministers were entitled to place
and voice in oecumenical councils. When the States General of
the United Provinces convoked at Dort a synod of doctors not
episcopally ordained, an English Bishop and an English Dean,
commissioned by the head of the English Church, sate with those
doctors, preached to them, and voted with them on the gravest
questions of theology." And in a note it is added, "Joseph Hall,
then Dean of Worcester, and afterwards Bishop of Norwich, was
one of the Commissioners. In his life of himself, he says : ' My
unworthiness was named for one of the assistants of that honorable,
grave, and reverend meeting.' To high churchmen this humility
will seem not a little out of place." One word, therefore, in part-
ing, respecting the Synod of Dort. I am not about to enter upon
a defence of either the ' English Bishop ' or the ' English Dean,' so
far as regards their presence at the Synod of Dort ; though the
object of their mission can scarcely be doubted; but it may be
interesting to learn, that " the thirty-first article in the Belgic Con-
fession, which maintained ministerial parity, was opposed by the
British Divines, who had been sent to that Synod, (viz., George
Carleton, D.D., then Bishop of Llandaff, Joseph Hall, D.D., then
Dean of Worcester, John Davenant, D.D., Margaret-professor, and
Master of Queen's College, in Cambridge, and Samuel Ward, D.D.,
Master of Sidney College, in Cambridge, and Archdeacon of
Taunton). Bishop Carleton, in his own name and that of his
colleagues, publicly protested against it, as we learn from his
declaration published on his return. " His words are these :
"When we were to yield our consent to the Belgic Confession at
Dort, I made open protestation in the Synod, that whereas in the
Confession there was inserted a strange conceit of the parity of
ministers to be instituted by Christ, I declared our dissent utterly
in that point. I sho.wed, that by Christ a parity was never in the
Church; that he ordained twelve Apostles, as also seventy Disciples;
that the authority of the twelve was above the other; that the
Church preserved this order left by our Saviour. And therefore
98
ordination, leaving it to shift for itself, upon the plea
of necessity, or any other plea its advocates may
when the extraordinary power of the Apostles ceased, yet this ordi-
nary authority continued in bishops ivho succeeded them, who were
by the Apostles left in the government of the Church, to ordain
ministers, and to see that they ivho tvere so ordained should preach no
other doctrine ; that in an inferior degree the ministers who were
governed by bishops succeeded the seventy disciples; that this order
hath been maintained in the Church from the times of the Apostles.
And herein I appealed to the judgment of antiquity, and to the
judgment of any learned man now living ; and craved herein to be
satis/led, if any man of learning could speak to the contrary. My
lord of Salisbury (Bishop Devenant) is my witness, and so are all
the rest of our company, who spake also in the cause." See Collier,
book viii. Again, in the language of Bishop Hobart, " Let us
pass on to the testimony of the Reformed Church of Holland in
favour of Episcopacy, made by the famous Synod of Dort. At this
Synod several of the Bishops of England attended by invitation.
In a Tract which these Bishops published, they declare, ' In our
private converse with the most eminent of the ministry, we found
many more ready to deplore than to defend their own estate, and
wished, rather than hoped, to be made like the flourishing Church
of England.' And when the British Delegates ' asserted publicly
and openly in the Synod THE DIVINE RIGHT OF EPISCOPACY, and
appealed therein to the judgment of antiquity,' the Members of the
Synod replied, ' that they had a great respect and value for the
good Order and Discipline of the Church of England, and wished
with all their hearts that the same Order were observed and settled
there ; that they durst not, however, hope for such a happiness in
the present state of affairs ; but hoped that, though their ability
bore no proportion to their will, God would assist them by his grace
and favour, and that they would do all in their power towards it.'
A famous Divine of the same Church, Le Moyne, Professor of
Divinity at Leyden, in Holland, in a letter addressed to the Bishop
of London (Compton) in 1680, not only defends Episcopacy, but
expressly asserts that it had ahvays subsisted throughout the uni-
versal Church ; 'for the EPISCOPAL Government, tvhat is there in it
that is dangerous, &c. &c. For the space of fifteen hundred years,
99
advance in its favour. This, considering the danger
to which the whole Reformation was exposed, was a
all the other churches of the world had no other kind of government.'
And he adds, ' And from whence does it then come, that some
Englishmen themselves have so ill an opinion of the Church of Eng-
land at present, and divide rashly from her, as they do ? Is not this
to divide from all the ancient Churches, and from all the Churches of
the East?'" (See Letter, in the Appendix to STILLINGFLEEI'S
Unreasonableness of Separation, p. 403) ; HOBART'S Apology for
Apostolic Order, &c. p. 95. Again : " At the Synod of Dort, held
in 1619, the Bishop of Llandaff, one of the English Divines who
attended it, openly controverted a proposition inserted in the
Calvinist Confession of Faith of the Low Countries, that Christ
established an equality among Ministers of the Gospel. He said
that Christ chose twelve Apostles and seventy Disciples ; that the
Apostles had authority and inspection over all the other Ministers
of the Gospel ; and that the Church had preserved the same sub-
ordination, constantly and without interruption ; for which he
appealed to all antiquity, and to all the learned at present, and
challenged the Synod to prove the contrary. And it was very
remarkable that not one member of the Synod undertook to answer
him." Dr. MALE'S Analysis of Chronology, vol. iii. p. 398.
Again, to quote Dr. Wells, " The good opinion which the Church
of Holland hath of our Episcopacy may be learnt from a Tract
entitled, ( A Joint Attestation, avowing that the Discipline of the
Church of England ivas not impeached by the Synod of Dort.' For
the Bishops and other ministers of our Church sent over to that
Synod, give us in the fore-mentioned Attestation these particulars
following; viz., ' In our private converse with the most eminent of
the ministry, we found many, upon our declaring unto them the
Order and Government of our Church, more ready to deplore than
defend their own estate, and wished, rather than hoped, to be made
like the flourishing Church of England.' We are farther assured
by the same Right Reverend and Reverend persons, that when the
Belgic Confession was propounded to the consideration of that
Synod, there being some Articles therein which did not agree with
the discipline of our Church, 'twas therefore ' provided, that before
the examining or reading the said Confession, a Protestation should
100
mark of prudence ; but I think no impartial and
candid man can consider it as affording the smallest
be made by the President of the Synod, that nothing but the
Doctrinal points was subjected to their consideration and suffrages;'
and that accordingly (in respect to the discipline of the British
Church) such articles of the Belgic Confession, as did not comport
therewith, were suppressed in the reading of that Confession to the
Synod."* Nay, we are farther assured, that whereas "the British
Delegates did think fit (notwithstanding so great a condescension of
the other party) openly and publicly in the Synod, to assert THE
DIVINE RIGHT OF EPISCOPACY, and to appeal therein to the judg-
ment of antiquity, or of any learned man then living, if any could
speak to the contrary, &c., yet to these allegations of our Dele-
gates none of the other party replied, but rather approved of such
their necessary and just performing their bounden duty to the
Church of England." Dr. WELLS'S Testimonies, Domestick and
Foreign, concerning Episcopacy ', p. 14. Lastly, hear Bishop Hall :
" There is witness enough in the late Synod of Dort. When the
Bishop of Llandaff had, in a speech of his, touched upon Episcopal
Government, and shewed that the want thereof gave opportunities
to those divisions, which were then on foot in the Netherlands,
Bogermannus, the President of that Assembly, stood up, and in a
good allowance of what had been spoken, said, Domine, nos non
* The above is an interesting fact, as lending to throw some light upon the
object which the King had in view, in sending the British Divines to the Synod of
Dort. We learn that all discussion on the subject of Episcopacy and Church
Government was, through the intervention of the English representatives,
suppressed; and we learn that "to the foreign assembly at Dort the Scottish
malignants applied for redress, under the grievances they pretended to complain
of, about Episcopacy, and the Five Articles of Perth ; but their application was
to no purpose. That Convention meddled with nothing but those abstruse
points of speculative divinity which were before them; they entered into no
extraneous discussion of any kind." (SKINNER'S Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 272.)
Now, we well know how anxious James was to retain Episcopacy in Scotland, and
how hostile he was to these " Scottish Malignants ;" and it requires no great
ingenuity to connect the ardent wish of the King, with the mission of our Divines,
and the appeal for redress on the part of the Scotch Presbyterians, with the
suppression of discussion on the subject of such appeal, through the instrumen-
tality of the English Delegates.
101
proof that the Reformers did not consider Episcopacy
as of Divine Institution, and Presbyterian ordina-
tion as irregular, and totally destitute of Apostolic
sanction." 1 (vol. ii. pp. 31-3.)
sumiis adeo fcelices : ' Alas ! my Lord, we are not so happy.'
Neither did he speak this in a fashionable compliment ; neither
the person, nor the place, nor the hearers, were fit for that ; but in
a sad gravity, and conscionable profession of a known truth.
Neither would he, being the mouth of that select assembly, have
thought it safe to pass those words before the Deputies of the
States, and so many venerable Divines of foreign parts, (besides
their own,) if he had not supposed this so clear a truth, as that
Synod would neither disrelish nor contradict. What, do I single
out a few? All the world of men, judicious and not prejudiced
with their own interests, both do and must say thus ; and confess,
with learned Casaubon, Fregevill, and Saravia, that no Church in
the ivorld comes so near to the APOSTOLIC form, as the Church of
England.'" Episcopacy by Divine Right, Works, vol. x. p. 151.
The reader will find the above interesting and important statements,
respecting the Synod of Dort, amply corroborated, by referring to
BRANDT'S History of the Reformation in the Low- Countries. (See vol.
iii. book xl. p. 288.) I would also refer him to the Ada Synodi,
in the Golden Remains of John Hales, of Eton, from which I extract
the following : " Sessio 145. 30 Aprilis. Britanni monent
de tribus capitibus, quce Ordinem Ecclesiasticum spectant, se nullam
ferre sententiam, sed interim putare se regimen Ecclesiarum suarum
esse INSTITOTIONIS APOSTOLIC^:. Episcopus autem Landavensis,
oratione brevissimd, contra ilia tria praedicta capita perorabat ; con-
tendebatquc in Ecclesia, nequc Apostolorum temporibus, neque postea
unquamfuisse ministrorum aequalitatem." (p. 544.)
1 The reader may consult with advantage, ' THOMAS'S Answer to
Owen's Plea for Scripture Ordination,' ' recommended in a Preface
by Dr. George Hickes,' especially chap.x. pp. 90 104. ' HOBART'S
Apology for Apostolic Order,' will also well repay a careful perusal.
In the second edition of my ' Ordination Sermons," pp. 125 167, I
have given abundant authorities in favour of " the Divine Institution
of Episcopacy being maintained by the Reformers of the Anglican
Church:'
ADDENDUM.
As Bishop Carleton has been brought so prominently before my
readers, under the designation of "an English Bishop" who was
present at the Synod of Dort, his judgment upon questions of grave
importance, bearing on the subject-matter of the previous pages,
will doubtless be acceptable. It will be seen that the following
extracts from the Bishop's work, " On Jurisdiction, Regal, Episcopal,
and Papal" are replete with valuable remarks, not only on the
point of Episcopacy, but also on the question of Regal and Eccle-
siastical Jurisdiction : and a careful perusal of Carleton's positions
may tend to elucidate the character of Cranmer's Commission, and to
solve some difficulties which are supposed to be connected therewith.
" Of the Jurisdiction of Princes, in Causes and over Persons
Ecclesiastical.
" CHAP. i. The state of the Question.
" Concerning the King's right, we hold that, in external coactive
Jurisdiction, the King hath supreme authority in all cases, and over
all persons, ecclesiastical as well as civil Concerning the
ministerial head, we say with the ancient Fathers, that the Catholick
Church is but one, and hath one head, Christ Jesus : because to one
body there can be but one head, from whom grace is infused to the
whole body. This Catholick Church is, as that head is, both per-
fectly known to God, not to man : this, then, is but one in all times
and places. But the visible Churches or particular, are many, at
many times, in many places ; and therefore must have heads or
governors, answerable to themselves : for many Churches, many
governors. These are either spiritual governors or temporal. The
spiritual government of the Church is committed to spiritual
governors; as, first from Christ to his twelve Apostles, of whom
104
none was above the rest in this spiritual government or kingdom of
Christ, as the Lord doth often expressly declare to them: from
them to Bishops and Pastors, their successors. Temporal governors
are such as have the custody of external coactive jurisdiction, both
in temporal and ecclesiastical causes ; for the power of the Church,
with all her spiritual jurisdiction, never reached to coaction. This
was by God first given to magistrates, and never revoked, in all
times practised, but when the Church and Kings were oppressed by
the great power of Antichrist. When we call the King the
supreme governor of the Church, our meaning is, that he is ap-
pointed by God to be a Father and preserver of religion, a keeper
of ecclesiastical discipline, and, as the Prophet Isaiah calleth him,
a nursing Father of the Church ; he is the Sovereign in all affairs
of coactive Jurisdiction Let the distinction be remembered,
which is usually received of Ecclesiastical power ; for all power
Ecclesiastical is commonly divided into power of order and of juris-
diction. The power of order, by all writers that I could see, even of
the Church of Rome, is understood to be immediately from Christ,
given to all Bishops and Priests alike, by their Consecration
As they confess that in this power the Pope hath no pre-eminence,
but that it is given from Christ to all Bishops and Pastors equally,
so we confess that in this power the Prince hath no part, and that
Bishops and Pastors have this power only from the Divine Ordi-
nance, and not from earthly Princes Then of this we are
agreed, that the question between us and them is only of jurisdic-
tion in the third* sense, and therein especially of jurisdiction coactive
in external courts; binding and compelling by force of law, and
other external mulcts and punishments, beside excommunication.
As for spiritual jurisdiction of the Church, standing in examinations
of controversies of faith, judging of heresies, deposing of hereticks,
excommunication of notorious and stubborn offenders, Ordination
of Priests and Deacons, institution and collation of benefices and
spiritual cures, &c., this we reserve entire to the Church, which
Princes cannot give or take from the Church. This power hath
been practised by the Church, without coactive jurisdiction, other
than of excommunication. But when the matters handled in the
Ecclesiastical Consistory, are not matters of Faith and Religion, but
* The other two senses, of which the Bishop had spoken, being the 'power of
Order,' and ' internal Jurisdiction.'
105
of a civil nature, which yet are called Ecclesiastical, as being given
by Princes, and appointed to be within the cognizance of that Con-
sistory ; and when the censures are not spiritual, but carnal, com-
pulsive, coactive, here appeareth the power of the civil magistrate.
This power we yield to the magistrate Then this is the
thing which we are to prove, that Ecclesiastical coactive power, by
force of law and corporal punishments, by which Christian people
are to be governed in external and contentious courts, is a power
which of right belongeth to Christian Princes. Concerning the
power of Orders, and institutions, of excommunication and deposi-
tion, and of internal jurisdiction in the Court of Conscience, and in
administration of Sacraments, and absolution by power of the
Keys, this we give not to Princes : but Princes, as they are pre-
servers of Religion, and nursing Fathers of the Church, are to see
that Bishops and all inferior ministers perform their faithful duties
in their several places, and if they be found faulty, to punish them ;
because that belongeth to external jurisdiction coactive. Thus
much may suffice for the state of the question.
"CHAP. ii. Kings, in the time of the Law of Nature, had all
power Ecclesiastical, both of Order and Jurisdiction.
"CHAP. in. All external Jurisdiction coactive, was a right
belonging to Kings under the Law,
" CHAP. iv. External coactive Jurisdiction was not left by
Christ to his Church, nor practised by the Church all that while
that the Church was without Christian Magistrates : wherein is
declared the Jurisdiction of the Church, and of Bishops, that the
power of excommunication proceeded not to coaction.
" The things which belonged to Apostolical Jurisdiction, either
concerned the government of the ministry, or of the whole Church.
Touching the government of the ministry, these things belonged to
the Apostles so long as they lived, and afterwards to Bishops, their
successors. First, a power to ordain ministers. Thus did Paul
and Barnabas when they called Churches through Lycaonia, Pisidia,
and Pamphylia. ' They ordained Elders in every Church ' : Elders,
that is, Pastors, Preachers, to preserve the doctrine continually,
which the Apostles had once planted. And this charge to ordain
Elders or Priests, did the Apostles leave also to them that succeeded
in the government of the Church. This Commission St. Paul gave
to Titus. ' For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst
continue to redress the things that remain, and ordain Elders in
106
every city, as I appointed thee ' : which ordaining signifieth also
institution in the place or cure they ministered in.
" The Apostles had also in themselves, and left to their successors,
power and jurisdiction to command those Pastors which thus they
had ordained, to preach the truth without mixture of false doctrines.
This power, as St. Paul had in himself, so he left the same to
Timothy, and consequently to others. ' As I besought thee to
abide still in Ephesus, when I departed to Macedonia, so do ; that
thou mayest command some that they teach no other doctrine.'
These were the principal parts of jurisdiction which the Apostles
left to their successors, to continue in the Church for ever. For
the end and use of this Government is perpetual, as to ordain
Preachers, and to see that they, so ordained, should teach the
truth without heresy. It followeth certainly, that such Governors as
the Apostles themselves ordained in the Church for these perpetual
uses, are to remain perpetual Governors in the Church. Thus was
the government of Bishops placed by the Apostles, to stand and
continue till the end of the world, because the Apostles placed these
for the Ordination of ministers, and the preservation of true doctrines.
For they who answer, that these offices and places, wherein the
Apostles placed Timothy and Titus, were either extraordinary, or to
endure for a short time, do not consider the end and use of such
places ; which end and use is neither extraordinary nor temporary,
but ordinary and perpetual. For ministers must be ordained, and
commanded to preserve the truth without heresy, so long as the
Church standeth. Then the necessity and use of the ends, will
prove the like necessity and use of these Governors, which by the
Apostles were placed for these ends.
* 4 *.'** 4
" Further, concerning the extension of this jurisdiction, it cannot
be denied, but that there is a power in the Church, not only internal,
but also of external jurisdiction : of internal power there is no
question made. External jurisdiction, being understood all that is
practised in external courts or consistories, is either difinitive or
mulctative. Authority difinitive in matters of faith and religion,
belongeth to the Church. Mulctative power may be understood,
either as it is referred to spiritual censures, or as it is with coaction :
as it standeth in spiritual censures, it is the right of the Church, and
was practised by the Church, when the Church was without a
Christian magistrate, and since. But coactive jurisdiction was
107
never practised by the Church, when the Church was without
Christian magistrates ; but was always understood to belong to the
civil magistrate, whether he were Christian or Heathen. We deny
not but that the Apostles did sometimes take vengeance upon the
disobedient, but that was not by the material sword, (in the power
whereof we place coaction,) but by the spiritual sword, which always
shewed itself in their ministry, sometimes in an extraordinary
manner, as in the striking of Ananias and Sapphira with present
death, in the striking of Elymas the sorcerer with blindness, and
such like. These were signs of extraordinary power ; but we seek
here the ordinary jurisdiction of the Apostles, which they left to
their successors.
" Upon these grounds, joined with the assured knowledge of the
history of those times, the ancient Fathers deliver it as a truth never
questioned, nor doubted, that in the government of the Church, the
Bishops are the undoubted Successors of the Apostles. Irenaeus,
speaking of hereticks, saith : ' Omnes hi posteriores sunt Episcopis,
quibus Apostoli tradiderunt Ecclesias, If Bishops were before any
hereticks, they were questionless in the Apostles' time, and by the
Apostles instituted, because some hereticks were even in the
Apostles' time. Irenaeus saith also : ' Habcmus annumerare eos,
qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis.' And a little
after : ' Quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant.' And again in
the same place : ' Quos et successores reliquerunt, suum ipsonim
locum magisterii tradentes.' Cyprian saith : ' Potestas peccatorum re-
mittendorum Apostolis data est, et Ecclesiis, quas itti a Christo missi
constituerunt, et Episcopis qui eis ordinatione vicaria successerunt.' 1
The same he hath also Epist. 69. Hierome saith : ' Potentia
divitiarum, et paupertatis humilitas, vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem
Episcopum non facit. Cceterum omnes Apostolorum successores
sunt.' It were hard to kick against all these pricks ; against so
evident grounds of Scripture, so express testimonies of Fathers,
to devise a new government of the Church. Leaving the ancient
and known government, which hath the testimony of those that
lived in the first age, and heard and saw those that were endued
with miraculous gifts, (as Irenaeus testifieth of himself, that he heard
those which spake by the Spirit in all languages, and saw them who
often raised the dead to life again). Leaving, I say, the testimony
of these, whose name and authority is so reverend in the Church,
and striving for a government which came but of late to the know-
108
ledge of men, seemeth to proceed from affections too much blinded
with the love of innovation.
" But though this be true, that Bishops, in the government of the
Church succeed the Apostles, yet we are cautiously to distinguish
between the things, wherein they succeed the Apostles, and those
things which, since the Apostles' times, have been added to their
government by godly Princes. For the preservation of true doc-
trine in the Church, the Bishops are the great watchmen. Herein
they are authorized by God. If Princes withstand them in these
things, they have warrant not to obey Princes, because with these
things Christ hath put them in trust. Therefore St. Paul saith not
that it is the King's office, but the Bishop's, to command that they
teach no other doctrine. Upon which ground, St. Ambrose was
bold to withstand Valentinian, Emperor. For Ambrose as the
watchman of the Church of Milan, would not suffer Auxentius, an
Arian Bishop, to have any place to teach in his Diocese. Auxen-
tius complained to the Emperor, as the contention grew thus
between them ; the one like a vigilant watchman, seeking to
remove all dangers from his flock, the other like a wolf, seeking
to spoil. At the earnest entreaty of Auxentius, the Emperor
willed that the cause between these two might be heard in the
Ecclesiastical consistory, and that the Emperor might sit as judge
in the cause. This thing Ambrose utterly denied ; and of this he
writeth thus to the Emperor : ' Quando audisti, clementissime Im-
perator, in causa Jidei, Laicos de Episcopo judicasse ? ' And again :
' Si vel Scripturarum seriem divinanim, vel vetera tempora tracte-
mus, quis est qui abnuat in causa Jidei, in causa, inquam, jidei,
Episcofjos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis, non Imperatores de
Episcopo j'.idicare?' And in another place : ' Volens nunquam jus
deseram, coactus repugnare non novi ; arma enim nostra preces sunt
et lachrymal This example of Ambrose's courage is worthily
commended by all posterity, wherein this worthy man seemeth to
direct a true rule of obedience. For Justina, the Emperor's
mother, seeing she could not draw Ambrose to favour the Arians,
purposed to put him from the government of the Church. Which
thing would have been effected, if he had not refused to appear in
the Court, where the Emperor was to sit as judge. There appeared
in him courage, godliness, and exact obedience, all truly tempered.
He denieth the Emperor to be a sufficient judge in a cause of faith
and religion. ' In causa Jidei, in causa, inquam, Jidei.' For this he
109
repeateth precisely, desirous to be rightly understood : he would
rather die than admit such an example as to betray the truth, and
that Commission and charge wherein God hath set him. And yet
if the Emperor would by force do any thing, he denieth that there
is any power in him, or in the Church, to resist by force. The faith
and right of the Church was not, in his judgment, to be maintained
by force and arms, but by prayers and tears. Thus resolute is this
godly man in the cause of faith against the Emperor ; but in other
causes he claimeth no privilege, no immunities, and therefore in the
same place he saith : ' Si tributum petit Imperator, non negamus ;
agri Eeclesice tributum solvunt.' Athanasius, speaking to Constans,
the Emperor, saith : ' Let religious Bishops persuade the Emperor,
that he corrupt not the Church, nor mingle the Roman Empire with
Ecclesiastical Constitutions.' And Hilary, writing to Constantius,
saith to the same purpose : ' Provideat et decernat dementia tua]
&c. ' Let your clemency provide and establish, that all judges, to
whom the care of public business belongeth, may abstain from
religious constitutions.' Thus did the ancient Bishops govern the
Church ; not suffering any King or Emperor to meddle with the
determinations of matters of faith : for of such matters are these
testimonies to be understood, and only of such. In like manner,
Chrysostome resisted Gaina, General of the Forces of Arcadius,
Emperor, who would have had a Church within Constantinople for
himself and the Arians. The Emperor was willing to gratify him,
or not willing to displease him for his greatness ; but John Chrysos-
tome did utterly deny it, as a thing unlawful. Thus by the warrant
of Scriptures and examples of Fathers, we give to Ccesar all coactive
power which is due to him ; but spiritual government we give not to
him : this is that government which is reserved to Bishops, as the
Apostles' successors. After which example Gregory the First writeth
thus : " Serenissimi domini animum non ignoro, quod se in causis
sacerdotalibus miscere non soleat.' Gregory calleth those causes
with which the Emperors meddled not, causas sacerdotales ; mean-
ing thereby, the same which Ambrose calleth ' causes of Faith.'
#####*#-
" As Christ left an equality and parity among his Apostles, often
affirming and confirming that one of them should not be greater
than another ; and yet the Apostles were in government above
other ministers ; and that by the institution of Christ himself ; for
the Lord, after that he had chosen his twelve Apostles, did choose
110
also seventy Disciples, 'and sent them two and two before him, into
every city where he himself should come,' saith St. Luke ; then
Christ himself is the author of this Order in the Church, which the
Church hath since that time ever held ; the Bishops succeeding the
Apostles, as the inferior Pastors succeeded the seventy Disciples.
So the Apostles after them left the like equality among Bishops,
that one of them should not be above another ; and yet Bishops in
government above other ministers : for jurisdiction was never in the
multitude, but in governors, the Bishops then being the governors
after the Apostles, the like jurisdiction was in all. As Cypr. saith :
' Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis pars in solidum tenetur.' And
Hierome saith : ' Ubicunque fuerit Episcopus, sive Romce, sive
Eugubii, &c., ejusdem meriti, ejusdem est et Sacerdotii. ' "
CARLETON'S Jurisdiction, Regal, Episcopal, Papal; ch. i. iv. pp.
547.
The reader will find this deeply important question treated of in
Archbishop BRAMHALL'S Schism Guarded; especially sect. i. cap. ix.
in whose words I conclude : " All the Schools have tied TWO KEYS
to the CHURCH'S girdle, the KEY or ORDER, and the KEY OF
JURISDICTION ; and I do not mean to rob my Mother of one of her
KEYS." Works, torn. i. dis. iv. p. 338.
PLYMOUTH :
Printed by LIDSTONE and BRENDON,
George Street.
THE PURITY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
AND
THE CORRUPTIONS OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.
A SEEMON
PREACHED AT THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF
ST. PETER, EXETER, NOV. 5, 1852,
AND PUBLISHED BY REQUEST.
Wty Cnjiine Sllnstarthtt Jtos.
BY
E. C, HARINGTON, M. A.,
CHANCELLOR OF THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF EXETER.
LONDON : F. & J. RIVINGTON.
EXETER : A. IIOLDEN.
1852.
TO THE
MEMBERS OF THE EXETER DIOCESAN BOARD
OF EDUCATION,
TO THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF THE EXETER
DIOCESAN TRAINING COLLEGE,
AND TO THE SUBSCRIBERS TO THE BUILDING FUND,
(\VITII THE UNFEIGNED DESIRE THAT HIS LABOURS
AS THEOLOGICAL LECTURER AT THE COLLEGE,
MAY ENABLE THE STUDENTS TO RECOGNISE THE CATHOLICITY OF THEIR OWK
CHURCH, AND TO REJECT THE MANIFOLD ERRORS AND THE
MONSTROUS ASSUMPTIONS OF THE CHURCH OF ROME,)
THIS PUBLICATION IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED,
BY THEIR HONORARY SECRETARY,
THE AUTHOR.
SERMON.
" I confess unto thee that after the way which they call Heresy,
so worship I the God of my Fathers." Acts xxiv. 14.
O ! FOR the warning voice of the Apocalypse, to im-
press the sentiments of the Ancient British Church
upon the minds of those of her posterity, who are
now members of that Church which their ancestors
so strongly condemned ; that, extricating themselves
from the magic bonds of Popish Supremacy 1 and
Popish Infallibility, they might emancipate their
minds from all impediments to the "knowledge of
the truth," and return to their original simplicity
and their ancient independence ! " Nevertheless,"
says St. John, in the address to the Angel of the
Church of Ephesus, "I have somewhat against thee,
because thou hast left thy first love. Remember,
therefore, from whence thou art fallen, and repent,
and do the first works ; or else I will come to thee
quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his
place, except thou repent." 2 How far this address
1 " Et cum de necessitudine salidis existat omncs Christ! fideles
Romano Pontifici subesse, prout divina Scriptura et Sanctorum
Patrum testimonio edocemur, ac Constitutione felicis memoria3
Bonifacii Papa? VIII. similitcr, predecessoris nostri, qua? incipit
' Unam Sanctam' declarator," &c. Cone. Lat. 5 Leo X., An.
Dam. 1616. Sacro Cone. Labb. et Cosaaii., (Paris., 1672.)
2 Rev. ii. 4, 5.
to the Ephesians is applicable to the members of
the Church of Rome at the present day, a careful
study of the History of that Church, and an enquiry
into the progress of Romish 3 errors, would clearly
demonstrate. Nor is the contemplation of the
character of our own Church, as contrasted with
that of Rome, a subject inapplicable to the appointed
services of this day, in which we thank God "for
the deliverance of our Church and nation from
Popish tyranny and arbitrary power." From politics,
as such, I ever have, and trust ever shall, carefully
abstain ; but no power on earth shall persuade me to
refrain, as a minister of Christ, from endeavouring to
correct errors on matters purely religious matters
which relate to each of us as members of the
Anglican Branch of Christ's Holy Catholic Church.
Nor do I conceive that I can more advantageously
occupy your attention at the present moment, than
in pointing out to you the much forgotten fact,
that we, as members of the Reformed Church of
England, hold those doctrines, which, prior to the
rise and dissemination of Romish errors, were the
doctrines of our own Church.
In the minds of many, even of tolerably well
informed members of our Church, the doctrines
and discipline of the Church of England are so
closely connected with the events of the Reforma-
tion in the sixteenth century, that it scarcely occurs
to them, that her doctrines and her discipline are
3 See Bishop Bull's Conniptions of the Church of Rome.
coeval with the establishment of Christianity in this
island, probably in the first century : that the doc-
trines we profess are not, as the Papists tell us, the
peculiar doctrines of Luther or of Calvin, nor are
they the distinctive doctrines of Cranmer or of
Melancthon, but they are the doctrines of the
Bible ; they are truths, which were preached in
this island at a very early period of the Christian
era, and probably propagated among our British
ancestors by an inspired Apostle; 4 they are truths,
which were retained amongst us uncorrupted, till
the various emissaries of Rome, in after ages, ob-
scured the pure light of the gospel, by a mass of
Romish novelties, and " spoiled " us of our faith,
by introducing " the traditions of men."
In directing your attention to the early history
of your own Church, I shall, perhaps, enter upon
a wider field of historical relation, than is consistent
with the character of a sermon, or, in fact, generally
4 To those who may be desirous of pursuing the interesting
question of the introduction of Christianity into this island, any
of the following works will afford ample information : Usher's
Britannicarum Eccksiarum Antiqnitatcs, cap. 1, vol. v., p. 19,
edit. 1846; Stillingfieet's Ongines Britannicce, cap. 1, pp. 35-48 ;
Mason's Vindici', p. 53, edit. 1728; Collier's Ecclesiastical
History ) book 1, p. 12, edit. 1840 ; Burgess' Tracts On tlte
Origin and Independence of the Ancient British Church- Soames's
Anglo-Saxon Church, p. 3; Palmer's Ongines Liturgica?, vol. ii.,
p. 250, Note; Bates's Ctllcge Lectures, part iii., Lcct. i., p. 179 ;
Churton's Early English Church, p. 1 1 ; or Yeowell's Chronicles
of the Ancient British Church.
desirable : but this is not an ordinary occasion ; and
the importance of the subject, and its very inte-
resting character to every member of the Angli-
can Church, will be my best apology. The grave
nature of the question will be readily seen, when
we consider, that we thus connect the period,
when the British Church was entirely unpolluted
by any admixture with the - corruptions of Rome,
with that of the Reformation, when our Church
was enabled to .detect, and consequently to reject,
the various errors which had, during the previous
centuries, progressively spread throughout the length
and breadth of the land. And let me advise you,
instead of rejecting the subject as difficult and
doubtful, to lay up in your memories the principal
facts, and you will find such knowledge highly
useful in endeavouring to "convince the gainsayer."
That Christianity was not first introduced into
Britain by the Roman missionary St. Austin, at
the close of the sixth century, as we so frequently
hear asserted, the seven Bishops whom he found
here, and the Metropolitan whom .they acknow-
ledged, afford abundant proof. That Christianity
was never extinct in Britain, but had existed in
our island from its earliest introduction, probably
in the middle of the first century, every century
that preceded the arrival of St. Austin has its own
historical proof. In the seventh century, we have
proof of a meeting of British Bishops and clergy,
for the express purpose of considering the demands
made upon them by the Pope's missionary. The
facts, as recorded by ancient historians, 5 are these :
" Upon their assembling, the British Bishops were
thus addressed by the emissary of the Pope, ' In
many things,' said he, 'you act contrary to our cus-
toms, and to the usages of the Universal Church ;
notwithstanding, if ye will obey me in these three
things, viz., in observing the Easter Festival after
our manner ; using the same rites in Baptism,
which are used by the Holy Roman Church ; and
join with us in preaching to the English, in other
things we will bear with you.' ' And what was the
reply of our own Bishops ? That " they would not
comply with him in any one of these particulars,
nor own him for their Archbishop ; that it was not
for British interest to own the Roman pride ; and
that they knew of no obedience to the Pope, but
what they owed to every Christian, for that the
British Bishops had no superior but the Arch-
bishop of St. Davids," the then metropolitan city
of Wales. Such was the noble language of British
Bishops in the year 601.
6 See Inett's Oriyincs Anglicana 1 , cli. 3 ; and Bingham's Anti-
quities of the Christian Church, book ix., ch. i.
6 I am aware, that the primary object in the mission of St. Aus-
tin was a desire on the part of Gregory to convert the Saxons,
and that the Patriarch of Rome appears to have been ignorant
of the existence of the British Church, a strange fact, by the
bye, in connection with the assertion on the part of the Papists,
that Britain was at that time under the jurisdiction of the
10
" Thus," to adopt the language of Bishop Bull,
" it is evident that the Bishop of Rome was not re-
Roman Patriarchate. But St. Austin, be it remembered,
arrived in Britain in the year 597, and the interview with
the British Bishops did not take place till 601, so that he had
had ample opportunity of making himself acquainted with the
state of the Church in Britain, and of preventing a breach of
the 8th Canon of Ephesus, which he committed by sanctioning
" an innovation which was contrary to the laws of the Church,
and the Canons of the Holy Fathers, and which affected the
liberty of all," as expressed by the Ephesine Canon in the case
of the intrusion of the Bishop of Antioch into the jurisdiction of
the Cypriot Bishops. The following passage from Inett will
elucidate this point.
" Having viewed the directions which Gregory gave for the
change of the Pagan to Christian usages, it Aviil be needful to
return, and consider the model he sent over to Austin, for the
government of the English Saxon Church. The epistle that
contains this model is, by the editor of Gregory's Epistles, placed
under the seventh year of the Indiction, and the year of our Lord
604: but that in Bede, which is doubtless the same epistle, bears
date three years sooner : and this answers to the coming of Mel-
litus into Britain, and the many epistles sent by Gregory on that
occasion. Austin having received consecration from the Arch-
bishop of Aries, Gregory resolved to honour him with the cha-
racter of an Archbishop ; and, as a mark and acknowledgement
thereof, at the coming of Mellitus into Britain, in the year 601,
sent him over a Pall; and together with that a model or platform
of the Government he Avas to establish in the English Church ;
wherein, in consideration of the merit of Austin, he was con-
stituted Primate of the English Church; and had a power given
him to erect another Metropolitical See at York ; but with
subordination to him as Primate of the English.
" Gregory further directed, that the two Metropolitans should
11
cognised by the British Church, as ' the Head and
Governor of the Church Universal.' It is clear,
each of them have twelve Suffragan Bishops, within their re-
spective Provinces ; but at the death of Austin, that the
Metropolitical See should be removed from Canterbury to
London ; and that after that remove the Primacy settled on
the person of Austin should cease ; and the Archbishops of
London and York take place according to the priority of their
consecration.
"As for the British Clergy, that model subjects them, as
Gregory had done in another rescript, to the jurisdiction and
authority of Austin. When one compares these Epistles of
Gregory, with those which, upon his first advancement to the
See of Rome, he wrote to the Patriarchs of Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and other Bishops of the
Catholic Church ; and the solemn profession he therein makes,
that he received the Faith and Canons of the four first Councils
of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, with the
veneration with which he received the four Gospels of the
Evangelists ; and considers the zeal and warmth with which he
opposed the pretensions of his friend and confidant John, Pa-
triarch of Constantinople, to the name and title of Universal
Bishop, assuming to himself the title of Servant to the Servants of
God, one finds it very difficult to reconcile Gregory's professions
and shows of humility, and zeal for the Canons, to that authority
he assumed in his instructions to Austin, and in the model he
sent over to England.
" Thus much is evident, past all possibility of dispute, from the
Epistles of Gregory, that the pretence to an Universal Pastorship,
by a Divine Right, was not so much as thought of at Rome in
his time ; and it is as evident from his writings, that the Canons
of the Church were yet thought the measure of the Patriarchal
power ; so that it is very odd and surprising, to see this great
Prelate, at the same time, breaking and averting the authority
12
also, from the unanimous testimony of our histo-
rians, who tell us, that when Austin the Monk
came into Britain, as St. Gregory's Legate, (which
was after the sixth century was fully complete and
ended,) and required submission from our Church
to the Bishop of Rome, as her Patriarch, the pro-
posal was rejected, as of a new and strange thing
of the Canons. The pretence of those who justify him upon the
Patriarchal power, shall be considered in another place."
Or'njlnes Anglicance, p. 26 ; see also, pp. 33, 35.
Nor must we forget that the Bishops of Rome had, long ere
this period, manifested their aggressive spirit. Witness the
cases of Apiarius and of Acacim in the East, during the fifth
century, in which the Popes claimed an appellate jurisdiction,
which was successfully resisted by the African Church, the
Council of Milevis, A.D. 416, having passed the following de-
cree, which was adopted afterwards in Cone. Carthag., A.D. 419 :
" Item placuit, ut presbyteri, diaconi, vel costeri inferiores clerici,
in causis quas habuerint, si de judiciis Episcoporum suorum
questi fuerint, vicini Episcopi eos audiant ; et inter eos quicquid
est, finiant adhibiti ab eis ex consensu Episcoporum suorum.
Quod si et ab eis provocandum putaverint, non provocent, nisi ad
ApJincana Concilia) vel ad Primates Provincial' urn suaruin. Ad trans-
marina autem, qui putaverit appellandum, a nullo intra Aphricam
in communione suscipiatur" L. Surius, Concilia, <jr. torn, i., p. 5o7.
See also, Dupin, Cent. V., p. 223.
It was during the discussion in the case of Apiarius, that the
Papal Legates quoted the Sardican Canons (which Avere not
received by the Greek nor the African Church) as the Canons
of Nice, in favour of Papal jurisdiction ; a fraud which, either
from ignorance or design, was sanctioned by the Popes Zosimus,
Boniface, and Caelestine. See Ilussey's Rise of the Papal Power,
pp. 40-o2 and 80-93.
13
never heard of before. The answer of Dinothus,
the learned Abbott of Bangor, in the name of all
the Britons is famous, viz., 'That they knew no
obedience due to him, whom they called the Pope,
but the obedience of love ; and that under God they
were governed by the Bishop of Caerleon.' Under
God, i. e., immediately, without any foreign Prelate
or Patriarch intervening, they were to be governed
by the Bishop of Caerleon, as their only Primate
and Patriarch. Which privilege continued to the
succeeding Bishops of that See for several ages,
saving that the archiepiscopal chair was afterwards
removed from Caerleon to St. David's. And that
this was indeed the sense not only of Dinothus, but
of all the whole body of our British Clergy at that
time, all our historians tell us, witnessing the abso-
lute and unanimous resolution of the British Clergy,
both Bishops and Priests, synodically met together,
not to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the
Bishop of Rome." 7
7 Vide Spel. Com. Gual. Mon. II. 1 2 ; Bedam, omnesque alios. See
Bp. Bull's Corruptions of the Church of Some, Works, vol. ii. p. 291,
Ed. 1827. See also Easier on The Ancient Liberty of the Britannic
Church, and the Legitimate Exemption thereof from the Roman
Patriarchate) in which he maintains the three following propo-
sitions : " 1st, That the Britannic Church has been always placed
without the Suburbicaries of the Italic Diocese, in the time of
the Nicene Council, was in no case subject to the Roman Patri-
archate, but enjoyed a Patriarchate of its own, (as to tlio
substance of the thing,) so as did the other Churches placed in
the rest of the free Dioceses. 2nd, The Britannic Church was.
14
Christianity was indeed banished from the interior
provinces of the Britons hy their Pagan, (Saxon,)
invaders, but it was not, as the Roman Catholics
tell us, altogether lost ; nay, the British Bishops of
York and London, Theonus and Thadiocus, had
retained their sees till the year 587, only ten years
before the arrival of St. Austin. The suppression
of a formidable heresy, the Pelagian, in Britain, at
the beginning of the sixth century, A.D. 519, at
the Synod of Llanddewi Brefi, where five British
with very good right, i-estored by her Sovereign to her ancient
ecclesiastical liberty, and that according to the rule of the
ancient Catholic Canons, by which was confirmed for the future
the entire liberty of the Churches. 3rd, The Britannic Church,
persevering in its primitive exemption from the Roman Patri-
archate, it is so far from that it ought to be or can be therefore
called schismatical, that rather in the very same respect, (before
truly Catholic judges,) that Church appears both to have been,
and yet really to be, by so much the more eveiy way Catholic,
by how much that Church more than others is an assertor of
the whole Catholic liberty, which by so many sacred Canons of
four General Councils, the Nicene, Constantinopolitan, Ephesine,
and Chalcedonian, the Catholic Fathers have decreed and ante-
cedently declared against all future usurpations."
I add in the Appendix, " The Discourse of Father Barnes,
of the Order of St. Benedict, on The Privikdges of the Isle of
Britain;" for the publication of which "he incurred the high
displeasure of His Holiness, and was placed under the severe
displeasure of the Inquisition" The Tract was written at the
early part of the seventeenth century, and its rarity, and the
interesting nature of its contents to every member of the Church
of England, induce me to indulge in a lengthened extract. (See
Appendix.")
15
bishops were present, and again in 545, had
infused new vigour into every part of the British
Church. Schools, and monasteries, and churches,
were restored or established, and were directed by
men of great learning and acknowledged piety ; and
the fruits of their labours were in a flourishing state,
when St. Austin, the Pope's missionary, found an
ancient and an independent Church, a Church, a
British Church, which, as we have seen, resisted all
his proposals of submission to his authority.
The Independence* of the British Church is farther
8 That the British Church was not within the Patriarchate of
Rome, (which consisted at most of only ten provinces,) but was
entirely independent of Rome, and governed by her own Metro-
politan, under the Exarch of York, may be learnt by a reference
to Bingham's Antiquities, &c., book ix., ch. i., or Cave's Ancient
Church Government. See also, Hammond's Notes to the Sixth
Canon of Nice, and to the Eighth of Ephesus, Canons of the
Church, pp. 24 and 73. My readers will, however, thank me
for the following concise view of the question from the pages of
Bishop Bull.
" The Church of Rome hath quite altered the Primitive Ec-
clesiastical Government, by erecting a Monarch hi the Church,
and setting up her Bishop, as the Universal Pastor and Governor
of the whole Catholic Church, and making all other Bishops to
be but his Vicars and Substitutes, as to their jurisdiction.
" For that the Bishop of Rome had no such universal juris-
diction in the primitive times, is most evident from the Sixth
Canon of the First Nicene Council, occasioned, as it appears,
by the Schism of Meletius, an ambitious bishop in Egypt, who
took upon him to ordain bishops there, without the consent of
the Metropolitan Bishop of Alexandria. The words of the
16
evident, from the difference of her usages, at the
period in question, from those of the Church of
Canon are these : ' Let the ancient customs prevail that are in
Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, That the Bishop of Alexandria
have the power over them all, for as much as the Bishop of
Rome also hath the like custom. In like manner, in Antioch,
and all other provinces, let the privileges be preserved to the
Churches.' From this Canon it is plain, that the three Metro-
politan Bishops or Primates, (they were not as yet, I think,
called Patriarchs,) of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch, had their
distinct jurisdictions, each independent on the other; and that
all other chief bishops or primates of provinces, had the same
privileges, which are here confirmed to them. It is true, this
Canon doth not particularly describe or determine what the
bounds are of the Roman Bishop's power, as neither doth it the
limits of the Bishop of Antioch's jurisdiction, but only those of
the Bishop of Alexandria's province. The reason hereof is
manifest, the case of the Bishop of Alexandria only was at this
time laid before the Synod, whose jurisdiction in Egypt had
been lately invaded by the schismatical ordinations of Meletius,
as I before observed. But that the Roman Bishop's power, as
well as that of the other Metropolitans, had its bounds, is most
manifest from the example that is drawn from thence, for the
limits of other Churches. For what an absurd thing is it, that
the Church of Rome should be made the pattern for assigning
the limits to other Metropolitan Churches, if that Church also
had not her known limits at the same time when this Canon
was made! Intolerable is the exposition which Bellarmin, and
other Romanists, give of these words of the Canon : ' Foras-
much as the Bishop of Rome also hath the like custom,' i. e.
(they say) ' It was the custom of the Bishop of Rome to permit,
or leave to the Bishop of Alexandria the regimen of Egypt,
Libya, and Pentapolis.' Certainly, TSTO <ruv/0ee eariv implies
a like custom in the Church of Alexandria, and in the Church of
17
Rome, in the observance of Easter a question
which then agitated the entire Christian world
Rome ; and the sense of the Canon is most evident, that the
Bishop of Alexandria should, according to the ancient custom of
the Church, (not by the permission of the Roman Bishop,)
enjoy the full power in his Province, as by the like ancient cus-
tom the Bishop of Rome had the jurisdiction of his. But they
that would see this Canon fully explained and cleared from all
the trifling cavils and exceptions of the Romanists, may consult
the large and copious annotations of the learned Dr. Beveridge,
Bishop of St. Asaph, upon it, where they will receive ample
satisfaction. See Pandectas Canonum, torn, ii., Annotations, p. 49.
" Thus was the government of the Catholic Church in the pri-
mitive times distributed among the several chief bishops or
primates of the provinces, neither of them being accountable to
the other, but all of them to an (Ecumenical Council, which
was then held to be the only supreme visible judge of contro-
versies arising in the Church, and to have the power of finally
deciding them. Hence the case of the Bishop of Alexandria
before mentioned, was not brought before the Bishop of Rome
or any other Metropolitan, but referred to the Fathers of the
Nicene Council, to be finally determined by them."
" That ' the Church of Rome is the Mistress of all other
Churches' is therefore a great untruth. A proposition, which, if it
should have been advanced in the first ages of the Church,
would have startled all Christendom. Every Metropolitical
Church would presently have stood up, and loudly pleaded her
own immunities, rights, and privileges, independent upon Rome
or any other Metropolis. These rights and privileges were con-
firmed, as of primitive and ancient custom, by the Sixth Canon
of the great Council of Nice, as hath been before shewn ; es-
tablished also by the Eiglith Canon of the (Ecumenical Council
of Ephesus, as by and by will appear. Indeed, in the days of
old, when the Church of Rome was quite another thing from
B
18
and the administration of baptism, which the British
bishops refused to accommodate to the injunction
what now it is, all other Churches, upon several accounts, paid
a singular respect to her, and gave her the preeminence ; but
they never acknowledged her Mistress-ship over them, or them-
selves to be her serving-maids. This language would then have
sounded very harsh, and been esteemed insolent and arrogant
by all the Churches of Christ. In later days, indeed, she hath
made herself mistress, but a mistress of misrule, disturbing the
peace, invading the rights, and imposing upon the faith of other
Churches."
" Such being the ancient privilege of the British Church, we
have an undoubted right of exemption from the jurisdiction of
the Bishop of Rome, by the ancient Canons of the Catholic
Church ; particularly by the Sixth Canon of the great Nicene
Council above mentioned, by which it was decreed, 'That the
ancient customs should every where obtain, and that the then
privileges of every province should be preserved inviolate.' But
this is most evident from the Eighth Canon of the Council of
Ephesus, occasioned by the famous case of the Cyprian Bishops,
which was this : The Metropolitan of Cyprus being dead, (Troilus,
the Bishop of Constance,) the Bishop of Antioch pretended that
it belonged to him to ordain their Metropolitan, because Cyprus
was within the civil jurisdiction of the Diocese of Antioch.
Upon this, the Cyprian Bishops made their complaint to the
General Council at Ephesus, grounding it upon the Nicene
Canon, and pleading that their Metropolitan had been of ancient
time exempt from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Antioch, and
was ordained by a Synod of Cyprian Bishops ; which privilege
was not only confirmed to them by the Ephesine Council, but a
general Decree passed, 'That the rights of every Province should
be preserved whole and inviolate, which it had of old, accord-
ing to the ancient custom.' And it is to be observed, that the
Bishop of Antioch had a more colourable pretence to a juris-
19
of the Popish missionary, and to the customs of
the Romish Church.
diction over the Cyprian Bishops, than Gregory could have to a
jurisdiction over our British Churches ; for Cyprus was indeed
within the civil jurisdiction of Antioch, but our Britain was ori-
ginally itself a distinct Diocese of the Empire. Yet the Ephesine
Fathers judged, that ' ancient custom should prevail ' in the case
of the Cyprian Bishops ; how much more then should it in ours ?
Certainly Pope Gregory, when by his Legate Austin he chal-
lenged to himself a jurisdiction over our British Church, was
ignorant of, or had forgotten, or else regarded not the Canons of
the Nicene and Ephesine Councils."
" When, then, we were left to our liberty and freedom of
resuming our primitive rights, why might we not do it, as we
saw occasion, without the imputation of schism ? This is not
only our just plea, but it is ingenuously confessed by Father
Barns, our learned countryman, and of the Koman Communion.
His words are these : ' The Island of Bi'itain anciently enjoyed
the same privilege with that of Cyprus, that is to say, of being
in subjection to the laws of no Patriarch : which privilege,
though heretofore abolished by tumults and force of war, yet
being recovered by consent of the whole kingdom, in Henry the
Eighth's reign, seems for peace-sake most proper to be retained,
so it be done without breach of Catholic unity, or incurring the
charge of Schism.' (See the Appendix.') Indeed we had very
great reason to resume our primitive right and privilege of
exemption from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, when
by means thereof he lorded it over our faith, and imposed
manifest and gross corruptions both in doctrine and worship
upon our consciences." Bp. Bull's Corruptions of the Church of
Rome, Works, vol. ii., pp. 245, 289, 292; edit. 1827.
Stillingfleet tells us that " Alford is much displeased with
Sir H. Spelman, for paralleling the case of the British Bishops and
Augustine, with that of the Cyprian Bishops against the, Patriarch
B 2
20
To quote again the language of the learned Bishop
Bull, " That the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of
Christ, i. e., under Christ the Head and Governor
of the Universal Church, is another gross untruth.
The universal Pastorship and Jurisdiction of the
Bishop of Rome over all other Bishops, was never
heard of, never pretended to by any Bishop of that
Church for the first six hundred years and more, as
I have before shewn. To which all that I shall
now add concerns our British Church. We sav,
of Antioch. But for what reason ? (asks Stillingfleet.) Why,
saith he, ' The Council of Ephesus did not permit the Cyprian
Bishops to decline the judgment of their Patriarch, but declared
the Bishop of Antioch not to be their Patriarch.' Veiy well!
And is not this the very case here ? The Bishop of Rome
challenges a patriarchal power over the British Churches, and
appoints an Archbishop over them ; but they deny that he
had any such authority over them, they being governed by
their own Metropolitan, as the Cyprian Bishops were ; and
therefore, by the decree of the Council of Ephesus, they were
bound to preserve their own rights, and consequently to oppose
that foreign jurisdiction which Augustine endeavoured to set
up over them." Oriyines Britannicce, p. 364.
I therefore close this note with the language of Bishop Beve-
ridge: "ETIAMSI EPISCOPUS ROMANUS, EX QUO SUPRADICTUJI Au-
GUSTINUM HUG PRIMO MISIT, SUMMAM IN HAC GENTE POTESTATEM
DITT EXERCUERIT, TAMEN, ExCUSSO TANDEM TYRANNICO ISTIUS
JUGO, ECCLESIA NOSTRA ANTIQUES SUIS PRIVILEGIIS, JURE ME-
RITISSIMO, UTPOTE AB UNIVERSALI ECCLESIA IN HOC CANONE
PR^SCRIPTO, ITERUM GAUDET. Qu^E FAXIT DfiUS El INVIOLATA
IN POSTERUM AC PERPETUO CONSERVENTUR." Pandectce Canomim,
torn. ii. Annotations in Can. Cone. Nicceni Primi, p. 59.
21
then, our Church of Britain was never under the
jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, for the first six
hundred years ; Britain being a distinct Diocese of
the Empire, and consequently having a Primate of
her own, independent upon any other Primate or
Metropolitan. This appears first from the customs
of our Church during that time, in the observation
of Easter, and the administration of Baptism, dif-
ferent from, as was before observed, the Roman
custom, but agreeing with the Asiatic Churches.
For it is altogether incredible, that the whole British
Church should so unanimously have dissented from
Rome for so many hundred years together, if she
had been subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman
Bishop, or that the Roman Bishop all that time
should suffer it, if he had had a Patriarchal power
over her."
It is farther well worthy of remark, to shew the
rising corruptions of the Church of Rome, that,
as w r e learn from our most ancient historians, the
Britons were so shocked at the many Pagan super-
stitions and ceremonies introduced from Rome,
among which may be mentioned the incipient prac-
tice of Idol-worship, the Idolatry of Rome, after
all their palliations, that they regarded their wor-
ship as no better than Paganism, and as carefully
avoided the communion of those, who came from
9 See Bp. Bull's Works, vol. ii. p. 290, Edit. 1827. I would
especially refer my readers to Palmer's Apostolical Jurisdiction
and Succession of the Episcopacy in the British Churches Vindicated.
22
Rome to establish it, as they would avoid the com-
munion of Pagans ; and the same authority tells us,
that a Scotch (Irish) bishop not only refused to sit
at the same table, but even to lodge under the same
roof with the Roman missionaries, because, as he
alleged, they had corrupted the ancient faith. 1
1 "Whereas in the first conversions of the nations, by the
Apostles, and their immediate followers, the greatest care was
used, not only to bring the converts to a just idea of the Gospel
Eevelation, and conduct their devotions by the general rules
thereof, but as far as it was possible to leave no footsteps
of the Pagan worship ; and upon this ground, the use of
images, and the rites of the ancient Gentile worship, were
entirely banished, and a plainness and simplicity, suited to the
worship of God in spirit and truth, generally introduced ; and
great marks of this primitive plainness appear in the worship
of the British and Scots, at the time of Austin's coming ;
whereas in that worship which Austin introduced, and which
had been fitted for the Northern people, who in this and in
two preceding ages had been brought into the Church, there
appears abundance of new rites, and pomp, and ceremonies,
which the British and Scots were utterly unacquainted with;
and this consideration seems to have occasioned the mighty
aversion of the British, Scots, and Picts to the Saxon worship,
and those who came from Rome to introduce it.
"For their not submitting to the jurisdiction Austin pre-
tended to, they had reasons of another kind, and which will
be considered in their proper place ; but such was the aversion
the Scottish Christians shewed to all communion with those
that came from Rome, that Dagamus, a Scotch Bishop, refused
not only to eat with them, but so much as to lodge with them
in the same house ; and so general was the aversion of the
British Christians, to the doctrine and worship planted amongst
23
I cannot, in the compass of a discourse, carry you
through the jive preceding centuries, to the first
the English by Austin and his followers, and to such degrees
did it arise, that in the year 633, which was about tliirty-six
years after the first conversions by Austin, Bede saith, ' To
this day the Britons continue such aversion to the faith and
worship of the English, that they make no account thereof,
and will no more communicate with them than with Pagans.'
"And he that will ascribe all this to the different manner
of observing the Easter Festival, must have a very contempti-
ble idea of all that were concerned in this quarrel."
" Amongst other instructions brought over by Mellitus, Gre-
gory directs Austin not to destroy the places used by the Saxons
for the Pagan worship ; but that, having first cast out the images
of their gods, he should, with holy water, sprinkle the walls
thereof, build altars, and furnish them with reliques, and thus
set them apart for the service of God. But as to the rites and
usages of the Pagan worship, his instructions are more sur-
prising, and seem better fitted to the following than the present
age ; and this was to treat the rites and ceremonies of the
Pagan English as he did the places of their worship ; not to
abolish them, but having first fitted them for it, by changing the
end of those institutions, he should then introduce them into the
Christian worship.
"And amongst others of this kind, Gregory takes notice of a
Saxon Festival, that seems to lie so cross to the purity of the
Gospel-worship, as one would have thought could never have
been reconciled to it. And whereas, saith Gregory, the Saxons
used to slay abundance of oxen, and sacrifice them to devils,
you shall not abolish this custom, but appoint new festivals,
either in honour of the Saints to whom their Churches are
dedicated, or whose reliques are deposited therein ; and making
arbors, with branches of trees round their Churches, the Saxons
shall be allowed to kill their oxen, and feast and enjoy them-
introduction of Christianity into this island ; but the
evidence of the existence of the British Church
during these centuries, is equally clear, and equally
interesting, with that already adduced : suffice it to
remark, that the fact of the occupation of the Sees
of York and London by their respective British
Bishops in the sixth century, and within ten years
of the arrival of St. Austin ; the suppression of the
Pelagian heresy in Britain in the fifth and sixth cen-
turies ; the attendance of English bishops at several
foreign councils in the fourth, certainly at Aries, 314,
selves, as they did in their former Pagan state ; only they shall
offer their thanks and praises unto God.
" And the reasons upon which this advice is founded are, the
difficulties of drawing off men from long continued usages, the
example of God in allowing the Israelites the use of the Egyp-
tian sacrifices, and the hopes, by such indulgence, to bring the
converts, in time, to a better sense of their duty to God. The
reasons of Gregory admit of much dispute, but the advice has
a danger attending it too visible to be the subject of a question.
" And the success was such as might be expected from such
a beginning ; for this unhappy error took such root amongst the
English, that about forty years after, Ercombert King of Kent
was forced to forbid those idolatrous practices by a law, which had
at first been allowed to his ancestors; and the Council of Calcuith,
(A.D. 785,) near two hundred years after the coming of Austin,
takes notice of the relics of Paganism, then remaining amongst
the English : and it may be, without looking further than the
reasons and conduct of Gregory, one has a just view of the
original of those usages which in time became a burden and a
reproacii to the Western Church, and of the reasons which first
introduced them." Inctt's Origines Anglicancc, pp. 23, 26.
25
probably at Nice, 325, at Sardica, 34^, and at Ari-
minum, 359 ; the persecution of the Christians in
this island in the third; the defence of Christianity
by a British king in the second ; and its introduction
in the first ; prove to a demonstration, that we are
not indebted to the Church of Rome for our doc-
trines or our discipline ; that the beams of Gospel
light had illumined this land, ere the mist of Pa-
ganism had dispersed from the Papal hills ; 2 and
2 " It is an opinion not destitute either of authority or proba-
bility, that the faith of Christ was preached, and the Sacraments
administered here in England, before any settlement of a Church
in Rome. For St. Gildas, the ancientest monument we have,
and whom the Romanists themselves reverence, says expresssly,
that the religion of Christ was received in Brittany, tempore (ut
scimus) summo Tiberii Ccesaris, &c., ' in the latter time of Tiberius
Cassar," (Gildas de Excid. Brit.) ; whereas St. Peter kept in
Jewry long after Tiberius his death. Therefore the first con-
version of this Island to the faith was not by St. Peter, nor from
Rome, which was not then a Church." Laud's Conference with
Either, p. 262, note, edit. 1839.
Upon this interesting point I would refer the reader to
Jones's "Rome no Mother Church to England;" especially the
fourth Section, of which the following is the title : " Home no
Mother Church to Britain, in respect to Extraction, or Plantation
of the Christian Faith, but much Junior to it."
" It is affirmed by some learned men of the Roman Church,
(writes Bp. Bull) that our Britain received the Gospel before Rome.
For Suarez confesseth, that the Gospel was preached here from
the first rising of it. And Baronius, from some MSS. in the
Vatican, affixeth our conversion to Christianity to the 35th year of
our Lord, which was near nine years before the founding of the
Roman Church. But if the credit of these MSS. be questionable,
26
boldly may we confess, that " after the way that
they call heresy, worship we the God of our fathers."
this however is evident, that our Britain did not receive her
first Christianity from Rome, but from the East. This, I say, is
evident from the customs observed here from the beginning in
the observation of Easter, and the administration of Baptism,
different from the Roman Use, but conform to the Oriental
Churches. So that we may justly check the arrogance of the
present Roman Church in the words of St. Paul to the proud
Corinthians, setting up among themselves certain customs, con-
trary to the Institutes of all other Churches. ' Came the Word
of God out from you ? or, Came it to you only ? ' q. d., Are you
the first and only Christians ? Your Church the first and only
Church of Christ ? Yes, say the Romanists, our Church is the
Mother of all other Churches. But this is apparently false, for
' the Law first came out of Sion, and the Word of the Lord from
Jerusalem.' The Church of Rome pretends also to be the only
true Church of Christ, i. e., that there is no true Church of
Christ but what is in union with and subjection to her. But
this is as false a claim as the other. For there were divers true
Churches of Christ, before the Church of Rome was in being,
which therefore could have no dependence upon her." Cor-
ruptions of the Church of Some, Works, vol. ii., p. 288.
If any of my readers would wish to examine into the ridicu-
lous Romish Fable of St. Peter "having first founded the
Church of Antioch, and continued Bishop of that See seven
years," and then " of having transferred his Chair to Rome,
("Jubente Domino" as Bellarmine asserts,) where he remained
Bishop until his death, L e., for the space of twenty-five years,"
he may consult Craig's Refutation of Popery, vol. ii., sections
1, 2; in the first of which "The arguments advanced by Bel-
larmine, and other Romanists, in proof that St. Peter was Bishop
of Antioch for seven years, and of Rome for twenty-five years, are
examined and refuted;" and in the second the author " Proves from
27
Let it not be asked, What have we to do with
these early times ? These first six hundred years
Sacred Scripture, that St. Peter never was Bishop either of Antioch
or Rome" The question is one of some interest, as upon the
affirmative issue are based the following assumptions in favor of
the Successors of St. Peter : " St. Peter sat in the chair of Antioch
before he was translated to the See of Rome," (writes Dr. Wise-
man ;) " the chair of Antioch has ever retained its dominion over
a large portion of the East ; and, therefore, if to the See of
Rome he brought, not merely the Patriarchate of the West,
but the Primacy over the whole world, this accidental juris-
diction became inherent in the See, and heritable by entail to
his Successors."
In connection with the above position, assumed by Dr.
Wiseman in his "Lectures on the principal Doctrines and Prac-
tices of the Catholic Church" (Lect. 8, vol. i., p. 279,) it may
be interesting to peruse the opinion of the learned Jesuit,
Peter Halloix, of Liege, who flourished in the seventeenth
century, respecting St. Peter's Antiochean Episcopate : "If
the holy Peter," (writes this Roman Catholic author, in Vita
Ign.j t. i., c. 11,) " before these times, had been at Antioch and
had founded a Church, and established his own Chair in that
place, &c., St. Luke, in the eleventh chapter, having just made
mention of the Acts of Peter, ought to have spoken, not only
of these men of Cyprus and Cyrene, but much rather of Peter,
if, indeed, he had been so long there, that even then he was
esteemed Bishop of Antioch. Therefore (he infers) he had not
as yet arrived there, because St. Luke says nothing of the
matter!"
The testimony of another learned Romanist is likewise im-
portant : " It is most evident" (writes Onuphrius Panvinius, an
Augustinian monk, who flourished in the sixteenth century)
" from the history of the Acts of the Apostles, and St. Paul's
Epistle to the Galatians, that St. Peter had not quitted Judea
28
are closely connected with the fact of our having, at
the Reformation, returned only to our former faith ;
the present discipline and doctrine of the Church
of England, as laid down in her Formularies, being
until the second of Claudius, i. e., ten years after the Passion.
How then (he asks) could he have been seven years Bishop of
Antioch previously ? " Chronology of the Popes.
Onuphrius adds a very ingenious solution of the difficulties
attending St. Peter's supposed Episcopate ; in which, however,
he is widely opposed to Cardinal Bellarmine.
Faber justly remarks on the position of Dr. Wiseman, as
quoted above, that "the conclusion would be highly respectable,
provided only that the premises had been established ; but to
give the full value to Dr. Wiseman's if, nothing is wanting but
historical testimony" Christ's Discourse at Capernaum, $c., In-
troduction^ p. 64, Note.
The believers in this fable may reconcile the discrepancies, if
they can ; I hold, with Bishop Marsh, (Comparative View of the
Churches of England and Rome, p. 232, edit. 1841,) that "although
the opinion that St. Peter was concerned in the foundation of
the Church of Rome, is supported by many writers who lived
after the time of Irenaeus, the earliest writer that speaks of St.
Peter as having had any share in founding the Church of Rome,
the subsequent writers depending, perhaps, upon his authority,
yet it is really impossible to reconcile it either with the Acts of the
Apostles, or the Epistles of St. Paul ; and we must either renounce
the opinion, or let Scripture give way to Tradition"
I may refer my readers to A Discourse, ivherein it is proved, by
order of Time and Place, that ST. PETER WAS NEVER AT ROME ;
published in 1572, and reprinted in 1845 ; also, to Henry Care's
Modest Enquiry whether St. Peter was ever at Rome, and Bishop of
that Church ; and to Scheller's Question, ' Was St. Peter ever at
Rome,' Historically considered.
in full accordance with those which she held for se-
veral centuries after the conversion of this island.
Between the period when the pure doctrines of the
Gospel were overwhelmed in this, and in other
Christian lands, by the introduction of Popish
errors, until the propagation of Gospel truths at the
period of the Reformation, several hundred years
had elapsed several hundred years of darkness and
of ignorance had well nigh swept from the face of
the earth the " truth as it is in Jesus." During this
dark period, the doctrines which are now propagated
and supported by the Church of Rome, had gra-
dually 3 gained ground ; and there was no one found
3 The Chui'ch of Rome boasts of the antiquity of her docti'ines,
and their accordance with those of the Primitive Church. It is
strange that not one of her prominent and peculiar errors should
have received Conciliar authority prior to the eighth century.
Image-Worship was sanctioned by the Second Council of Nice,
A.D. 787; Plenary Indulgences date from the Council of Claremonl,
A.D. 1095 ; Transubstantiation from the Fourth Lateran Council,
1215; Compulsory Auricular Confession from the same ; Communion
in one kind from that of Constance, 1414; Purgatory from that
of Florence, 1439, &c. In the controversy between the Churches
of England and Rome, at the close of the seventeenth century,
the comparative novelty of the distinctive Romish doctrines was
irrefutably established by the champions of our Church. See
Gee's Catalogue of Discourses against Popery, Published in the
Reign of James II; see also, Bishop Bull's Corruptions of the
Church of Rome.
I would especially refer my readers to " The Protestant's Com-
panion, or an Impartial Survey and Comparison of the Protestant
Religion, with the main Doctrines of Popery ; wherein is sheivn, that
30
to "stand between the dead and the living," and
"stay the plague" of superstition and of arrogance. 4
Popery is contrary to SCRIPTURE, PRIMITIVE FATHERS, AND
COUNCILS ; and that proved from Holy Writ, the Writings of the
Ancient Fathers for several hundred years, and the confession of the
most learned Papists themselves ; ivhereby the Papists' vain pretence
to ANTIQUITY, and their reproaching the Protestant Doctrines with
Novelty, is wholly overthrown" See Gibson's Preservative against
Popery, vol. iii., Appendix, p. 86. I extract the following pas-
sage from the Introduction : " The Church of Rome, though she
talk aloud of the antiquity of, and universal consent in her
doctrines, is so far from either, that therein she will be tied to
no rule, nor observe any law, as if she would verify that remark
of Crantzius upon her in another case, Nunc ad se omnium Eccle-
siarum jura traxit Bomana Ecclesia, ' That she hath engrossed to
herself all the privileges or rights of other Churches.' Her
greatest defenders reject the Scripture, though given forth by
Divine Inspiration, and do say it is no more to be believed, in
saying it is from God, than Mahomefs Alcoran, $-c. And good
reason why, because her doctrines are repugnant to the Holy
Scriptures. What then will she trust to ? Tradition ; that she
equals with the Scriptures themselves. And yet her great An-
nalist, Cardinal Baronius, who was once, as it were, a living
library, whilst he kept the Vatican, confesseth, That he despaired
to find out the truth even in those matters which true writers have
recorded, because there was nothing ivhich remained sincere and
incorrupted. This blow, given by so skilful an artist, dashes all
the characters wherein the defence of Oral Tradition should be
legible. And if tradition in true writers be so difficult to pre-
serve, how can it be expected to be safe from spurious ones,
or without any writers at all." The References and the Autho-
rities quoted are given in the Tract itself, to which I refer the
reader : see Gibson's Preservative, vol. iii., Appendix, p. 87, Notes.
4 It is painful to contemplate, that the assumptions of the
31
It is true, that there were some " burning and
shining lights," even during this period of darkness,
that seemed to dispel the obscurity which covered
the land ; and the names of Wicliff, and Cobham,
and Peacock, and Thorpe, and Colet, and others,
are names familiar to those who have watched the
Church of Rome, as regards Papal Supremacy, that key-stone
of the Romish system, have been from the ninth century to
the present time, supported by the dangerous principles laid
down in the celebrated " Forged Decretals," aided by the no
less celebrated " Donation of Constantino. " These supposed
Papal Decretals, connected with the name of Isidore who
flourished in the seventh century, though probably forged by
some German monk in the ninth, (as an earlier date is in-
compatible with the' contents,) have, I am aware, been rejected
by many learned Roman Catholics on this side the Alps ; but
we must not forget, that these spurious Decretals were referred
to as genuine by Nicholas L, Gregory VII., and their successors,
and were incorporated into the Gratian Code of Canon Law,
and that the principles inculcated in these Decretals, are the
acknowledged principles of the Church of Rome, and would be
acted upon to morrow, if she possessed the power. And with
regard to the spurious " Donation of Constantino," it may be in-
teresting to learn, that Henry II., when projecting the conquest of
Ireland, solicited the sanction and the aid of Pope Adrian, upon
the plea, that by this Donation all the Islands appertained to
the Roman See : " Omnes insulce, (writes Henry,) dejure antiquo,
ex Donatione Constantini, qui earn fundavit et dotavit, dicuntur ad
Ecclesiam Romanam pertinere" And upon that ground Adrian
granted his acquiescence ; not forgetting, however, to obtain a
promise from Henry, that the Annettes, $c., which had hitherto
been paid to the Archbishop of Armagh, should henceforward be the
property of the Roman See !
32
devclopement of religious truth ; but they seemed to
do but little more than to shew to a spiritually
benighted land the depth of darkness into which
the desertion of the religion of their forefathers had
plunged it, and in which it was held by the policy
of Rome.
The foregoing contemplations will dictate to us
the only wise and prudent answer to that taunting
question, wherewith the Romish Church has been
wont to assail those who have abandoned her
communion " Where was your religion before
the Reformation ? " "Where did your Church lurk,"
say they, " and in what cave of the earth slept
she, before the birth of Martin Luther?" The
reply is, that she " lurked " beneath the folds of
that " garment of many colours," which the hand
of superstition had woven and embellished for her,
and wherewith she was fantastically encumbered
and disguised ; she " slept " in that cavern of en-
chantment, whose costly odours and intoxicating
fumes were floating around, to overpower her
senses, and to suspend her faculties ; till, at last,
a voice was heard to cry " sleep no more" and
then she started up, like a strong man refreshed,
and shook herself from the dust of ages, then did
she cast aside the gorgeous "leadings" which op-
pressed her, and stood before an awakened world,
a sacred form of brightness and of purity, "a Jewel
tarnished, but a Jewel still ;" " after the manner
which they call heresy, worshipped she the God
33
of her fathers." It is a pernicious, though shallow
artifice, to speak of Luther as the architect of
a fabric which had other foundation than that
which was laid by the Almighty Master-builder ;
" other foundation can no man lay." The Church
of Christ, which was from the beginning, is, and
will continue unto the end. The splendid majesty
of the structure had indeed been disfigured and
obscured by capricious outworks, it had been girt
about by turrets and battlements, which unhal-
lowed ambition had made strong for itself, and
which frowned upon the most precious liberties
of man. These had, for ages past, been assailed
by a vigorous warfare, and the attack had some-
times been powerful enough to warrant the hope,
that their strength was not impregnable. It was
left for Martin Luther, and many others, to go forth,
in the strength of God, and to shake the greater
part of them to ruins. When this was done, the
sanctuary was seen, in its grandeur and simplicity,
resting on the imperishable Rock, and men once
more went up to the House of the Lord, to worship
Him in spirit and in truth.
The reign of religious ignorance had well nigh
closed. For ages together, the mysterious and evil
power, shadowed forth in the Book of the Revela-
tions, had shewn itself, armed with scales, that could
turn back the point of ridicule, or the edge of
invective, or the assaults of worldly might. But to
unseal the sacred Scriptures, to unfold the Word of
c
34
God, was to let loose an element, before the power
of which the Church of Rome was doomed to
sicken and " wax faint," and gradually to loosen
the grasp with which it had well nigh strangled
the energies of the human mind.
" But, it may be asked," (to quote the forcible
language of the Bishop of Exeter, 4 ) "are you indeed
afraid of the Pope ? Do you think it probable, that
they who have long tasted the sweets of liberty, will
ever voluntarily resume the fetters they have broken?
For England (writes his Lordship) I have no such
fear: other dangers may threaten us from this 5 very
measure, but from this I trust that we are free.
Not that there is any ground of hope that the
spirit of Rome is grown at all more tolerant,
less ferocious, or less ambitious. It is declared
by its own advocates to be unaltered, and un-
alterable. The history of ages attests the mo-
mentous truth. Twelve hundred years have
now passed over the heads of men, since this
spiritual tyranny first showed its portentous
form : during that period, states and empires
have disappeared from the face of the earth ;
but Rome, Papal Rome, is still the same,
still adheres with undiminished zeal to that
one subtle, daring system, which, through every
variety of power and fortune, it has contrived
to cherish, and commonly to advance.
4 Letters to Charles Butler, JEsq., Let. xv., p. 309.
5 " Catholic Emancipation."
35
" We ourselves have seen it in the most abject
state of depression, and have assisted it once
more to rear its head, and raise its voice, over
the nations which it has enthralled. Has it
learned humility and moderation from its fall ?
Has it not rather sought to re-establish every
engine of influence and power, which its means
will allow, or the age will tolerate ?"
By some also it may be asked, " Why should the
Romish Church so strongly object to the advan-
tage which the glorious Reformation afforded to
every man, of reading his Bible ? " And you may
add, alas ! why does the Church of Rome at this
day, as is strongly exemplified in a neighbouring
country, 6 deprive her sons of the Volume of the
6 With reference to this unhappy country, (Ireland,) the follow-
ing admirable remarks of the Bishop of Exeter, in his Supplemental
Letter to Charles Butler, (pp. 86-93,) on " The Free Use of the
Scriptures prohibited to Roman Catholics" will be read with pain-
ful interest. " My observations on this point (writes Dr. Phill-
potts) will not give me much labour of argument ; I shall, in
truth, have little more to do than to use my scissors.
" I will first present my readers with an extract from the
'Fourth Rule de Libris Profn'bitis,' set forth by the select
Fathers to whom the Synod of Trent had committed this charge,
and ' approved and confirmed by Pius IV. ;' reminding my
readers, that the decrees of this Council, even respecting disci-
pline, have been accepted, and are, of course, valid, in almost
every part of Ireland.
" ' Since it is manifest by experience, that if the holy Bibles
in the vulgar language, are permitted to be read every where
without discrimination, more harm than good arises, let the
e 2
36
Book of Life ? The fact is, that to withhold the
judgment of the bishop or inquisitor be abided by in this par-
ticular. So that, after consulting with the parish minister, or
the confessor, they may grant permission to read translations of
the Scriptures, made by Catholic authors, to those whom they
shall have understood to be able to receive no harm, but an
increase of faith and piety from such reading ; which faculty let
them have in writing. But whosoever shall presume to read
these Bibles, or have them in possession without such faculty,
shall not be capable of receiving absolution of their sins, unless
they have first given up their Bibles to the Ordinary. Book-
sellers who shall sell, or in any other way furnish, Bibles in the
vulgar tongue to any one not possessed of the license aforesaid,
shall forfeit the price of the books, Avhich is to be applied by
the bishop to pious uses, and shall be otherwise punished at the
pleasure of the same bishop according to the degree of the offence.
Moreover, regulars (i. e. monks) may not read or purchase the
same without license had from their principals.'
" My next extract shall be from the Encyclical Letter of the
present Pope, Leo XII. , dated 3d May, 1824, and published
with ' Pastoral Instructions to all the Faithful,' by the Arch-
bishops and Bishops of Ireland.
" ' We also, venerable brethren, in conformity with our Apo-
stolic duty, exhort you to turn away your flock, by all means,
from these poisonous pastures,' (the Scriptures translated into the
vulgar tongue.) ' Reprove, beseech, be instant in season and
out of season, in all patience and doctrine, that the faithful en-
trusted to you (adhering strictly to the rules of our Congregation
of the Index,) be persuaded, that if the Sacred Scriptures be ever
indiscriminately published, more evil than advantage will arise
thence, on account of the rashness of men.' Encyc. Lett., p. 16.
"To this passage the Irish Prelates, Dr. Doyle among the
rest, in their ' Pastoral Instructions,' refer in the following terms :
' Our Holy Father recommends to the observance of the faithful,
37
Scriptures from the Laity has ever been the policy
a rule of the Congregation of the Index, which prohibits the
perusal of the Sacred Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, without
the sanction of the competent authorities. His Holiness wisely
remarks, ' that more evil than good is found to result from the
indiscriminate perusal of them,' &c. In this sentiment of our
head and chief we fully concur.' Past. Ins., p. 54.
"The recent Synod at Dublin, p. 12, says, as follows:
4 The Catholics of Ireland, of mature years, are permitted to read
authentic and approved translations of the Holy Scriptures, with
explanatory notes, and are exhorted to use them in the spirit of
piety, humility, and obedience.'
" My last extracts on this subject shall be from the writings
of Dr. Doyle himself. ' The Scriptures alone have never saved
any one, they are incapable of giving salvation, it is not their
object ; it is not the end for which they were written. They
hold a dignified place . amongst the means of the institution,
which Christ formed for the purpose of saving his elect ; but
though they never had been written, this end would have been attained,
and all who were pre-ordained to eternal life, would have been
gathered to the Church, and fed with the bread of life.' 7. K. L.
p. 164.
" Let us pause one moment here. ' Receive with meekness
the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls,' says St. James.
It is able to do no such thing, says Dr. Doyle, ' the Scriptures
alone have never saved any one,' where by the word ' alone ' he
does not mean, without the assistance of the grace of God, but
without the assistance of the priest.
" ' From a child,' says St. Paul to Timothy, ' thou hast
known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise
unto salvation' What says Dr. Doyle ? ' They are incapable
of giving salvation, it is not their object, it is not their end'
" Once more. ' These are written,' says St. John, ' that ye
might believe, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and
38
of Rome, for her doctrines will not bear the test of
that believing ye might have life through His name.' ' This is
all very well,' says Dr. Doyle ; ' hut do not think the Scriptures
necessary ; though they never had been written, this would have been
attained, and we should have had life without them.'
" Let me proceed with my extracts. ' Had the chain, with
which Henry the Eighth tied the Bible to the preaching desk in
England, never been broken, that country would not have
witnessed the scenes which her history records,' (very true !)
and ' she might this day be the most free and happy nation on the
earth, reposing in the bosom of the Catholic Church ! '
" ' Wherever the reading of the Bible is not regulated by a salutary
discipline such as ours, it leads a great portion of the people neces-
sarily to fanaticism or to infidelity.' Dr. Doyle, p. 179.
" ' The entire Scriptures, or portions of them, may be read
for edification and instruction by all who will not abuse them,
or who, in the opinion of those, whom the Holy Ghost placed
to rule the Church, are like to profit by them.' Ibid., p. 207.
" ' What then is the difference between us ? a very wide one
indeed ; for we maintain that the Scripture is given to all, that
they may, each in his proper station, be instructed by it unto
righteousness. Not all of it to be entrusted to each, but what is
useful to every one, that no one may be more wise than he ought, but
that he may be wise unto sobriety. This is the economy of our
Church.' Ibid., p. 217.
" To enliven his grave statement of this Church's economy,
he is pleased to favour his readers with the following most edi-
fying and instructive narrative in testimony of his respect for
the Word of God, when it is at all associated with the acts of
heretics. ' I heard of a poor man in the county of Kildare, who,
if I gave him a Bible, would venerate it more than any thing
he possessed, but having been favoured by the lady of his master
with one of the Societies' Bibles without note or comment,
accepted of it with all the reverence which the fear of losing his
39
the Word of God. Thus at the Council of Toulouse,
situation inspired. But, behold! when the night closed, and all
danger of detection was removed, he, lest he should be infected
with heresy exhaled from the Protestant Bible during his sleep,
took it with the tongs, for he would not defile his touch with it, and
buried it in a grave which he had prepared for it in his garden !
/ do admire the orthodoxy of this Kildare peasant ; nay, I admire
it greatly; and should I happen to meet him, I shall reward him
for his zeal.' Ibid., p. 179.
"It is but justice to the Church, in which Dr. Doyle is a
bishop, to add, that that Church is not answerable for this foul
insult on the feelings of every Christian. The order of the
Church, as recognized by himself, (Evidence before the Lords,
p. 238,) is this, that while all other tracts communicated by
Protestants are to be restored to their owners or destroyed,
Bibles and Testaments are to be brought to the Parish Priest.
"After this detail of Dr. Doyle's sentiments respecting the
Scriptures, it is a matter of course, that he should be vehemently
opposed to the eiforts of the Bible Society. I am not going to
obtrude any remarks in favour of that Society, whose advocates
need no support in arguing with their Irish opponents ; but it is
interesting to observe Dr. Doyle's extreme sensibility to every
thing like persecution. It exhibits itself in the following very
singular declaration ; from which it is quite plain, that when
the legislature shall have gratified him and his friends with the
repeal of every adverse statute, he will not be satisfied, unless
the Bible Society be also put down by act of parliament. ' We
have borne many things, but we have never borne a persecution
more bitter than ivhat now assails us. As the persecution of the
Church by Julian in the time of peace was more afflicting than
that of Nero or Domitian, so what we suffer from these societies,
the power and prejudice they have embodied against us, is more
tormenting than what we endured under Anne or the Second George.'
(p. 153.) With that consistency, which is the inseparable cha-
40
A.D. 1229, a Canon was enacted which "forbids
the laity (I quote the language of the Canon 7 ) to
have in their possession any copy of the Books of
the Old and New Testament, except the Psalter,
and such portions of them as are contained in the
Breviary, or Hours of the Blessed Virgin ; and
most strictly forbids these works in the vulgar
tongue." 8
racteristic of truth, he tells us presently afterwards, as part of
his ' general conclusion from the foregoing observations,' that
' the Society's labours hitherto have been, and must continue, fruitless,
whether in converting infidels, or in disturbing Catholicity.'
" From these various extracts my reader will form his own
judgment of the injustice done to the Roman Catholic Church,
when it is said to be ' averse to the circulation of the Word of
God.' " Supplemental Letter to Charles Sutler, Esq., pp. 86-93.
7 I add the original : " Can. 14. Ne laid habeant libros Scrip-
tures, prceter Psalterium et Divinum Offidum, at eos libros ne habeant
in vulgari lingua.
" Prohibemus etiam, ne libros Veteris Testamenti aut Novi
laici permittantur habere ; nisi forte Psalterium, vel Breviarium
pro Divinis Officiis, aut horas beatae Marias, aliquis ex devotione
habere velit. Sed ne prasmissos libros habeant in vulgari trans-
lates, arctissime inhibemus." Condi. Labb. et Cossart., torn, xi.,
pars i., p. 430. See also, Dupin's Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii.,
cent. 13, p. 107 ; and Landon's Manual of Councils, p. 594.
8 Thus again the Council of Oxford, A.D. 1408, "Declares,
upon the authority of St. Jerome, that the translation of the
text of Holy Sci'ipture is a dangerous thing, because it is not
easy to make the sense in all respects the same ; enacts that
no one shall henceforth, by his own authority, translate any
text of Scripture into English ; and that no part of any such
book or treatise lately composed in the time of John Wiclif,
41
The objections urged at that day, and still more
shall be read in public or private, under pain of excommuni-
cation." See Landon's Manual of Councils, p. 456. The ori-
ginal is as follows : " Can. 7. Ne textus aliquis Sacrce Scrip-
ture in linguam Anglicanam de ccetero traiisferatur per viam libri
aat tractatus.
" Periculosa quoque res est, test-ante beato Hieronymo, textum
Sacrae Scripture de uno in aliud idioma transferri ; eo quod in
ipsis translationibus non de facili idem in omnibus sensus reti-
netur, prout idem beatus Hieronymus, etsi inspiratus fuisset, se
in hoc SEepius fatetur errasse. Statuimus igitur et ordinamus, ut
nemo deinceps aliquem textum Sacras Scripture, autoritate sua,
in linguam Anglicanam vel aliam transferat, per viam libri,
libelli, aut tractatus, nee legatur aliquis hujusmodi liber, libellus,
aut tractatus, jam noviter tempore dicti Johannis Wyclif, sive
citra, compositus, aut imposterum componendus, in parte vel in
toto, publice vel occulte, sub majoris excommunicationis poena,
quousque per loci dioacesanuin, seu, si res exegerit, per concilium
provinciale, ipsa translatio fuerit approbata. Qui contra fecerit,
ut fautor hceresis et erroris similiter puniatur." Condi. Labb. et
Cossart., torn, xi., pars ii., p. 2095.
Again, in the Confession prescribed and propounded to Protes-
tants in Hungary and Germany about the year 1673, on their
reception into communion with Rome, as quoted by Dr. Words-
worth, is the following : " We confess tliat the reading of Holy
Scripture is the origin of heresy, and schism, and source of blasphemy.'*
And Dr. Wordsworth, in confirmation of this principle being held
by the Church of Rome, adds the following authorities in a
note : " Est Sacra Scriptura, ut in Concilio Wormatiensi dixe-
runt Jesuit*, materia litis et qfficina hoereticorum" See Histor.
Jesuit. Hasenmuller, 1595, p. 431. " Scripture translatio est
causa omnium haercsium." Alphons. a Castro 3 depuniend. hceret.
"Biblia est liber hcereticorum." Gerard. Busdray. ap. Mohnike, 46 ;
Sequel to Letters to M. Gondon, p. 188.
42
confidently in subsequent ages, by the Romish
"We read also, that " Clement XI. granted the request of the
French monarch, (viz., to condemn the translation of the New
Testament by Quesnel,) because he considered it as the request
of the Jesuits ; and, in the year 1713, issued out the famous Bull
' Unigenitus,' in which Quesnel's New Testament was condemned,
and an hundred and one propositions contained in it pronounced
heretical."
" This Bull (remarks EUiott) affords a full and satisfactory
answer to the falsehoods which are eternally put forth by the Po-
pish Priests, that they do not shut up the Scriptures from the
people, and shows at once the character of their superstition,
bearing as it does the stamp of God's denunciation, 'speaking lies
in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron ; '
for it is plain that all the terms of contempt, abuse, malice,
and indignation, which are applied to these propositions, are
applied to the reading of the sacred Scriptures ; as, for example,
to Propositions 80, 'The reading of the sacred Scriptures is
for all.' Acts viii. 28. 81, 'The obscurity of the sacred word
of God is no reason for laymen to dispense themselves from
reading it.' Acts viii. 31. 82, 'The Lord's day ought to be
sanctified by Christians for reading works of piety, and, above
all, of the sacred Scripture. It is damnable to wish to with-
draw a Christian from this reading.' Acts xv. 21. 83, 'It
is an illusion to persuade oneself that a knowledge of the
mysteries of religion is not to be communicated to women
by the reading of the sacred book. Not from the simplicity
of women, but from the proud science of men, has the abuse
of the Scriptures arisen, and heresies have been produced.'
John iv. 26. 84, 'To take away the New Testament from
the hands of Christians, or to shut it up from them, by taking
from them the means of understanding it, is to close the mouth
of Christ to them.' Matt. v. 2. 85, 'To interdict from
Christians the reading of the sacred Scriptures, particularly of
43
Church, to the liberty of free access to the Scrip-
the Gospel, is to interdict the use of the light from the sons
of light, and to cause that they should suffer some species of
excommunication.' Luke xi. 33. Here we have the real
principles of this mystery of iniquity set forth ; for when she
condemns such propositions as scandalous, pernicious, heretical,
&c., &c., and when she denounces the 91st proposition under
these appellations ' The fear of unjust excommunication should
never impede us from fulfilling our duty. "We are never cut
off from the Church, even when by the wickedness of men we
seem expelled from it, when to God, to Jesus Christ, and to
the Church itself, through charity, we are still joined.' John
ix. 32, 33, it is perfectly clear that all the evidence of Dr.
Murray and Dr. Doyle on excommunication, which was given
before a Committee of the House of Lords, is one tissue of
falsehood, both in principle and application." Elliott's Delinea-
tion of Romanism, pp. 473-5.
The sentence of Pope Clement, as expressed in the Bull
' Unigenitus,' on the propositions advanced by Quesnel, is the
following : " Omnes et singulas propositiones praainsertas, tan-
quam falsas, captiosas, male sonantes, piarum aurium offensive,
scandalosas, perniciosas, temerarias, ecclesias et ejus praxi in-
juriosas, neque in ecclesiam solum, sed etiam in potestates
seculi contumeliosas, seditiosas, impias, blasphemes, suspectas
de haeresi, ac haeresim ipsam sapientes, necnon haareticis et
haaresibus ac etiam schismati faventes, erroneas, hreresi prox-
imas, pluries damnatas, ac demum etiam hareticas, variasque
haareses et potissimum illas, qua? in famosis Janseuii proposi-
tionibus, et quidem in eo sensu, in quo has damnatas fuerunt
acceptis, continentur, manifesto innovantes, respective, hac
nostra perpetuo valitura constitutione declaramus, damnamus,
et reprobamus." Comtitutio dementis XI. contra Paschasium
Quesnellium, A. D. 1713.
The Bull ' Unigenitus ' was admitted by Dr. Murray to be in
44
tures, involve the great question of the advantages
or disadvantages of an appeal to private judgment?
and it may be very safely conceded, that there is about
these objections, at first sight, an air of plausibility
which may well render them dangerous and em-
barrassing to many an honest mind. It is insisted,
that the sanctity of the Divine Oracles is tarnished
by the rash curiosity of ignorant men ; that the
Word of God, when cited by all parties, either for
refutation or defence, is degraded into an implement
of unhallowed warfare ; that the appeal to private
judgment engenders a spirit of arrogance, a con-
tempt for authority, and a lust for perpetual inno-
vation ; that its tendency is to break down the solid
unity of the Faith, and to shiver it into fragments,
and to stretch over the Church " the lines of con-
fusion, and the stones of emptiness ;" and the
innumerable sects which have sprung up under this
system, form a list, to which Popery is eternally
pointing, as a record of the evils which spring from
a violation of her sacred unity and heaven-descended
force in Ireland, as may be learnt by a reference to the "Evidence
taken before Select Committees of the Two Houses of Parliament
appointed to enquire into the State of Ireland, 1824, 1825. Com-
mons, May 17, 1825. Report, p. 649."
" The Rev. Daniel Murray, D.D., examined."
Q. " Is the Bull Uniyenitus received in Ireland ? "
A. "It is."
9 See Bishop Kidder's Judgment of Private Discretion in Matters
of Religion, against the Romish Writers of James the Second's
day.
45
power. The Church of Rome might have added, that,
as she holds as articles of faith, doctrines which are
plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and which
are supported upon the evidence of Tradition alone,
evidence regarded consequently as superior to Scrip-
ture, it is not politic to put the Bible into the hands
of her children. 1 The answer to all these specious
objections must of course be now perfectly familiar
to every intelligent Protestant. The members of
the Reformed Church of England will always be
prepared to reply, that apparent and external unity 2
is much too dearly purchased, by a general sacrifice
of private judgment ; that schism itself, though a
sin, a heavy sin, is scarcely a greater evil than an
uniformity of error and corruption ; and that no
multiplication of differences can be so pernicious
as the universal prostration of intellect and con-
1 See " Popery not founded on SCUIPTURE ; or, the Texts which
Papists cite out of the BIBLE, for the proof of the points of their
Religion, examined, and shewed to be alleged without ground;" in
Twenty-four Tracts, by eminent Divines, published between
1680-90; with an Introduction by Archbishop Tenison. See
also extracts from The Protestant's Companion, inf., p. 54.
2 See Palmer's admirable remarks on the " absurd air of
triumph with which modern Romish theologians vaunt the
unity of their Church in faith, its sole exclusive authority for
the termination of religious controversies, and its freedom from all
heresy" in his Appendix, No. 1, on Jansenism; Treatise of the
Church of Christ, vol. i., pp. 318-344. See also, Edgar's Va-
riations of Popery; and Gibson's Preservative against Popery,
vol. i., tit. iii., ch. ii., pp. 104-123.
44
tures, involve the great question of the advantages
or disadvantages of an appeal to private judgment?
and it may be very safely conceded, that there is about
these objections, at first sight, an air of plausibility
which may well render them dangerous and em-
barrassing to many an honest mind. It is insisted,
that the sanctity of the Divine Oracles is tarnished
by the rash curiosity of ignorant men ; that the
Word of God, when cited by all parties, either for
refutation or defence, is degraded into an implement
of unhallowed warfare ; that the appeal to private
judgment engenders a spirit of arrogance, a con-
tempt for authority, and a lust for perpetual inno-
vation ; that its tendency is to break down the solid
unity of the Faith, and to shiver it into fragments,
and to stretch over the Church " the lines of con-
fusion, and the stones of emptiness ;" and the
innumerable sects which have sprung up under this
system, form a list, to which Popery is eternally
pointing, as a record of the evils which spring from
a violation of her sacred unity and heaven-descended
force in Ireland, as may be learnt by a reference to the "Evidence
taken before Select Committees of the Two Houses of Parliament
appointed to enquire into the State of Ireland, 1824, 1825. Com-
mons, May 17, 1825. Report, p. 649."
" The Rev. Daniel Murray, D.D., examined."
Q. " Is the Bull Unigenitus received in Ireland ? "
A. "It is."
9 See Bishop Kidder's Judgment of Private Discretion in Matters
of Religion, against the Romish Writers of James the Second's
day.
45
power. The Church of Rome might have added, that,
as she holds as articles of faith, doctrines which are
plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and which
are supported upon the evidence of Tradition alone,
evidence regarded consequently as superior to Scrip-
ture, it is not politic to put the Bible into the hands
of her children. 1 The answer to all these specious
objections must of course be now perfectly familiar
to every intelligent Protestant. The members of
the Reformed Church of England will always be
prepared to reply, that apparent and external unity 2
is much too dearly purchased, by a general sacrifice
of private judgment ; that schism itself, though a
sin, a heavy sin, is scarcely a greater evil than an
uniformity of error and corruption ; and that no
multiplication of differences can be so pernicious
as the universal prostration of intellect and con-
1 See " Popery not founded on SCRIPTURE ; or, the Texts which
Papists cite out of the BIBLE, for the proof of the points of their
Religion, examined, and shewed to be alleged ivithout ground;" in
Twenty-four Tracts, by eminent Divines, published between
1 680-90 ; with an Introduction by Archbishop Tenison. See
also extracts from The Protestant's Companion, inf., p. 54.
2 See Palmer's admirable remarks on the " absurd air of
triumph with which modern Romish theologians vaunt the
unity of their Church in faith, its sole exclusive authority for
the termination of religious controversies, and its freedom from all
heresy," in his Appendix, No. 1, on Jansenism; Treatise of the
Church of Christ, vol. i., pp. 318-344. See also, Edgar's Va-
riations of Popery; and Gibson's Preservative against Popery,
vol. i., tit. iii., ch. ii., pp. 104-123.
46
science before the authority of an 3 uninspired
3 I am aware that the Church of Rome ascribes "Infallibility"
to the decrees of her Spiritual Head on matters of Faith :
" Infattibilia sunt Decreta Papce circa doctrinam fidei ; Christus
enim promisit, et dedit Papce in persona Petri suam assistentiam, ne
in definiendis rebus fidei erraret :" (Ferraris, Verb. Papa :) but
her other ascriptions to him, render caution necessary in ac-
knowledging her claims. Take the following from Ferraris :
" Tantce auctoritatis et potestatis est Papa, ut possit quoque Leges
Divinas modificare, declarare vel interpretari." Again : "Immo
Romani Pontificis excellentia et potestas, nedum est circa calestia,
terrestria, et infernalia, sed etiam super Angelas, quorum ipse est major;
ita Ut SI FORET POSSIBILE, QUOD ANGELI ERRARENT IN FIDE, VEL
CONTRA FIDEM SENTIRENT, PER PAPAM JUDICARI, ET EXCOMMU-
NICARI POSSENT!" Once more: ''Papa tantce est dignitatis, et
celsitudinis, ut non sit simplex homo, sed quasi Deus, et vicarias Dei"
What a contrast does the following sketch of Benedict IX. af-
ford, as given in Bowden's Life and Pontificate of Gregory VII. :
(vol. i., p. 107 : ) " The imperious and licentious house of
Tusculum continued to control both the city and the papacy
with an arbitrary sway. And upon the death of John XVIIL,
in 1033, so little regard did his brother, the head of that potent
family, deem it necessary to pay to appearances, that he directed
the election and consecration of his son Theophylact, a boy
not more, according to some authorities, than ten or twelve
years old. ( ' Puer ferme decennis. Ordinatus quidem puer
annorum circiter duodecim contra jus, fasque, quern scilicet sola
pecunia auri et argenti plus commendavit, quam setas aut sanc-
titas.') The unhappy youth was consecrated under the name of
Benedict IX., and soon exemplified the unfitness of the selection
by the giddy and precipitous manner in which, as soon as his
years admitted it, he plunged into every species of debauchery
and crime. The disgust excited by his proceedings grew at length
too general to be controlled by the interest or authority of his
47
tribunal. Such is the point of view, under which
family; and the Romans, in 1038, drove the young pope from
his see. The emperor Conrad, however, was then in Italy, and
still anxious for the maintenance of friendly relations between
the Tusculan house and himself. He therefore marched upon
Rome, a city which he had not visited since the period of his
coronation ; and Benedict was restored. But the unfortunate
man failed to profit hy the warning thus given him, continuing
to disgrace his pontificate with every species of crime, (' Cujus
vita quam turpis, quam foeda, quamque execranda extiterit,
horresco referre,') and familiarizing himself, it is said, even with
adultery and murder. ('Post multa turpia adulteria et homicidia
manibus suis perpetrata, postremo,' &c.) And at length, as if
determined to outrage public feeling to the utmost, he had the
madness to think of marrying his first-cousin, the daughter of a
nobleman named Gerard de Saxo ! "
I dare not pollute my pages with a detail of the awfully
wicked lives of the Bishops of Rome during the most flourishing
period of the Popedom. "A person," (writes Elliott,) "desirous
of painting scenes of atrocity and filth, might, in the history of
the Popedom, find ample materials of gratification. A mass
of moral impurity might be collected from the Roman Hierarchy,
sufficient to crowd the pages of folios, and glut all the demons
of pollution and malevolence." " Many of these Hierarchs
carried miscreancy to an unenvied perfection, and excelled, in
this respect, all men recorded in the annals of time. John XH.,
Boniface VII., Sixtus IV., Alexander VI., Julius II., cum mul-
tis aliis, seem to have been born to show how far human nature
could proceed in degeneracy, and, in this department, outshine
a Nero, a Domitian, and a Caligula. Several Popes in the
tenth century owed their dignity to Marozia and Theodora, two
celebrated courtezans, who raised their gallants to the pontifical
throne, and vested them with pontifical infallibility. Fifty of
these Viceroys of Heaven, according to Genebrard, (a Romish
48
the subject unavoidably presents itself to every
authority,) degenerated, for one hundred and fifty years, from
the integrity of their ancestors, and were apostatical rather
than apostolical. Genebrard, Platina, Stella, and even Ba-
ronius, (all Romish writers,) call them ' monsters,' 'portends,'
'thieves,' 'robbers,' 'assassins,' 'magicians,' 'murderers,' 'adul-
terers,' ' barbarians,' and 'perjurers.' No less
than seventeen of God's Vicars-General were guilty of perjury.
Papal ambition, usurpation, persecution, domination, excom-
munications, interdicts, and deposition of Kings have filled the
earth with war and desolation." (See Elliott's Delineation of
Popery, pp. 67 and 482.) Of John XII. it is declared by
contemporary (Romish) writers, that " He drank a health to the
devil, invoked Jupiter and Venus, lived in public adultery with
the Roman matrons, and committed incest with Stephania, his
father's concubine ! Fear of violation from St. Peter's suc-
cessors deterred female pilgrims, maids, matrons, and widows
from visiting St. Peter's tomb." Of Alexander VI. we read that,
in common opinion, he surpassed all his predecessors in atrocity.
" This monster, whom humanity disowns, seems to have excelled
all his rivals in the arena of villany, and outstripped every
competitor on the stadium of wickedness. Sannazarius com-
pared Alexander to Nero, Caligula, and Heliogabalus ; and
Pope, in his celebrated Essay on Man, likened Borgia, Avhich
was the family name, to Catiline. This Pontiff, according to
contemporary (Romish) historians, was actuated, to measureless
excess, with vanity, ambition, cruelty, covetousness, rapacity, and
sensuality, and void of all faith, honour, sincerity, truth, fidelity,
decency, religion, shame, modesty, and compunction. 'His
debauchery, perfidy, ambition, malice, inhumanity, and irre-
ligion,' says Daniel, ' made him the execration of all Europe.'
Rome, under his administration, and by his example, became
the sink of filthiness, the head-quarters of atrocity, and the
hot-bed of prostitution, murder, and robbery. Depravity lurked
49
tolerably well-informed judgment of the present day.
under many specious displays ; and broke out in secret, in
sensuality and incest. lie formed an illicit connexion with a
widow who resided at Rome, and with her two daughters.
His passions, irregular and brutal, could find gratification only
in enormity. His licentiousness, after the widow's death, drove
him to the incestuous enjoyment of her daughter, the notorious
and infamous Vannoza. She became his mistress, after her
mother's decease. His Holiness, in the pursuit of variety, and
the perpetration of atrocity, afterward formed a criminal con-
nexion with his own daughter, the witty, the learned, the gay,
and the abandoned Lucretia. She was mistress to her own
father and brother. Pontanus, in consequence, represented
Lucretia as Alexander's daughter, wife, and daughter-in-law ;
' Hie jacet in tumulo, Lucretia, nomine, sed re
Thais, Alexandri, Filia, Sponsa, Nurus.'
Peter's palace, in this manner, became a scene of debauchery
and abomination.
" Simony and assassination were as prominent in Alexander's
character as incest and debauchery. He purchased the Papacy,
and afterward, for remuneration, and to glut his rapacity, he
sold its offices and preferments. He first bought, it has been
said, and then sold, the keys, the altar, and the Saviour. He
murdered the majority of the Cardinals who raised him to the
Popedom, and seized their estates. He had a family of spurious
sons and daughters ; and, for the aggrandizement of these
children of illegitimacy, he exposed to sale all things sacred
and profane, and violated and outraged all the laws of God
and man.
" His death was the consequence of an attempt to poison
the rich Cardinals for the sake of their possessions. Alexander
and Borgia, father and son, actuated with this design, invited
the Sacred College to a sumptuous banquet, near the fountain
in the delightful garden of Belvidera. Poisoned wine was
prepared for the unsuspecting guests. But the fatal cup was,
D
50
But we may, I conceive, defend our position on
by mistake, handed to the father and son, who drank without
knowing their danger. Borgia's constitution, for a time, over-
came the virulence of the poison. But Alexander soon died by
the stratagem he had prepared for the murder of his friends."
Ibid., p. 484.
Nor were these infallible guides, these who promulgated their
infallibilia Decreta circa doctrinam Fidei, free from the stain of
heresy. Pope Liberius, in the fourth century, declared himself
an Arian, and condemned Athanasius : Honorius, in the seventh
century, was a Monothelite, and was condemned, forty-two years
after his death, at the third Council of Constantinople. To
these may be added Zephyrinus, who was a Montanist, VigilhiSj
who condemned the doctrine of the " two natures " in Christ,
and several others detailed by Ferraris himself, who endeavours
to surmount the difficulty by stating, that these heretics did not
speak "ex cathedra, circa doctrinam Fidei" but "ut personal
privates ;" though he adds, " Papa prdbabilim etiam ut persona
privata non potest in hceresim tncidere, et in fide dejicere;" upon this
ground, " Pontifex sit viva regula, quam omnesfideles sequi, et prce
oculis habere oportet!" Passing over the Popes who have contra-
dicted Popes, as Stephen VI. and Sergius III., who annulled the
acts of Formosus, and a host of others, it is not a little difficult
to ascertain in whom the " infallibility " centred, when, as in
the eleventh century, Benedict IX. was performing the Papal
function in the Lateran, Gregory VI. at St. Peter's, and
Sylvester III. at Santa Maria Maggiore ! Or when, as during
the great Western Schism, in the fourteenth and fifteenth cen-
turies, there were two, and at one time three Popes, at Rome,
Avignon, and Bologna, each claiming to be the occupant of the
Papal Chair, " quasi Deus, et Vicarius Dei," and whose respec-
tive Pontifical acts at the present day are a matter of dispute.
How any intelligent, well-read member of the Church of England
can be conversant with these historical facts, and apostatize to
the Church of Rome, is far beyond my comprehension.
51
higher grounds ; 4 we may take our stand where "The
Morning Star of the Reformation" did, when sum-
moned by the Romish Church to defend the general
perusal of the Scriptures. He defends it upon the
grounds, that the Bible must have been designed for
the guidance and instruction of all Christian men,
of every degree, without exception. 5 They who call
it heresy to speak of the Holy Scriptures in the
English tongue, must be prepared, he affirms, " to
condemn the Holy Ghost, that gave it in tongues
to the Apostles of Christ, to speak the Word of
God in all languages that were ordained of God
under Heaven ;" and thus " the Apostles converted
the world, by making known to them the truths
of Scripture in a language familiar to the people."
"Why then," adds this Reformer, "should not
the disciples of Christ, in the present day, take
freely from the same loaf, and distribute to the peo-
ple ?" 6 " Besides, ' ' adds he, ' ' according to the faith
which the Apostle teaches, all Christians must
stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, and be
answerable to Him for all the talents wherewith
He has entrusted them. It is, therefore, necessary
that all the faithful should know these talents
and their use, for an answer by Prelate or Attorney
4 I am indebted to Le l>as' Life of Widif, (cli. (>,) lor tin:
above and many otber valuable remarks in these latter pages.
5 See Lewis's Life of Wiclif, ch. o, pp. 83, 89 ; edit. 1820.
6 See The Peoples Riyht to read the Holy Scripture Asserted,
by Bishop Stratford.
D "
52
will not then avail, but ' every one must give an ac-
count of himself to God.' Since, then, God has
given to both clergy and laity the knowledge of
the faith, has required them both to ' search the
Scriptures,' since they contain the ' words of eternal
life,' and has mercifully granted us the means of
obtaining a knowledge of ' the truth as it is in
Jesus,'' it is plain, that God, in the day of judg-
ment, will require a true account of the use of these
goods, how they have been * put out to usury.' " 7
7 "In this manner did Dr. Wiclif plead the right of the people
to read the Scriptures, and defend his translation of them, that
they might enjoy this right. And this was the more necessary
at this time, when it seems to have been the prevailing opinion,
that the Scripture was not to be read by every one at his
pleasure in any language. Thus one William Butler, a Fran-
ciscan friar, in a Determination which he published about
twenty years after, against this translation of the Bible by
Dr. Wiclif, asserts that ' the Prelates ought not to suffer, that
every one at his pleasure should read the Scripture translated
into Latin ; because, as is plain from experience, this has been
many ways the occasion of falling into heresies and errors. It
is not therefore politick,' says he, ' that any one, wheresoever
and whensoever he will, should give himself to the fervent study
of the Scriptures.' The author of the Prologue tells us, that
in his time it was ordered in the University of Oxford, that
Priests and Curates were not to read the Scriptures till they
were nine or ten years standing there. Nay some writers had
then the folly and madness, in opposition, I suppose, to Dr.
Wiclif, to affirm, that ' the decrees of Bishops in the Church
are of greater authority, weight, and dignity, than is the
authority of the Scriptures.' " (See Lewis's Life of WicJcliffe,
ch. 5.) And we read of John Faber, called Malleus Hcereticorum,
53
It will be seen, that this vindication utterly dis-
cards the notion, that there can be any authority
in matters of faith co-ordinate with the Bible.
The traditions of the Church, the decrees of Bis-
hops, Popes, or Councils, are all here thrust down
to a rank immeasurably below the eminence en-
joyed by the inspired writings. " The Scripture
alone is truth." " The Scripture alone is the Faith
of the Church." These are the grand and solid
maxims, upon which, as upon the Eternal Rock,
this early Reformer built up the defence of this
great undertaking, and indeed the whole fabric
of his scheme of Reformation. We have here
a vigorous germ, cast by him with a bold hand
into the generous soil of his country, there to
lie during a tempestuous period, to all appear-
ance dormant and powerless, 'till the season should
arrive for its starting into life. "Then," in the
language of Milton, 8 "then was the sacred Bible
sought out from dusty corners ; the schools
were opened ; divine and human learning raked
out of the embers of forgotten tongues ; princes
and cities trooped apace to the newly erected
banner of salvation ; martyrs, with the irresistible
might of weakness, shook the powers of darkness,
" the Hammer of Heretics," that, in a dispute with the Zwing-
lians, when hard pressed by his opponents' continued appeal to
the Gospel, he exclaimed, " That the world might very well live
in peace unthout the Gospel."
8 On the Reformation in England.
54
and scorned the fiery rage of the enemy of man ;
and then, " after the manner that they call heresy,
again worshipped we the God of our fathers."'
" The Protestant Church of England, our holy
Mother," (writes the author of The Protestant's Com-
panion, in the reign of James II.) " admits of no
other Rule for Faith and Practice than the Holy
Scriptures, which, according to the Apostles, ' are
able to make us wise unto salvation.' The Church
of Rome doth equal unwritten Traditions with the
Holy Scriptures, 1 whom some of that Church do
call a Nose of Wax; another, and that no less a
man than a Cardinal, (Bellarmine,) affirms, That the
Scripture is no more to be believed, in saying that
it comes from God, than Mahomet's Alcoran, because
that saith so too. Another Cardinal (Pole} saith,
That the Scriptures have no authority but for the de-
cree of the Church,' 2 (they mean the Roman Church,)
by whom they ought to be regulated, and not the
9 The 3d, 4th, 5th, and 6th of Dr. Wordsworth's Letters to
M. Gondon, on the Church of Rome and the Holy Scriptures, will
well repay a careful perusal.
1 "It was also agreed in this Congregation, (third Session
of Council of Trent,) to declare Traditions to be of equal authority
with the Scripture" See Dupin, cent. 16, p. 13.
2 The Council of Florence, A. D. 1573, decrees, (Art. ],)
" That no interpretation of Holy Scripture be received, unless
confirmed by the Tradition of the Church." (See Landon's
Manual of Councils, p. 250.)
' " Si quis habet interpretationem Romanas Ecclesias, etiamsi
nee scit, nee intelligit, an et quomodo cum S<:riptur& verlis
55
Church be regulated by them ; and the reason is, be-
cause (as it is confessed) that the people would easily
be drawn away from observing the Church's (that is,
Romish) institutions, when they should perceive that
they are not contained in the Law of Christ, and
that their (that is, Popish) doctrines are not only
different from, but repugnant to the Holy Scriptures.
Hence doth the Church of Rome, under severe
penalties, forbid the laity the perusal of them, and
thereby involves every layman in the guilt of being
a Traditor, which in the first ages of Christianity
was a crime next door to apostacy : which act doth
not only imply, That the Popish Church refuseth
to be tried by the test of God's Word, but is dia-
metrically opposite to the practice of the Primitive
Christians;" 3 which the author proceeds to establish.
conveniat, is tamen habet ipsissimum verbum Dei.' This passage
I give on the authority of Gerhard, who, in his Loci Theologici,
torn i., p. 44, (ed. Cotta,) has quote 1 it from the Works of Car-
dinal Hosius." Up. Marsh's Comparative View, &c., ch. vi., note.
The confession which Erasmus made in a letter to Pickheimer,
respecting the doctrine of Transubstantiation, will elucidate the
above position : " I should not dislike the opinion of OEcolam-
padius, (on the Eucharist,) were it not that the consent of the
Church is against it. I can neither understand what a Body
does which is not the object of the senses, nor what advantage
it would confer if it were, so long as the Spiritual Grace is
present in the symbols. Yet I cannot depart, as I never have
departed, from the consent of the Church." Waddington's His-
tory of the Reformation, on the Continent, vol. ii., p. 315.
3 The reader will find the references to the above authorities
given at large in Gibson's Preservative, vol. iii., Appendix, p. 90.
Time, my beloved, will not permit me, at any
The author adds in his Notes, that "though the Papists do cashier
the public use of the Holy Scriptures, and fly to, as they
pretend, an Infallible Judge, yet are they not agreed among
themselves who that should be ;" which he proves by abundant
references. He adds, as the result of Rome's policy in with-
holding the Scriptures, " that not only the Popish laity, but
even the Priests themselves are very ignorant in the Holy
Scriptures ; so that once a Schoolman, in the last age, being
to preach at Paris, where the famous Melancthon was his
auditor, took a text (for want, I suppose, of a better book) out
of Aristotle's Ethicks ! "
Speaking on this subject, with reference to the period of
the Reformation, Soames writes : " The avidity with which
Luther read the Bible, will occasion no surprise when it is
known that few volumes were less studied in his youth, and
in the periods immediately preceding it. ' In a sermon delivered
before the Council of Constance, a professor of divinity observes,
that there were many prelates who had never read more of
the Sacred Writings than a few passages scattered in the canon
law. Even Luther himself, though a man of such assiduous
application, and eager curiosity, was surprised when he dis-
covered the copy of the Bible, to find that it contained so
much njore than was inserted in the liturgies and breviaries.'
(Beausobre, torn i., p. 42.) On this subject the ignorance
of the common monks is scarcely credible. According to Conrad
of Heresbach, one of the mendicant monks observed in a sermon :
' they have invented a new language, which they call Greek ;
you must be carefully on your guard against it ; it is the mother
of all heresy. I observe in the hands of many persons, a book
written in that language, and which they call the New Testa-
ment ; it is a book full of daggers and poison. As to the
Hebrew, my dear brethren, it is certain that those who learn
it, become instantaneously Jews.' " History of the Reformation
of the Church of England, vol. i., Introduction, p. 122, Note.
57
length, to apply to our practical improvement the
great truths which have this day been advanced.
But I must, ere I close, ask you, you, who have
now heard, I trust with feelings of gratitude, the
legacy, the precious legacy, which was, when we
were released from Popery, offered to every man,
the version of the Oracles of God into your own
native tongue, so that you may be " wise unto
salvation," I must ask you : Do you possess this
sacred treasure ? Have you a Bible ? If you
have not, your own negligence alone has deprived
you of " this pearl of great price."
But most of you, I doubt not, possess a Bible,
and all of you are invited to listen to its sacred
truths, on each successive sabbath. It becomes,
then, a question of immeasurable importance, how
we have profited by the means of improvement
with which we are blessed? The value of the
treasure is unspeakably great, the responsibility,
to those who possess it, awful in the extreme. You
have access to the Word of God ; and do you re-
gard that Word " as a lantern unto your feet, and
a light unto your paths?" Do you, when pur-
suing your journey through the mazy difficulties
of life, consider whether your conduct is sanc-
tioned by your Bible ? Do you study the Word
of God, as that which will make you 4 " wise
4 See an admirable Sermon (No. 17) by the Very Rev. the
Dean of Exeter, on Christ present in the Scriptures; edit. 1841.
58
unto salvation, through faith which is in Jesus
Christ?" Or does your reverence for that Vol-
ume consist, in letting it, week after week, and
month after month, lie neglected and forgotten ?
Amid the solemn scenes of your bed of death,
when life is trembling and fluttering over the
abyss of eternity, and the soul is struggling and
clinging to its tenement of clay, with awful anti-
cipations of a future judgment, how overwhelming-
will it be to remember, that every prayer, and
every sermon, and every administration of the
Lord's Supper, nay the Gospel itself, and all the
blessings it contains, although so frequently of-
fered to you by God, with infinite kindness, were
still unregarded and despised. But the lamp
is now gone out, the oil expended, and " the door
is shut." May this dire calamity never befall any
one of you who now hear me. And to this end,
"search the Scriptures ;" read and study the Word
of God with prayer, ponder the lessons there
written by the finger of God ; let its pure and
righteous laws direct your thoughts, your words,
your actions; then, by the aid of God's Holy
Spirit, you will be pursuing "that path, which,"
through the atoning merits of Jesus Christ alone,
"leadeth to Eternal Life."
59
APPENDIX.
CATHOLICO - ROMANUS PACIFICUS,
(CH. II.)
CONCERNING THE PRIVILEDGES OF THE
ISLE OF GREAT BRITAIN:
Written by Father Barnes, 1 of the Order of St. Benedict, (yet
living, as is said, in the Roman Inquisition ; ) and translated
and published by Dr. Richard Watson, 1661.
" Concerning the Priviledyes of the Isle of Great Britain.
" What some have writ, is truly to be lamented, ' That
the Kings of Great Britain are Feudataries of the See
Apostolic, and consequently subject to the Holy Pope, (as
1 Dr. Easier, in his Ancient Liberty of the Britannick Church,
says, "Let the reader see, if he can get it, Barnes's MS., the
title whereof is, Catholico-Romanus Pacificus, ch. ii., De Insulce
MagnoB Britannice Privilegiis ; for which his sober work that good
Irenasus, although he were of an unblameahle life, and entire
fame, yet some years since was, as they say, carried out of the
midst of Paris by force, divested of his habit, and like a four-
footed brute, in a barbarous manner, tied to the horse, and
so violently hurried away, first into Flanders, afterwards to
Rome, where being first thrust into a dungeon of the Inqui-
sition, and then into the prison for madmen, he died. Yet
those fierce people, not content with his death, have endeavoured
to extinguish his fame, boldly publishing that he died dis-
tracted." p. 40, note.
60
Monarch independent on the Canons,) as well in temporals,
as in spirituals ;' whereby they have too much exasperated
them, and alienated them from their obedience to his
Holiness, and Roman Catholic Communion. It were here
to be wished, that the Holy Pope would yield somewhat
to the public peace and safety of Great Britain, and be
content that the most serene King and Kingdom of Great
Britain might be admitted to the Communion of the Holy
Roman Church, without any actual dependence on the
Sovereignty of the Holy Pope, until, at least, in a full
and free Council, a remedy might be gotten for this mis-
fortune. Now I shall assign a three-fold theological
foundation, out of which (with submission to better judg-
ment) appears, that such a Council is probable, and con-
venient to be assembled.
" The first is a grievous fear, which the wiser politicians
conceive, as affairs stand in Britain, from an actual sub-
jection to be yielded to the See Apostolic ; and truly who
would not fear to be subject unto him, that, if you displease
him, can, in a little half hour's space, take away kingdom,
and life, and reputation, and is able to arm his Catholic
subjects against him ? The second foundation is, because
adhering to the decrees of the Councils of Constance., and
Basil, which have declared them to be accounted heretics,
who maintain, ' That the Pope is not subject to General
Councils,' it seems in practice, the modern Popes are to
be. accounted heretics, especially since they pertinaciously
defend the heresy which the said Fathers condemned, by
censures of the Bull in Ccena. Which I speak not to
raise a controversy against His Holiness, but humbly to
insinuate a probable foundation of pacifying so illustrious
a kingdom, and aggregating it to the Catholic Church.
The third is, because by the Ephesine Canon the ancient
privileges of Churches ought to be conserved, yea, if
61
ravished away by force, to be recovered. Now the Isle of
Britain, in times past, hath enjoyed the Cyprian privilege,
that it should be subject to the laws of no Patriarch ; and
although this privilege was heretofore abolished by the
tumults and violence of wars, yet, whereas in the time of
Henry the Eighth, it had been recalled by the consent of
the whole kingdom, and since that time peaceably pre-
scribed, it seems that, for peace-sake, it ought to be
retained, without the loss of Catholicism, or the brand of
any schism, so that in other things the kingdom conform
itself to the Universal Canons and Customs of the Catholic
Church. These things I humbly suggest to His Holiness,
ready to be corrected by him, if in any particular I have
erred from the truth." pp. 12-15.
Then follow the Paralipomena, from which I extract the
following.
" I think I shall do what will be acceptable to such as
are studious of antiquity, if I here briefly transcribe out of
my Tractate some few things, by which it may appear that
the Britons and Scots, whom we call Irish, before the
coming of Augustin into England, were Catholics, and
enjoyed the same privileges in the Western Church, as
wherewith the Cyprians were honoured in the Eastern,
Gildas the Wise writeth, * That Britain almost from the
age of the Apostles, had Bishops, who communicated with
the rest of the world in pacific and formed letters, even
from the beginning of the Gospel.' Tertullian in his book
against the Jews, (Num. 43 of Pamelius's edition,) after he
had reckoned up all the Catholic Churches throughout the
world, adds, * And the Britons' holds, inaccessible to the
Romans, are subdued to the yoke of Christ.' And Pame-
lius upon the same place, out of Bede and Polydore Virgil,
confesseth, ' That Britain had publicly received the whole
Evangile, not only in the time of Marcus Antoninus
62
Verus, under King Lucius,' but asserts also out of Gilclas,
' from the beginning of the Gospel.' With Gildas not only
Tertullian giveth suffrage, but also Origen ; yea, and St.
Athanasius glorieth, * That Bishops passed out of Britain
to the Council of Sardis, wherein Athanasius's absolution
was obtained.' And in his epistle to Jovinian, then Em-
peror, which is extant in Nicephorus Calixtus's tenth Book
of Ecclesiastical History, he proves that he communicates
with the Catholics diffused through the world, and among
others with the Spanish, Britannic, and Gallic Churches,
which, he saith, by common consent, receive the Catholic
Faith of Athanasius. Hierome in his 85th Epistle, * Both
Gaul and Britain adore one Christ, observe one Rule of
Truth.' The same thing teacheth Chrysostom, 'And that
Catholic Bishops came from Britain to the Council of
Ariminum, is manifest out of Severus Sulpitius, Theoderet,
Hierome, Ruffinus, Socrates, Zozomcn, cited by Harpsfield.
That the Britannic Church kept this communion and unity
of rule with the Gallican, to the coming of St. Augustin
into England, and afterward, I have proved in a large
Tractate concerning the Primacy of Councils ; and it ap-
pears out of the first book of the History of the English
Nation, Harpsfield, and other English writers, { That the
Gallic Church sent into Britain St. German and Lupus,
before the coming of Augustin into England, to succour
the Britannic Church.' And Bede relates, 'That ^Egilbert,
a Gallic Bishop, resided no small time in Ireland, being
employed in reading upon the Scripture;' moreover it
appears out of Bede, Harpsfield, Surius, and others, * That
Hilda, the Nun of Calais, was sent into England by St.
Aidan, and had communicated with the Britannic Church.'
But on the other side, when she lived in the Monastery
at Calais, ' That St. Malo, Brendan, Samson, Polensis,
(all British Christians,} about the year 550, communicated
63
with the Gallic and Aremoric Churches, as well as with
the Britannic and Irish.' The Britannic Church, there-
fore, in the time of St. Augustine, the Apostle, as they
call him, of England, was Catholic, and consequently
the Scotish or Irish; for it is evident out of Bede, that
the Irish, whom they call Scotch, lead the like course of
life and profession; and afterward, 'The Scots differed
nothing in conversion from the Britons.' Now it appears
out of Bede, in the place last cited, and otherwise, as also
Henry of Huntington, 'That neither Britons nor Scots
would communicate with the English, and their Bishop
Augustin, more than with Pagans,' as Huntington speaks ;
and the reason was, because Augustine seemed to deal
with them uncanonically, by constraining them to receive
him for their Archbishop, and to submit themselves to
the mandates of foreigners ; when, as the ancient manners
of their Church required, they should act all things
synodically among themselves, as in their Ordination of
Bishops, so in other affairs of the Church. Their words out
of Bede, are, ' Because they cannot, without the consent
and license of their [Clergy so assembled] renounce their
ancient manners, when as this appears to be against the
Sixth Nicene Canon, which commands ancient manners to
be kept ; and the Eighth of the Ephesine Council, which
will not have the rights of Churches taken away, and
if they be taken away, even by what Patriarch soever,
his fact is declared void ; and command is given him, that
he restore the Province, which he hath made his own.'
In the mean time what are the manners of the Britannic
Church, appears out of Bede. St. Oswald the King, an
observer of the Scotish and Britannic communion, desiring
to have a Bishop, by whose learning and ministry he might
be ruled, the English nation sent unto the Ancients of the
Scots ; they begin to hold a great treaty in council, what
should be clone; they decree Aidan worthy of the Epis-
copate, and so ordaining him, send him to preach ; which
custom continued a long time in Ireland, as appears out of
Sylvester, Girald, and the Topography of Ireland.
Yea, that the Britannic Churches were Catholic, in the
judgment of Augustin himself, with whom they would not
communicate, appears out of Bede ; for Augustine offers
the Bishops of Britain his communion, if they would con-
form themselves to the lloman Church, in the ceremonies
of Baptism, and observation of Easter ; which shew, that
the Britains agree with Augustin in matters of faith.
About this, by the way, mark a lapse of Bede ; for in his
book concerning the Sixth Age, anno mundi 4585, he
writes, ' That the Scots were Quartodecimans ;' and yet
Bede saith, ' That they celebrated Easter on the Lord's Day,
on which it is manifest, Anatolius, Patriarch of Constanti-
nople, celebrated it,' who is asserted to have delivered to
them his Use. The ancient manners of Britain were ab-
rogated more by the force and power of the English
Saxons than synodical consent ; which those most holy
men, Colman and his fellows, seeing, had rather desert
their Bishopricks and Monasteries, than their ancient man-
ners of living, as Bede relates. Since these things have been
so, the Three States of England, willing to retrieve the
ancient rights of the kingdom, taken away more by force
and power than by Canon, by concession of the Eighth
Canon of the Ephesine Council, in the 24th year of Henry
the Eighth, decreed, ' That controversies should be deter-
mined within the limits of the kingdom, without appeal to
foreigners.' " pp. 24, 32.
W. & II. POLLARD, Printers, North Street, Exeter.
Home's Pretensions Tested.
A SEEMON
PREACHED AT THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF
ST. PETER, EXETER, NOV. 5, 1855,
(Being a Sequel to a Sermon preached at the Cathedral, November 5, 1852 J
Mttlj |I0tes & Carious JUtows,
BY
E. C. HARINGTON, M.A.,
CHANCELLOR OF THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OP EXETER,
UON : LECTURER IN HCCLES : HIST : AT THE EXETER DIOCESAN TRAINING COLLEGE ; AND ONE
OF THE UON : SECRETARIES OF THE EXETER DIOCESAN BOAKD OF EDUCATION.
" Ego fidenter dico, quia quisquis se Universalem Sacerdotem vocat, vel
"vocari desiderat, in elatione sua Antichristum pracnrrit, quia super-
" Itiendo se ceteris praponit" GREG : MAG : Erisx : Lib : 6, Ep : 30.
EXETER. A. HOLDEN.
LONDON: F. & J. RIVINGTON.
1855.
THE REVEREND WILLIAM DAVID,
PRINCIPAL OF THE EXETER DIOCESAN TRAINING COLLEGE,
THIS SERMON
(IN THE HOPE THAT IT MAT BE IN SOME DEGREE A GUIDE TO THE
STUDENTS COMMITTED TO IIIS CHARGE,)
IS INSCRIBED BY
HIS FRIEND AND FELLOW-LABOURER,
THE AUTHOR.
SERMON.
" Thus saith the Lord, stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask
for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein,
and ye shall find rest for your souls." Jeremiah vi. 16.
Some two or three years ago, I had the privilege
of addressing you from this pulpit on this particular
day ; and I deemed it consistent with the occasion,
and in accordance with the tenor of the special ser-
vice for the day, to bring before you the early his-
tory of our own Church, with particular reference to
its entire independence of the Church of R cue. In
one of the Collects for this day we offer our " un-
feigned thanks " to Almighty God " for the deliver-
ance of our Church and Nation from Popish tyranny
and arbitrary power ;" but we shall know very little
of the real " tyranny " and assumption of " arbitrary
power " on the part of the Church of Rome, unless
we study something of her early history, and un-
less we make ourselves acquainted with the Histori-
cal facts connected with our own pure and Apos-
tolical Branch of Christ's Holy Catholic Church.
In my previous discourse, which I have since
6
laid before the public, 1 I treated chiefly of the
period prior to St. Austin's mission ; and I endea-
voured to shew, not only that the British Church
was planted probably before that of Rome her-
self, but that the Church in this Island, governed
by Bishops and Metropolitans, never ceased to exist
from its first foundation till the arrival of that
Missionary. The subject, however, is a large one,
as well as interesting ; and I embrace another op-
portunity of touching on the same points, in order
to bring before you certain collateral matter con-
nected with the respective histories of the Churches
of Rome and Britain ; for I have no hesitation in
asserting that, were the history of the Primitive
Church duly studied, we should have a far clearer
insight into the " tyranny " and " arbitrary power "
of that Church which so falsely and arrogantly lays
claim to universal dominion.
It is, ^s I have previously remarked with regret,
a still very prevailing error, even on the part of those
who are attached members of the Church of Eng-
land, to refer the origin of the Anglican Branch of
the Church Catholic, to Gregory's Missionary, St.
Austin, at the close of the sixth century, to style
him, as popish 2 authors invariably do, 'Apostolus
Anylorum,' and thence to conclude that the doc-
1 The Purity of the Church of England, and the Corruptions of
the Church of Rome; with copious Illustrative Notes, 8vo.
pp. 64. Exetei', Holden ; London, Rivington.
2 I need scarcely allude to the writings of Parsons, Cressy, cj-c.
trines of the Church Catholic in this Island, from
the first introduction of Christianity into Britain,
must have been the same with those promulgated
by the Church of Rome at, and for a long time pre-
vious to, the period of the Reformation. The popu-
lar writers of our national history, if they touch
upon this subject at all, too often dismiss it with a
few passing remarks, and begin their notices of
Ecclesiastical affairs with the mission of St. Austin.
It is well known that Hume turned aside with
dismay from the mass of original records laid open
for his inspection, especially as to the earlier ac-
counts of this island ; 3 and thus we look in vain
for any notice of the Early British Church in the
pages of his history. Involved, however, in the
very general but very erroneous conclusion, that
England owes her conversion to the labors of Papal
emissaries, is the question of the Independence of the
British Church on the See of Rome ; connected with
this point is likewise the charge, so assiduously
urged against the Church of England 4 by her
popish adversaries, viz., that at the period of the
Reformation she committed, and incurred the
penalty due to, the deadly sins of heresy 5 and
3 Prior's Life of Burke, p. 58, edit. 1839.
4 See this point discussed in Mason's Vindication oftfte Church
of England, book 2, ch. 4, p. 71, edit. 1728.
5 See Treatises by Altham and Hickes, "A Vindication of the
Church of England from the Foul Aspersions of Heresy and Schism,
unjustly cast upon her by the Church of Rome," &c.; Gibson's Pre-
8
schism? The present time calls for the especial
attention of every member of our Church, who is
desirous of " giving an answer to every man that
asketh him a reason of the hope that is in him," to
that portion of Ecclesiastical history which relates
to the Primitive Church of Britain ; a portion, it
must be confessed, which has been allowed to
fall into a neglect, altogether inexcusable, and
which has not received that attention on the part
of the members of our Church, which the subject
so much deserves. It has been truly remarked
that this disregard of the early history of our
Church, has in no small degree helped to spread
the baneful influence of many an erroneous opinion,
which at present disturbs the peace of our Zion,
especially in relation to the pretensions of Rome.
To treat again upon this point on this day will
not, therefore, I trust, be deemed either unedifying,
uninteresting, or irrelevant ; whilst its importance
may be learnt from the fact, that a close examina-
tion of the whole question will probably lead every
unbiassed mind to the conclusion, so clearly proved
by Hales, Twisden, and others, that " the origin
servative against Popery, vol. i., tit. i., ch. 2, pp. 167-181,
edit. 1738.
e Vide Baronii Annales, an. 604, sec. 65. See also Mason's
Vindication, bk. 2, ch. 5, p. 84, ed. 1728 ; Crakanthorpe,
Defensio Eccle. Ang., cap. 41, et seq. ; and Twisden's Vindication
of the Church of England in point of Schism, as it stands separated
from the Roman. Ch. 1, 2, 3.
and purity of the Primitive Church in the British
Isles were totally unconnected with the See of
Rome;" and that " the doctrines and discipline
maintained by our Reformers were in strict accor-
dance with that primitive truth and order which was
enjoyed for centuries by the Ancient British Church ;"
or, to quote the language of Crakanthorpe, 7 "per
Keformationem non institui religionem novam, sed
antiquam restitui."
Now it should first be premised that the several
primitive Churches planted by the Apostles through-
out the world, were originally 8 independent of each
other, and governed by their own respective Eccle-
siastical constitutions. This was the natural and
necessary result of the 9 equality that subsisted
between the Apostles themselves, none of whom
had any jurisdiction over the rest. Hence the
7 Defensio EcclesioB Anglicanoe, cap. 85.
8 With reference to the Independence of the British Church,
see Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church, vol. iii., bk. 9,
ch. 1, pp. 27-30; and vol. i., bk. 2, ch. 18, p. 248, edit. 1840.
See also Beveregii Pandectce Canonum, torn, ii ; Annotationes,
cap. 36; Condi. Trull, p. 148, edit. Oxon. 1672; and Vale-
sius's Annotations on the Eccle. Hist, of Socrates, lib. 5, ch. 8,
p. 333, edit. 1709. I would likewise especially refer the reader
to Basiere, " De antiqua Ecclesice Britannicce Liberlate ; atque de
legitima ejusdem Ecclesice exemptione a Romano Patriarchate" 1656 ;
and BramhaU's Just Vindication of the Church of England, ch. 5,
p. 77, edit. 1677. I need scarcely refer the reader to Stilling-
fleet's Origines Britannicce, and to Inett's Origines Anglicance, for
valuable information on this subject.
9 See Palmer's Treatise on the Church of Christ, vol. ii. p. -179.
Apostles of the 'circumcision,' or of the Jews,
and the Apostles of the ' uncircumcision,' or of
the Gentiles, had all their separate provinces, or
districts, within the sphere of which they preached,
without " building upon another man's foundation,"
or encroaching upon the Churches founded by
others. 1 And accordingly we learn from Scripture
and Ecclesiastical history, that St. Peter preached
to the Jews of the dispersion in Pontus, &c.; St.
Simon in Egypt, Gyrene, &c., St. Bartholomew
in the East Indies ; St. Andrew travelled into
the northern countries of Scythia ; St. Matthew
pursued his labors in Ethiopia ; St. Jude in
Syria and Mesopotomia ; St. John in Asia Minor ;
St. James in Jerusalem ; St. Philip in Higher
Asia ; St. Thomas in Parthia, Media, and the
neighbouring nations ; St. Paul in Asia Minor,
Greece, Rome, Spain, and the Western Parts, 2 &c.
And the first four and the only recognized 3 General
Councils, so far as our Church is concerned, (with
the exception of the two supplementary Councils
of Constantinople in 553 and 680), viz., those of
Nice,* A.D. 325; Constantinople, 5 A.D. 381; Ephesus, 6
A.D. 431; and Chalcedon? A.D. 451, acknowledged
1 See Gal. ii. 7 ; Rom. xi. 13, and xv. 20.
2 Yeo well's Chronicles of the Ancient British Church, p. 13;
and Robertson's History of the Christian Church, p. 2.
3 1 Eliz. ch. 1.
4 Canon 6. 5 Canon 2.
6 Canon 8. 7 Canons 9-28.
11
and confirmed 8 this equality 9 and independence of
the original Churches, simply allowing by the third
Canon of Constantinople, and the twenty-eighth of
Chalcedon, to the Church of Rome, as the ancient
imperial city, a precedence ofrank,* as " prima inter
pares," " first among equals, " but not of juris-
diction,' 2 giving at the same time the second place
of honor to the Church of Constantinople.
In the Canons to which I have referred 3 the rank
assigned to the Bishops of Rome and Constanti-
nople is expressly stated, to be the primacy of
honor, TO. Trpeafaia rrje -n^rje, not the primacy of au-
thority, nor even the primacy itself. And " this
honorary primacy," 3 as Hammond has remarked,
" by virtue of which the Bishop of Constantinople
8 See Beveridgc, Pandectcv Canonum; Annot. in Cap. Con.
NIC., torn, ii, p. 52 ; Con. Constan., pp. 93-94 ; Con. Chal. pp.
115-124, edit. 1672 ; and Fleury's Ecdes. Hist., vol. ii., p. 526.
o See Barrow on The Pope's Supremacy, pp. 631-635-652 ;
Works, vol. i. edit. 1741.
1 See Can. 3, Council of Constan., A.D. 381 ; Can. 28 of th
Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, with the Notes of Johnson, Vade-
Mecum,i>. 153, edit. 1714; and the Decrees of Anastatius, 1-2-3,
A.D. 498. See also Hammond's Works, vol. i. p. 519, ch. 5,
Of Schism, edit. 1684.
2 How far the Eastern Patriarchs of the present day, viz.,
those of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria,
coincide in the above interpretation of the Canons, may be
learnt from some very interesting information contained in the
APPENDIX.
3 Hammond on The Six (Ecumenical Councils, p. 55. See also
Cave's Ancient Church, p. 72.
12
had the precedence of all the Bishops of the
Church, after the Bishop of Rome, is expressly
stated to be given to him 'because Constantinople
is new Rome,' thus shewing the nature and origin
of the Primacy of Rome itself." This indeed
is declared distinctly by the Emperor Justinian, 4
l( We decree, according to the decision of the
Canons, that the most holy (Archbishop) of the
elder Rome should be altogether first of all the
priests, and that the most holy Archbishop of
Constantinople, which is new Rome, should have
the second rank after the most holy Apostolic
Throne of the elder Rome, and should be ho-
nored above all others." And to this agrees the
twenty-eighth of Chalcedon, which runs thus, "We,
following in all things the decisions of the Holy
Fathers, and acknowledging the Canon of the hun-
dred and fifty most religious Bishops, (assembled
at the Council of Constantinople,) do also determine
and decree the same things respecting the privileges
of the most holy city of Constantinople, new Rome.
For the Fathers properly gave the primacy to the
Throne of the elder Rome, because that, was the
imperial city. And the hundred and fifty most
religious Bishops, being moved with the same in-
tention, gave equal privileges to the most holy
Throne of New Rome, (Constantinople,) judging
with reason, that the city which was honored with
the sovereignty and senate, and which enjoyed
"Novell. 131, c. 2.
13
equal privileges with the elder royal Rome,
should also be magnified like her in Ecclesiastical
matters, being the second after her." How far
the positions here laid down, which assign Rome's
precedency in rank solely to human enactments,
agree with the papal claim of Supremacy, Jure
Divino, I will leave Romish writers to explain.
This independence to which I have referred,
is further confirmed by a consideration of the
ecclesiastical divisions of the empire in the time
of Constantine, into thirteen Patriarchates or
Exarchates, following the Civil division of the
Empire into thirteen great Dioceses, containing one
hundred and nineteen Provinces, which Provinces
were Ecclesiastically governed by Metropolitans.
These Patriarchs or Exarchs were originally, as
Bingham 5 has shewn, " independent one of ano-
ther," and their Independence, or at least that
of the several Metropolitans, involving subsequently
that of the higher jurisdiction, was recognized and
confirmed by the sixth Canon of Nice. From the
"Notitia Imperii," prepared probably in the reign
of Arcadius and Honorius, 6 (A.D. 391), we learn
the extent of these several Ecclesiastical and Civil
Divisions, and we find that the jurisdiction of the
Bishop of Rome was confined to his own G Patriar-
5 "Works, vol. i. p. 243, Cave's Ancient Church, p. 32.
6 Bingham, vol. iii. p. 4.
7 Bingham, vol. iii., p. 10. Hale's Chronology, &c., vol. ii.,
p. 498, edit. 1830, Cave's Ancient Church, p. 255.
14
chate, civilly designated as the Roman Prefecture,
containing ten Provinces, whilst the civil Diocese
of Britain, containing five Provinces, was eccle-
siastically governed by the Exarch of York ; 8 and
it is further evident from these historical records
that, to quote the language of Bingham, 9 " the
Britannic Churches, for six hundred years, never
acknowledged any dependence upon Rome."
But the Church of Rome was naturally " high-
minded," 1 or aspiring, from the very beginning, and
endeavoured at an early period to encroach on the
rights and liberties of the sister-churches, and to
domineer over their Prelates. Hence the violence
of Victor, 2 Bishop of Rome, against Polycrates,
Bishop of Ephesus, and the other Asiatic Bishops,
respecting the Quartodeciman Controversy, at the
close of the second century, when the Bishop
of Rome was sharply reproved by several Eastern
Prelates, and remonstrated with by Irenseus, Bishop
of Lyons, in a Synodical Epistle, written in the name
of the Churches of France. 8 Hence also, in the
next controversy of importance, A.D. 255, about
" rebaptizing 4 heretics after their conversion to the
8 Bingham, vol. iii., p. 12.
9 Works, vol. iii. p. 27.
1 Rom. ch. xi., v. 20.
2 See Mosheim's Ecclesiastical Histojy, (Soame's edit.) vol. i.
p. 186.
3 Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. bk. 5, ch. 24 : see Note by Valesius.
4 Vid^Concil. Carthag. 1-2-3, Bail, Summa Concih'orum, torn. ii.
Saec. 3, p. 11, edit, 1672 ; Marshall's S. Cyprian, pt. 1, p. 236.
15
faith," " who had previously been baptized by here-
tics and schismatics," for the propriety of which the
Asiatic and African Bishops contended at the
council of Carthage, A.D. 255, in opposition to
Stephen, Bishop of Rome ; after Stephen 5 had
branded the Bishop of Carthage, with the epi-
thet of "false Christ," "false prophet," "deceitful
worker," &c. ; St. Cyprian replied in a truly
Christian strain, accompanying the protest of
a synod 6 of eighty-seven African Bishops against
Stephen's 7 arbitrary measures ; conveying at the
same time an account of the proceedings of the
Councils which had been held on the subject
in dispute, agreeably to those rules of " brotherly
correspondence" 8 which then obtained amongst
the several Bishops of the Catholic Church. St.
Cyprian concludes his remarkable Letter 9 to Pope
Stephen thus, " These our sentiments we have
thought fit to lay before you, dearest Brother,
(Prater charissime,) agreeably to that mutual
affection and respect which we owe one another ;
hoping and believing, that these determinations
5 Vide Cyp. Epist. 74. See also Bower's History of the Popes,
vol. i. p. 68.
6 See Marshall's Notes on the Council of Carthage, A . D. 250 ;
Works ofS. Cyprian, pt. 1, p. 237, edit. 1717.
7 Vide Judidum Stephani Papce de hoc Concilio, in Bail, Sum-
ma Condi, torn. 2, Sajc. 3, p. 13, edit. 1672.
8 See Marshall's Works of St. Cyprian Council of Carthage,
pt.i, p. 236, edit. 1717.
9 Epist. 72.
16
being so agreeable to the rules of our faith and
religion, will be no less agreeable to a person so
devoted as you are to both their interests. We are
aware, however, that some are so addicted to the
opinions they have once imbibed, that they will
not easily change them ; and yet though they
are for abiding by the usages to which they have
been peculiarly accustomed, they keep up still
their good agreement 1 and correspondence with
their colleagues. And on this point we are
perfectly of their opinion, to obtrude nothing
upon any one, nor to prescribe any law ; since
every Bishop in the government of the Church
committed to him, should have the use of his own
free will, 2 being accountable for his conduct only
to the Lord. 3 We heartily wish your welfare,
dearest Brother, and so take leave of you."
A learned annotator 4 has remarked, with refer-
ence to one passage in the above letter, where
St. Cyprian says, that he ' thought it Jit to lay the
case before Stephen,' that " he appealed not to his
infallibility, as Pamelius would hence infer ; but
1 See Works of St. Cyprian, by Marshall Notes, pt. 2, p. 230,
edit. 1717.
2 " Qua in re, nee nos vim cuiquam facimus, aut legem
clamus ; cum habeat in Ecclesire administratione, voluntatis
su8e liberum arbitrium unusquisque jPrcepOBtus, rationem nctus sui
Domino redcliturus." Opera, p. 81, edit. 1603.
3 The reader will consult with advantage Palmer's Treatise
on the Church of Christ, pt. 7, ch. 4, vol. ii.
4 See Marshall's Notes to Epist. 72, pt. 2, p. 228, edit. 1717.
17
laid it before his wisdom, as one Bishop usually
did before another, though perfectly equal, accord-
ing to the known rules of ' brotherly corres-
pondence.' 5 The word made use of is conferendum ;
they (the African Bishops) would confer, advise
with Stephen, on the point in dispute. So far
the compliment went ; but it is plain, adds
Marshall, that they had determined the case
before they knew his opinion, and only notified
to him what they had done, expecting from his
wisdom that he would do the like." St. Cyprian
expresses his opinion sufficiently strongly, as to
the proud and arrogant spirit which, notwith-
standing his mild remonstrance, actuated the
Bishop 6 of Rome in his communication with the
Eastern Bishops, as may be learnt by perusing
his Letter 7 to Pompeius, Bishop of Sabrata,
wherein he speaks of Stephen having " written
unwarily, unskilfully, with great pride, imperti-
nence, and self-contradiction." And in the same
letter, alluding to Stephen having adduced the
example of Hereticks, in defence of his tradition,
he writes, ironically, " Our brother Stephen
hath, indeed, laid before us a notable tradition,
and of great authority to lead our practice ! "
5 See Preface to Council of Carthage, in Marshall's Works of
St. Cyprian, pt. 1, p. 236, edit. 1717.
6 See Preface to Epistle 74 in Marshall's Works of St. Cyprian,
pt. 2, p. 244, edit. 1717.
7 Epist. 74, Marshall's St. Cyprian, pt. 2, p. 244.
18
But "what obstinate and hardy presumption must
it be, to prefer the tradition of men before the
appointment of God ; nor at the same time to
consider that God is always angry, whenever
human tradition overlooks or weakens the au-
thority of the Divine commands."
What others thought of the conduct of Stephen
may be learnt from the celebrated Letter 8 of
Firmilian, Bishop of Csesarea in Cappadocia, who
is styled "the most considerable Bishop in those
parts," to St. Cyprian, respecting the conduct and
proceedings of Stephen. Firmilian speaks of the
"inhumanity" of the Bishop of Rome towards St.
Cyprian and the Eastern Bishops, of his " unfair
carriage upon the occasion," (T adopt the trans-
lation of Marshall,) and in an apostrophe, directed
to Stephen himself, he uses these memorable
words, " You are in effect much worse than
hereticks ; for when many of them acknowledge
their error, and come over to you that they may
enjoy the true light of the Church, you shade
the light of ecclesiastical truth, and thicken the
darkness wherewith heresy is otherwise over-
spread But observe now with what
rashness and folly you cast your reproaches upon
persons who contend against falsehood and wrong.
But thus indeed it usually happens, that
men of least knowledge have usually most wrath,
which is really their resort, when their under-
8 Marshall's St. Cyprian, Epis. 75, pt. 2, p. 251.
19
standing fails them; so that the application of
that passage in Holy Scripture is to no one more
proper than to you, ' An angry man stirreth up
strife, and a furious man aboundeth in transgres-
sion.' ' Prov. xxix. 22.
Truly Firmilian seems to have known but little
of the Pope's Infallibility ! Nay, he even accuses
Stephen of * c manifest folly," and that on a point
upon which he had delivered his judgment ex
Cathedra : " Ego in hac parte juste indignor
ad hanc tarn apertam et manifestam Stephani
stultitiam." And speaking of Stephen's having
" excommunicated " l the Bishops who differed
from him on the subject of heretical baptism,
Firmilian writes, " How then must you (Stephen)
' abound in transgressions,' when you have cut
yourself off from so many flocks of Christians'
You have indeed cut off yourself; therefore be
not deceived. For he is at last the schismatick,
who apostatizes from communion with the unity
of the Church. Thus, whilst you think it in your
power to excommunicate all the world, you have
only separated yourself from the communion of the
whole Christian Church." A position of Firmilian
which is strictly applicable to the case of Pius V.
9 Opera, p. 203, edit. 1603. With reference to the above
passage, Marshall asks, " Did Firmilian believe the Infallibility
of his Boliness in or out of his Chair ? I wot not." Works,
p. 259, Note.
1 On the nature of this "excommunication" see Mosheim's
Commentaries, vol. ii., p. 385, Note.
20
and the Church of England 2 in the sixteenth
century.
The Bishop of Csesarea, then addressing St.
Cyprian, writes thus : " With what exactness now,
and diligence, hath Stephen observed these whole-
some directions of the Apostle, concerning lowli-
ness and meekness ! For what could be more meek
and lowly than his discord with so many Bishops
all over the Christian world ! Than his breach of
the peace in diverse manners, now with his Eastern
colleagues, and then with you in the South !
Stephen is not ashamed of turning advocate
in aid and support of hereticks ; nay, nor of
calling Cyprian "false Christ," "false prophet,"
and " deceitful workman ; " all which characters
his own conscience tells him were deserved by
himself. He hath first drawn out their lineaments,
and by ascribing them falsely to another person,
hath put us in mind that he was the true original
with whom they best suited." Such was the
language of the " most considerable Bishop " 3 in
the East in the third century, when speaking of
Rome's presumption ! 4 And yet we are called
2 See Barlow's Brutum Fulmen.
3 Marshall's Preface to Epistle 75, p. 251.
4 How it came to pass that the Letter of Firmilian to St.
Cyprian has been transmitted to our time, notwithstanding the
skill exhibited by the Church of Rome, in suppressing disagree-
able documents, and withholding antagonistic testimony, may be
learnt from Marshall : "Firmilian was a disciple of Origen, but
his Letter makes so bold with his Holiness of Rome, that if
21
upon in the nineteenth century to acknowledge
papal Supremacy and papal Infallibility !
Such expostulations, however, as the above and
such like, which were addressed directly or indi-
rectly to the Bishop of Rome, had but little
weight with the turbulent Stephen and his aspiring
successors.
True it is, that when they presumed too far
to pass their bounds, they frequently met with
repulses 5 and checks, which would now be more
apparent, had the writers of those times been as
careful to record the opposition to the papal
claims, as they have been to chronicle their
success. One or two instances of severe ani-
madversion on the pretensions of Rome may
however be adduced even at an early period ; and
the pages of English 6 history abound with exam-
Morellius had not published it, Pamelius would have condemned
it to perpetual darkness. And Latinus Latinius (saith Bishop
Fell) takes upon himself the omission of it, and acquits Manutius,
avowing that he designedly left it out, from his abhorrence of the
pertness and petulancy of the writer ; as he declares expressly
in p. 117 of his Bibliotheca Sacra. Rather than an author of
Firmilian's fame and antiquity should appear against the Bishop
of Rome and his modern pretensions, we should have lost this
venerable monument, if it had not been happily rescued from the
hands of these professed depredators" Preface to Epist. 75 ; Works,
pt. ii, p. 251.
5 See Twisden's Vindication of the Church of England, ch. 3.
Of the Increase of the Papal Power in England, and what oppo-
sition it met with.
6 See Prynne's History of King John, Henry III., and Edward
22
pies of a like nature from the days of St. Austin
to the period of the Reformation. Platina? in
his Life of Julius I., A. D. 337, records a notable
repulse which this Pope met with in his usurping
pretensions. " This Julius," says he, "forbore not
to reprehend the Bishops of the East, because,
without his leave or order, they had called a
Council at Antioch ; saying, ' It ought not to be
done, because the Roman Church ought to have
a Superintendency over all the rest.' But," (con-
tinues that Roman Catholic author,) "those of the
East looked upon his allegation with scorn, and
could not but laugh at so vain a claim ; telling
him, it was well known that the Gospel was
first delivered in the East, and thence preached
to the Italians and other Western nations ; and
that it was to their parts that Rome herself owed
the reception of the Faith ; wherefore if an)*- pre-
eminence was to be challenged, it was due to their
Churches as the most ancient ; from whence, as
from a clear and lasting fountain, others were
derived, and supplied with the waters of truth ;
for to allow any Superintendency to Rome, were
absurdly to set the Daughter above the Mother."
" A shrewd argument," remarks one of the authors
/., containing an Exact History of the Popes Usurpations, $-c.,
passim ; Bray's Papal Usurpations, passim ; and Foulis' Romish
Treasons, passim.
7 Page 39, Ed. Lovan, 1572; Rycaut's Lives of the Popes,
p. 57.
23
of the History of Popery* " that to this day may
puzzle a whole college of Jesuits solidly to
answer." And it may here be observed, that
the Fathers at Antioch were so far from paying
deference to Julius, as their superior, that they
threatened to excommunicate and depose him,
if he resisted their decrees. 9 Again, in the Council
of Milevis, in Numidia, A.D. 416, the following
Canon 1 was enacted, "That if the inferior clergy
had ought to complain of their own Bishops,
they should bring their cause before the neigh-
bouring Bishops ; or from them to the Councils
of Africa, as it was often decreed about
Bishops ; but whosoever will appeal beyond the
Sea, (to Rome,) let him not be received to the
communion by any in Africa."
It may be remarked, that at this famous Council
some of the most illustrious men of the primitive
Church were present ; as Aurelius, Bishop oi
Carthage, and Augustine, Bishop of Hippo.
Lastly, "in the year 419, two-hundred and
twenty-seven Bishops being assembled at the sixth
Council of Carthage, respecting the case of
Apiarius, Zosimus first, and afterwards his suc-
8 Vol. i. p. 35.
9 Barrow On the Pope's Supremacy, vol. i., pp. 698-719, edit.
1741. Soz. Lib. 3, ch. 8.
1 Cone. Mil. ii., Can. 18; Vid. Binii Condi. Gen., torn, i.,
p. 867, ed. 1630. Landon's Manual of Councils, p. 8. See also
my previous Sermon, p. 12, and Professor Hussey's Eise of the
Papal Power, p. 41.
24
cessors, Boniface and Calestine, Bishops of Rome,
by their deputies there, claimed a right of Appeals
and Primacy ; alleging for the same a Canon of
the Council of Nice. The Fathers sent to Con-
stantinople, Alexandria, and Antic ch, for the Acts
of this Council to be brought, sealed up, and
no such Canon was to be found. 2 Whereupon,
to crush such his pretension, they then confirmed 3
the before recited Canon, enacted at the Council
of Milevis."
The Bishop of Rome had, in fact, by his Legates
endeavoured to foist upon the Council a Canon
of Sardica, as a genuine Canon of the Council
of Nice! "How (asks Professor Hussey) Zosi-
mus, Boniface, and Cselestine, (for the last two
sent the same Legates, and never retracted what
Zosimus had instructed them to advance,) came
to quote the Nicene Canons falsely, is the ques-
tion." " But, (adds the Professor,) I fear we
must say, that we are come now to the age of
Papal Forgeries." 4 And I may add that the
Church of Rome seems always to have been an
adept at such practices, as may be learnt by
2 History of Popery, vol. i., p. 41. Hammond on the Six
(Ecumenical Councils, p. 39.
3 See Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History, cent. 5, vol. iii. p. 223,
edit. 1693, and Hussey, p. 41, note.
4 The Rise of the Papal Power, p. 48. See also Eobins's
Whole Evidence against the Claims of the Church of Rome, ch. 4,
on the Forgeries and Corruptions of Documents, pp. 223-247.
25
perusing the " Roman Forgeries in the Councils,"
&c., published by Dean Comber.
Notwithstanding, however, the above, and va-
rious similar enactments, passed to check the papal
encroachments, the Popes gradually 5 increased their
usurped power.
The Bishop of Rome, in fact, watched eve-
ry opportunity of aggrandizement ; and under
a succession of artful and enterprising Pontiffs,
acting by a refined, systematic, and undeviat-
ing course of policy, the See of Rome, from
small beginnings, usurped Universal dominion ;
"realizing (to adopt the language of Dr. Hales 6 )
Daniel's * little horn,' which sprouted in the
last stage of the Roman Empire, ' with eyes like
the eyes of a man,' in the character of a Seer,
Overseer, or Pope, and ' a miuth speaking great
things,' fulminations, or * blasphemies,' 'whose look
was more stout than his fellows,' the other Bishops
(Dan. vii. 8-20); and in process of time attained to
a pitch of political supremacy, both ecclesiastical and
temporal, conferred by 'the old Dragon,' at which
f all the world wondered ' (Rev. xiii. 2-3)." And such
was her overweening pride and arrogance, that
at length the last and most degenerate of Councils,
* Palmer's Treatise on the Church of Christ, pt. 7, ch. 8, vol. ii.
p. 547.
6 On the Origin and Purity of the Primitive Church of the British
Isles, p. 4 ; See also Analysis of Sacred Chronology, vol. ii. p. 504,
et seq.
26
that of Trent, after twenty-five Sessions, from
1545 to 1563, under the immediate control and
direction of the Pope, finally established the mo-
dern Church of Rome, upon its present basis ;
and sanctioned a Confession' of Faith by Pope Pius
IV., drawn up chiefly for the use of the Clergy,
but extended to the Laity also, requiring the Roman
Church to be acknowledged as the Holy, Catholic,
and Apostolic Church, the Mother and Mistress
of all Churches; and the Roman Pontiff to be
obeyed, as the successor of St. Peter, Prince of
the Apostles, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ; and
declaring, that they who deny the doctrines
specified in this <{ Confession," amongst which
are those of Image Worship and Indulgences, are
out of the pale of salvation*
These exorbitant and unchristian claims of the
Church and See of Rome have been over and
over again refuted by the learned of the Reformed
Churches of Europe, and by none more ably and
successfully, than by the Divines of our own
Church. Still they are re-asserted by modern
Papists, who are ever anxious to derogate from
the character of the Church of England ; and it
is a duty which we owe to ourselves, as well
as to our Church, to endeavour to disprove the
7 Professio Fidei Catholic Secundum Concilium Tridentinum,
ex Sulla Pii Papce IV. Vid. Sylloge Confesstonvm, p. 3, edit.
Oxon, 1827.
8 See the last clause in the Professio Fidei Tridentina.
27
monstrous assertions now industriously circulated
by the abettors of Romanism. Take, for instance,
the following statements, which I extract from a
small work, entitled " The Stranger's Guide to High
Mass," published some two or three years ago,
and addressed and, I am informed, gratuitously
distributed to, " The Protestant Visitor " of certain
Popish Chapels in London : the Address to the
" Dear 9 Christian Reader " begins thus, "Three
hundred years ago the Catholic Church in this
country was violently made captive ; her captors
put a most hideous mask before her face, and in
that mask have they presented her to you and
your fellow Protestants. . . . By degrees the Spirit of
God, who dwelleth within her, began to untie the
bandages by which her real countenance was con-
cealed, the rays of divine truth penetrated from
beneath, one by one, with irresistible power, and
the fullness of her radiant face will shine forth
again in the majesty of the Sun, after a dreary
winter and a cloudy sky You, my dear
friend, on reading Catholic Works, or conversing
with Catholics, will be struck to find that on every
point of controversy the Catholic has Reason, Scrip-
ture, and Tradition on his side." Would any one,
on reading this most false and extravagant assertion,
imagine for a moment, that such men as Bramhall,
and Crakanthorp, and Stillingjleet, and Tenison, and
9 Whom the Church of Rome, remember, "excommunicates" in
her Tridentine Confession of Faith!
28
Hammond, and Bull, and Stanley, and Cave, and
Patrick, and Sherlock, and Clagett, and PFa/ce,
and Hickes, and Burnet, and Comber, and Mason,
and Easier e, nay Father Barnes 1 himself, had written
one line upon the Romish controversy ? Would
any one imagine that the above illustrious writers,
with a host of eminent colleagues, might be ad-
duced, as presenting an impenetrable bulwark
against Popery in the reign of the second James ?
Why, even Mr. Macaulay 2 himself admits that " it
was indeed impossible for any intelligent and candid
Roman Catholic to deny that the champions of his
Church were in every talent and acquirement com-
pletely overmatched." Would any one dream that
The Discourses against Popery, amounting to 228,
published in that monarch's reign, and subsequently
in part collected and reprinted by Bishop Gibson, 3
prove, beyond controversy, that the doctrines of
Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Worshipping of Images
and Relicks, the Sacrifice of the Mass, Prayers to the
Virgin, Worshipping of Angels and Saints departed,
Indulgences, fyc., fyc., are all directly opposed to
Tradition, Scripture, and Reason ?
Would any one believe that the corner-stone of
the popish fabric, the Papal Supremacy,* had been
1 Select Discourses, No. 2, Concerning the Privileges of the Isle of
Great Britain, p. 12.
2 History of England, vol. ii., p. 110, edit. 3rd.
3 Preservative against Popery.
4 " Let me call your attention to the important fact, that th e
29
hewn down and destroyed by the illustrious Barrow,
doctrine of the Pope's supremacy is one, which has never at any
time been universally acknowledged.
" You have already seen, that in the first three centuries it
was not heard of. In the next three, it was kept in check by
the rivalry of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, who set up a
similiar doctrine for themselves. This check being removed
when the Emperor Phocas took from the Patriarch the title of
'universal Bishop,' and conferred it on Pope Boniface, the Pope's
pretensions speedily grew'to their full height ; but never with-
out opposition. A protest from one quarter or another against
them was never wanting. The Bishops of our own British
Church opposed them at the close of the sixth century. The
Church of Spain was independent] at a still later period. The
Church of France long maintained what was called ' the
Gallican Liberties.' The Pope had no footing in Ireland, till
Henry II., with Pope Adrian's Brief in his hand, invaded it, and
subjected it not only to the English rule, but to the payment of
' Peter's pence.' The Waldenses, now called the Vaudois,
have never ceased, in the heart of Europe, to ' witness in sack-
cloth' against this great usurper, who has taken the place of
Christ. And if we look from Europe to the continent of Asia,
there we see the Eastern Churches, the Greek, the Armenian,
the Syrian, maintaining from the earliest days to our own, an
attitude of uncompromising resistance to the claim of the Pope,
[See Appendix]. And returning again to Europe, we behold
nearly half of it, in the days of our forefathers at the Reforma-
tion, renouncing with indignation his unscriptural claim. It is
clear, then, that this claim has been at no time an undisputed
one. The doctrine of his supremacy is thus demonstrably as
uncatholic, as it is unscriptural. Bird's Romanism Unknown to
Primitive Christianity, p. 73. See also Mey rick's Papal Supremacy
tested by Antiquity; and Robin's Whole Evidence against the Claims
of the Roman Church, ch. 2, on The Testimony of the Ancient
Church.
30
and that in his great imperishable work on this
subject, a Treatise unanswered and unanswerable, he
had clearly and distinctly proved, that this vaunted
Supremacy is another name for tyranny and usurpa-
tion, and that, to quote Barrow's 6 own words, "the
Pope has no divine institution, nor any immutable
right, upon which to found the claim of this pre-
tended authority?" We are told that the people
of England " have long been misled and cheated
out of the true inheritance of their Saviour."
Why, the prominent errors of the Church of Rome,
had no existence for centuries after the first pro-
mulgation of the Gospel. 6 The Worship of Images
and Saints was not decreed 7 until the eighth
century, nor Purgatory 8 until the fifteenth ; the
doctrine of Transulstantiation was not introduced 9
into the Church until the ninth, nor was the term 1
5 Treatise on the Pope's Supremacy, vol. i., p. 551, edit. 1741.
6 Vid Crakanthorpii Defensio JEccles. Ang., cap. 15-17. See
also " An Impartial Survey and Comparison of the Protestant Reli-
gion with the Main Doctrines of Popery, wherein is shewn that
Popery is contrary to Scripture, Primitive Fathers, and Councils;
whereby the Papisfs vain Pretence to Antiquity is wholly overthrown :"
Gibson's Preservative, vol. iii., App., p. 86. The reader will
find some important Notes in Lloyd's Confutation of the Chief
Doctrines of Popery: Gibson's Preservative, vol. ii., App.,
pp. 139-49.
7 By the Second Council of Nice, A.D. 787.
8 At the Council of Florence, in A . D. 1 439
9 By Paschasius Eadbertus, A.D. 831.
1 " Nomen Transubstantiationis ipsi etiam Transubstantiatorcs
31
known until the twelfth century, nor the doc-
concedunt ante XII Saeculum fuisse inauditum ; " Cosin, 53.
The following facts connected with the doctrine of Tran-
' substantiation and the Bishop and Diocese of Exeter, in the
thirteenth century, will be read with interest.
"In 1281, Archbishop Peckham held a Provincial Council
at Lambeth, in which he lamented, that as regards the Eucha-
rist, the English Clergy were highly reprehensible. He pro-
bably found, that upon this subject the parochial priests of his
native land had not yet attained to the Italian, standard of
orthodoxy. He, therefore, obtained the passing of a Canon, by
which it was enjoined, that, on the elevation of the consecrated
elements, one of the bells in the steeple should be rung, in order
to invite by its sound persons at home, or in the fields, to bend
their knees, and thereby obtain those indulgences which many
Bishops had granted to such worshippers. Lest, however, even
the promise of these indulgences should fail of inducing some
persons to acquiesce in the propriety of such practices, the Clergy
were, by the same Canon, ordered to ' take care when they
give the holy Communion at Easter, or at any other time to the
simple, diligently to instruct them that the body and blood of
our Lord is given them at once under the species of bread;
nay the whole and true Christ, who is entirely under the species
of the Sacrament.'
" Those who believe that Transubstantiation had ever been
the doctrine of British Christians, will probably wonder, that
near the close of the thirteenth century, it should have been
deemed necessary to press upon the Clergy the careful teaching
of that tenet. From another clause in Archbishop Peckham's
Canon, it appears that the sacrilegious abuse of half-communion
had already made its way into the smaller Churches. For the
Clergy are directed to teach their congregations, that the wine
given to them at the Communion is not the Lord's blood, but
merely an unconsecrated liquor, distributed for the purpose of
enabling them to swallow the bread with greater ease." Upon
32
trine confirmed 2 by Papal Authority until the thir-
teenth. The Sale of Indulgences 3 and the Traffic in
Pardons date only from the eleventh century, and
Plenary Indulgences from the close of the thir-
teenth, whilst Papal Supremacy* cannot lay claim to
which Johnson remarks (Collection of Canons, &c., pt. 2, an.
1281), that " it is evident that the Cup was not yet wholly and
absolutely denied the Laity in Archbishop Peckham's days."
"Peter Quivil, Bishop of Exeter, also found himself, about
this time, called upon to admonish his clergy upon the subject
of teaching Transubstantiation. In a Diocesan Synod, holden at
Exeter in 1287 ' the fourth Article or Canon, speaking of the
adoration of the host, endeavours to satisfy the consciences of
the laity, who sometimes were afraid that they might go too far
in their worship, as not being thoroughly satisfied in the doctrine
of Transubstantiation. To remove this objection, the priests are
enjoined to instruct the people, before, they give them the
Eucharist, that they receive under the species of Bread that
which hung upon the cross for their salvation ; and in the Cup,
they receive that which was shed from the body of our Saviour.
From hence it appears, that the laity received the Communion
in both kinds in the diocese of Exeter, notwithstanding the late
Provincial Constitutions of Lambeth to the contrary ; and that
the denying the Cup to the people was so great an innovation,
that the Bishop of Exeter did not think himself bound to be
concluded in that point by the order of his Metropolitan, or the
Lambeth Synod.' " Soames's History of the Reformation, vol. iii,
p. 169, and Collier, vol. ii, p. 599.
2 By Innocent III., at the Fourth Lateran Council, A.D. 1215.
3 Commenced by Gregory the VIL, and adopted by his Suc-
cessors Victor and Urban. Plenary Indulgences were first granted
by Boniface VIIL, A.D. 1294.
4 First established by the Emperor P/tocas, in the person of
Bonifice III., A.D. 607 : See Title Page.
33
a higher antiquity than the seventh century, and
" the Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome,"
as Dr. Featly terms it, adopting the language of
Pope Gelasius, 5 " in taking away the sacred Cup
from the Laity, " did not receive Conciliar authority
till the Council of Constance in 1414.
But to close, by reverting to the subject more
immediately before us. Some Romish advocates, 6
even the most recent, (for I refer to a book pub-
lished within the last three years,) pretend, upon
the authority of Metaphrastes," 1 that St. Peter
himself made a long abode in Britain, and con-
verted many, and ordained Bishops, Priests, and
Deacons, amongst us, and aided, through his
apparition, in the erection of Westminster Abbey. 8
But as this would prove rather too much, as
making Britain not inferior, but equal and co-
5 The following remarkable decree of Pope Gelasius (A.D. 492)
against the Manichoeans, forbidding communion in one kind,
cannot be reconciled with the modern practice of the Church of
Rome : " " Comperimus quod quidam, sumpta tantummodo
corporis sacri portione, a calice sacri cruoris abstinsant ; qui^>ro-
culdubio (quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur abstringi)
aut Sacramento, Integra percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur.
Quiet divisio unius et ejusdem mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non
potest provenire." Dist. 2, De Consecratione.
6 Cressy, Parsons, and others.
7 Simeon Magister, surnamed Metaphrastes, flourished in the
10th Century.
8 See " The wonderful Consecration of St. Peter's, Westminster,
by St. Peter, attested by authors of eminent credit, A.D. 604," in
Cressy's Church History, bk. 13, ch. 20.
34
ordinate to Rome, and Sisters from the same
spiritual Father, St. Peter, others, with more
colour, reason thus, " Did not Augustine the monk,
sent from Rome about the year 600, convert this
island, and especially the English, to the Christian
Faith ? Had they not quiet possession of their
plantation for about a thousand years, until they
were wrongfully, and in a rebellious manner, de-
prived of it by Henry VIII ? Is not the Chair
of Canterbury, which derived its descent from
Rome, through St. Austin, superior, by public
acknowledgment, to all the other British Sees?
And, to ascend higher, to suppress the claims
of the Ancient Britons, who plead more antiquity
than .the Saxons, did not the Pope Eleutherius, 9
(I quote from a work recently published, 1 ) through
Faganus and Damianus, baptise the British King
Lucius, about the year 170, and convert and
baptise the rest of the nation, and settle Bishops
and Archbishops among them? And is not this
a sufficient title, being of 1500 years standing,
to prove the Church of Rome the Fountain and
Mother Church of Britain. And if a Mother,
where is the honor and obedience that is due to
her?"
Such are the claims 2 of Rome, which have been
9 See Lingard's Anglo-Saxon Church, p. 3, edit. 1S10.
1 The Stranger's Guide, &c.
2 See Parson's Three Conversions of England, ch. 10, pp. 189,
et seq. edit. 1603.
35
most zealously advocated from the period of the
Reformation, and which are again urged by every
opponent to our beloved Church. But if it may
rather be proved, that the Church of Britain
was planted by the immediate followers of our
Saviour, either Apostles 3 or Apostolic men, shortly
after his resurrection, and before 4 St. Peter's arrival
at Rome, (if ever 5 he did visit the Imperial City,)
and that the same seed, not unmixed indeed with
Romish tares, remained in the British soil from the
first 6 to the present century, especially in the nor-
thern and western parts of this island ; if the whole
passage, of consequence, between Pope Eleutherius
and King Lucius, as related by Roman historians,
and again advanced, is only a Roman forgery ;
if the proceedings of St. Austin were a manifest
intrusion 7 upon another's province, that of the
Archbishop of Caerleon, without invitation or
consent of the Christians then in this country,
3 See Burgess's Tracts on the Origin and Independence of the
Ancient British Church.
4 See Crakanthorpe, Def. Eccl. Aug., cap. 5, p. 22, edit.
1847.
5 See Bernard's Fabulous Foundation of the Popedom, shewing
that St. Peter was never at Rome, Oxon, 1619 ; The Mission and
Martyrdom of St. Peter, by Dr. Me Caul and Dr. Gumming,
Seeley, 1852; The Question, 'Was St. Peter ever at Rome?' His-
torically considered, by Augustus Scheler, 1846.
6 Hammond's Works, vol. i., ch. 6, Of Schism, p. 519,
edit. 1684.
7 See Jones, Rome no Mother-Church to England, sect. 8.
37
with the view of invading and subjugating 8 to
the See of Rome, the independent 9 Church of
Britain, an act in direct violation, as we have
seen, of the Canons of all the General Councils
of the whole Catholic Church ; if the controversy
between the Churches of Britain and of Rome
in those early times, was the same that is now
maintained against her, though the controversy
has enlarged as her errors have multiplied ;
for we learn from the Gregorian Liturgy, 1 that
the innovations attempted to be imposed upon
the British Church, but which she did not adopt
until a century 2 or more of persecution had elapsed,
were confined to the doctrines of the Invoca-
tion of Saints and Angels, Veneration of Relics,
Toleration of Images, Masses for the living and the
dead, Pilgrimages, and the Celibacy of the Clergy ; 3
8 Thus, to the question which St. Augustine propounded to
Gregory, viz., " How are we to deal with the Bishops of
France and Britain ? " The Pope replied, " As Jor all the
Bishops of Britain, we commit them to your care, that the un-
learned may be taught, the weak strengthened by persuasion,
and the perverse corrected by authority." Bede, Eccl. Hist.,
bk. 1, ch. 27.
9 See Basiere, " De Antiqua Ecclcsice Britannicce Libertate,
atque de legitima ejusdem Ecclesice exemptione a Romano Patn'ar-
ckatu;" and BramhalTs Just Vindication of the Church of Eng-
land, ch. 5, p. 77, edit. 1677 ; see also p. 14, sup.
1 See Hale's Analysis of Sacred Chronology, vol. ii, p. 501,
edit. 1830.
2 Ibid, p. 503, where see Authorities.
3 The reader will find a brief account of the progress of
38
if the Gospel was providentially planted among
the English* or Saxons by British ministry, and
not by Romish ; and the Church of Rome did in
a few years invade and disturb both the English
and British Church, take possession of their Sees,
and disorder their consecrations and successions,
and attempt to enslave, not only the mitre, but the
crown ; and if the result of the Reformation was
but the return 5 to primitive truth and order, as it
existed in this island for centuries ; if these
things be so, then may every member of the
Anglican Branch of the Church Catholic furnish
himself with arguments against popish claims
and pretensions, from the records of his own
pure and apostolical Church ; then may the testi-
mony connected with Britain 's early Church, her
independence of Rome, her purity and apostolicity,
her protest against papal encroachments, and her
release from popish error and tyranny "at the
Reformation, and consequent restoration to her
primitive lustre, be with advantage made the
subject of our enquiries, and the object of
Popish doctrines and practices, in Wilson's ' Vitis Degeneris,
Being a treatise of ancient Ceremonies ; containing an Historical
account of their rise and growth, their first entrance into the Church,
and their gradual advancement to superstition therein ;' See also
Crakanthorpii Defensio Ecclesioe Anghcance, passim.
4 Crakanthorpe, Def. ch. 5, " Romana Ecclesia non est Mater
Britannica nee Anglicance Ecclesice"
5 Vid Crakanthorpii Def. Eccl. Ang., ch. 14, 'Fides Pro-
testantium Fidei Prisca Ecclesice consona est ; " see also ch. 85.
39
our pride ; then should these truths be taught
in our schools 6 and inculcated to our children,
to the honor and dignity of our own Church,
and the refutation of the claims and objections
of her opponents. " Stand ye then, in the ways,
and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the
good way, and walk therein." Acknowledge,
with lively gratitude, the goodness of a merciful
God, in calling you to the profession of a faith
established firmly upon the rock of Scripture, con-
nected with the most venerable of our national anti-
quities, adorned by some of the noblest examples of
self-devotion displayed in the records of our native
land. " Our spiritual nursing-mother, (to adopt
the language of Soames, 7 ) we should ever bear
in mind, is no creature of the Reformation. 8 Her
ministerial Commissions and her polity notoriously
and undeniably flow upwards, in one regular
unbroken stream, to that unsuspected period, when
Apostles and Apostolic men prescribed rules for
ordering Christ's inheritance upon earth. 9 Her
6 Which they may easily be through the medium of Dr.
Wordsworth's Theophilus Anglicanus, pt. 2, chs. 1-5.
7 Bampton Lectures, Ser. viii, p. 472.
8 See Saywell's "Reformation of the Church of England justi-
fied, according to the Canons of the Council of Nice and other
General Councils, and the Tradition of the Catholic Church ;"
and Hascard's " Reformation of the Church of England vindicated
from the charge of Novelty."
9 Vid. Usserii Brit. Eccles. Antiquitates ; and Mason's
Vindication of the Church of England, Book ii, Ch. 2-7.
40
doctrines are in perfect unison with those traditions
which were taught by all the earliest luminaries
of our distant ancestry. 1 The Reformers did little
more than expel from her bosom the gradual
accumulation of mediaeval novelties, and abolish
various observances dependent upon ecclesiastical
tradition, and convicted by long experience of
inutility and danger. 2 In other respects the
renovation of our religious system restored the
ascendency of those doctrines which had been
originally established in the land, and which had
long been holden ' whole and undefiled.' 3 The
eminent Reformers were utterly unable to find
* rest for their souls ' in the doctrines which had
gained possession of the land. They diligently
therefore ' asked for the old paths ' among the
Fathers of the Church. By this wary course
they happily reached ' the good way ' in which
their own Christian ancestry had originally trod-
den. 4 Succeeding times, following their direction,
have been hence enabled to repel triumphantly
the charge of innovation. They have, indeed,
1 Felling's Antiquities of the Protestant Religion.
2 See Stratford's Discourse concerning the necessity of a Reforma-
tion, with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of
Rome.
3 Vid Crakanthorpii Defensio Ecclesice Anglican, cap. 85,
" Per Reformationem non institui Religionem novam, sed antiquam
restitui, et solum deformationes purgari declaratur."
4 See Bramhall's Just Vindication of the Church of England,
Ch. 4, p. 69, edit. 1677.
41
shaken off the trammels of pontifical and scholastic
authority. They have even discarded many of
those usages and ceremonies which their earlier
forefathers undoubtedly admitted. They will,
however, be found to display, in doctrinal pro-
fession, a gratifying conformity with the most
ancient of their country's theological authorities."
May God enable us, who have found " the good
way," to "walk therein," and experience "rest '
and peace, through Jesus Christ.
42
APPENDIX.
(Extracted from the REV. CANON BIRD'S " Roman-
ism Unknown to Primitive Christianity;" p. 104.)
" The present Pope, (Pius IX) it appears, is possessed with
the ambition of ruling more widely than his predecessors. He
has not only ventured on the aggression which England is now
resenting, but he has also tried to extend his power over those
who belong to the ancient Greek Church. Three years ago
(1848,) he addressed a solemn Pastoral Letter to the members
of that Church in which he claims their obedience on the
usual ground of his being the heir of St. Peter, and St. Peter's
being the Rock on which the Church is built. He adduces also
the texts concerning the keys, and the indefectibility of Peter's
faith, and his having the sheep'committed to him.
" This attack upon the Greek Church has not been made
with impunity. In 1848, there was printed at the Patriarchal
press, in Constantinople, ' An Encyclic Letter, to all the
orthodox,' signed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, the
Patriarch of Alexandria, the Patriarch of Antioch, (since
dead,) the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and their respective Synods.
It is true the Sees of these Bishops are now poor and under the
civil government of Turks, but the Bishops themselves are not
the less the representatives of the ancient Bishops of those
Sees Sees as old as that of Rome itself; nay, in the case of
Jerusalem and Antioch, still older.
" The four] Patriarchs complain of the attempt of the Pope
43
to sow divisision in their Churches, by his unscriptural and
uncatholic claim.
" ' For some time the attacks of Popes in their own persons
had ceased, and were conducted only by means of missionaries ;
but lately he who succeeded to the See of Rome in 1847, under
the title of Pope Pius IX., published this present year an Ency-
clical Letter, addressed to the Easterns, which his emissary has
scattered abroad, like a plague coming from without.'
" They speak of ' the Seven (Ecumenical Councils,' by which
they mean those which preceded the Second Council of Nice,
where ' the worship of Images ' was established. The Westerns
count that Council the Seventh General Council, the Easterns
the Eighth. ' The lightning of the anathema of these Councils,'
say the Patriarchs, ' strikes the Papacy because it has adulte-
rated the Creed by its additions which the Demon of Novelty
dictated to the all-daring schoolmen of the Middle Age, and to
the Bishops of the elder Rome, venturing all things for lust
of power.'
" Proceeding to a formal refutation of the propositions con-
tained in the Pope's Letter, they say :
" ' The dhurch of Rome founds its claim to be the Throne of
St. Peter, only on one single tradition ; while Holy Scripture,
Fathers, and Councils, attest that this dignity belongs to
Antioch; which, however, never on this account claimed ex-
emption from the judgment of Holy Scriptures, and Synodical
decrees.* To understand this fully, we must remember, that
the Church of Rome herself holds the tradition, that Peter was
Bishop of Antioch for several years before he was Bishop of
Borne.
" * If the Church of Christ had not been founded on the Rock
of Peter's Confession, (which was a common answer on the part
of the Apostles,) but on Cephas himself, it would not have been
founded at all on the Pope, who, after he had monopolised the
Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, how he has administered them
is manifest from history.'
'* 'Our Fathers, with one consent, teach, that the thrice-
repeated command, ' Feed my Sheep,' conferred no privilege on
St. Peter above the rest, much less on his successors also ; but
was simply a restoration of him to the Apostleship, from which
he had fallen by his thrice-repeated denial. And the blessed
44
Peter himself appears thus to have understood our Lord's
thrice-repeated enquiry, ' Lovest thou me ? ' and ' more than
these ' ; for, calling to mind the words, ' Though all shall be
offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended,' he was
grieved, because He said unto him the third time, 'Lovest
thou me ? '
" ' But his holiness says that our Lord said to Peter, 4 / have
prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not, and thou, when thou art
converted, strengthen thy brethren.' Our Lord so prayed,
because Satan had asked that he might subvert the faith of all
the disciples ; but our Lord allowed him Peter alone, chiefly
because he had uttered words of self-confidence, and justified
himself above the others. Yet this permission was only granted
for a time, in order that when he again came to himself by his
conversion, and shewed his repentance by tears, he might the
more strengthen his brethren, since they had neither perjured
themselves nor denied their Lord.'
" 'His holiness says that the Bishop of Lyons, the holy
IrencBus, writes in praise of the Roman Church. ' It is fitting
that the whole Church, that is, the faithful everywhere, shall
come together, because of the precedency in this Church, in
which all things have been preserved by all the faithful, the
tradition delivered by the Apostles.'* Who doubts that the old
Roman Church was Apostolic or orthodox ? Would any one of
the Fathers, or ourselves, deny her canonical prerogatives in the
Order of the Hierarchy, so long as she remained governed
purely according to the doctrines of the Fathers, walking by the
unerring Canon of Scripture and the holy Synods ? But who is
so bold as to dare to say that if Irenagus were to live again, he,
seeing the Church of Rome failing of the ancient and primitive
Apostolic teaching, would not himself be the first to oppose the
Novelties and self-sufficient determination of the Roman Church?
When he heard of the Vicarial and Appellate Jurisdiction
of the Pope, what would he not say, who in a small and
almost indifferent question, respecting the celebration of
Easter, so nobly and triumphantly opposed and extinguished
the violence of Pope Victor f in the free Church of Christ?
Thus, he who is adduced as a witness of the supremacy of the
Roman Church, proves that its dignity is not that of a Mo-
narchy; nor even of arbitration, which the blessed Peter
* On this passage of Irenteus the reader will do well to consult
Dr. Wordsworth's " St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome ; " pp. 195
204 ; and Mosheim's " Commentaries on the Affairs of the Christians
before the time of Constantine the Great;" vol. ii, pp. 94, 100.
f See Supra,]). 14.
45
himself never possessed ; but a brotherly Prerogative in the
Catholic Church, and an honour enjoyed on account of the
celebrity and prerogative of the City ! '
" In like manner the Patriarchs refer to Clement, and after-
wards to other ancient authorities, to overthrow the Pope's
claim ; which ihey do effectually, and in a very dignified
manner.
" This Voice from the East comes at a very opportune time
chiming in with that which we of the English Church are
raising in the West, in utter denial of the Pope's presumptuous
claim. I will not weaken the impression of this solemn Protest
by adding any more notes to the present Lecture, but will leave
the Voices of the four Patriarchs, of Constantinople, Jerusalem,
Antioch, and Alexandria, to be the last which sound in the ears
of my readers. They ought to sound in the ears of the Pope
himself, as voices from the dead, calling him to return to
primitive purity and humility."
W. & II. TOLLARD. ^Printers, North Street, Exeter.
POPE PIUS IV.
THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,
ilc|mntrir front " gotos an&
WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES,
BY
E. C. HARINGTON, A.M.,
CHANCELLOR OF TIIE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF EXETER, ETC.
" It it desirable thai accuracy should be regarded in aU statements." T. L.
EXETER & LIVERPOOL: A. HOLDEN.
LONDON : F. & J. RIVINGTON.
1856.
The following Correspondence, which has been
reprinted at the request of some friends, as
containing a question of Historical interest, will
speak for itself. The Reader will kindly bear in
mind that the subject has been discussed in " Notes
and Queries" a Weekly Periodical, whose crowded
pages and limited space dictate the necessity of
Brevity.
R G H.
The Close, Exeter,
February 18th, 1856.
POPE PIUS IY, AND THE BOOK OF COMMON
PRAYER
Reprinted from "Notes and Queries!'
WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES.
No. I
(Vol. xi. No. 291. Page 401.)
It has frequently been stated, that Pius V.
offered to confirm the use of the English Liturgy,
provided Queen Elizabeth would recognize his
supremacy : yet no proof has ever been adduced
on the subject. Two writers are usually quoted
in support of this erroneous statement, namely,
Camden and Ware. The former mentions the
rumour of such a thing, but he does not express
his belief in its truth. 1 Yet Camden is quoted as
1 [His belief appears to me to be implied. He has given in
full the Pope's Letter to the Queen, transmitted through the
medium of Parpalia, and then he adds,
"Qute Parpalia proposuit non comperi; nee enim, scriptis man-
data credo ; coinminisci vero cum vulgo Historicorum minime
lubet. Elizabethan! sui similem, Semper Eandem perstitisse, et rem
pro Pontificis voto non successisse, omnes norunt. Fama obtinet,
Pontificem fidem dedisse, sentcntiam contra matris nuptias, tan-
quam injustam, rescissurum, Liturgiam Anglicam sua authoritate
coniirmaturum, & usum Sacramenti sub utraque specie Anglis
an authority for the statement that such an offer
was made. Ware merely says, that such a rumour
was circulated by the seminary priests for the
purpose of producing dissensions. The passage
occurs in his Hunting of the Romish Fox, p. 149.
Those writers, who have made the assertion on
Ware's authority, have utterly mistaken 2 their
permissurum, dummodo ilia Romans Ecclesioe se aggregaret,
Romanceque Cathedra Primatum agnosceret, imo & haec curan-
tibus aliquot aureorum millia fuisse promissa." Annales Ecrum
Anglicarum, p. SI. edit. 1677. See the English Version from
Camden's History of Elizabeth, Inf. p. 21. E. C. H.~\
2 [With all deference, I think that the " mistake " is on the
part of T. L. himself. That Ware believed in the Pope's " over-
tures unto the Queen, to confirm out of his own authority the
English Liturgy, and to allow in England the Sacrament of the
Lord's Supper to be used in both kinds, (as at Bohemia ,) pro-
vided that Her Majesty would rank herself and her subjects
with the Church of Rome, and own all from that See and its
authority,'' is clear from this his own assertion, which appears
in a subsequent work, " Foxes and Firebrands," Pt. iii, p. 17.
(see page 21.)
Nor does the passage in " The Hunting of the Romish Fox" as
I read it, convey the meaning attributed to it by T. L., but just
the reverse. Ware is speaking of the acts of certain Jesuits in
England in the year 1581, some twenty years subsequent to the
supposed overtures, and eleven years after the Queen's Excom-
munication by the Bull of Pius V. ; and he tells us that, " these
people under several shapes pretending divers opinions, some the
Family of Love, others Puritanism, others Anabaptism, others
desiring that Her Majesty might enjoy the Common Prayer
within her Realm for her and her subjects, provided she could
get Pope Gregory's Confirmation to confirm it, saying, that Pius
author ; for he mentions the rumour for the
purpose of refuting it. The whole was a trick
Quintue offered to confirm the same, if Her Majesty would have
acknowledged it as from the Church of Rome" He then adds, " all
these projects of these seminary priests were only to dive into
the hearts of men, to find out their inclinations.'' Now I submit
that these passages, to which I presume T. L. refers, even taken
by themselves, so far from militating against, fully corroborate
the story. The Jesuits in 1.581 endeavoured to effect, in their own
peculiar way, that which Pope Pius had failed to accomplish by
specious promises in 1560, viz. the subjection of England to the
Papal See ; and if they should not succeed in this " project," at
least the result of their machinations would be to sow dissensions,
foment divisions, and bring the Book of Common Prayer into con-
tempt. They therefore hint at the Confirmation of the " English
Mass Book," as Faithful Commin, (the Jesuit,) and other plotters,
advisedly termed it ; and in order to give some weight to their
secret innuendo, they refer, as I conceive, to an acknowledged fact,
that " Pope Quintus offered to confirm the same (Common
Prayer), if her Majesty Avould then acknowledge it as from the
Church of Rome." " Thus," to adopt the language of Ware,
" we may sec how Rome began to set her emissaries at work,
seeing she could not obtain a Toleration for her Religion, nor
persuade our Gracious Queen Elizabeth, of happy memory, to
own the Bishop of Rome's Jurisdiction, or to accept of his pro-
posals, how they would dissuade her Protestant subjects from
hearing the Liturgy of our Church of England, which they
themselves hated, and, thereby seeking to make it more odious to
the English Protestants, they termed our service English Mass."
(F. and F. Pt. iii, p. 27.)
One thing is clear from the above passages, that Ware did
not "mention the rumour for the purpose of refuting it," as T. L.
asserts ; and I would ask whether it has never struck T. L. as
strange, that, although this statement of the Jesuits was openly
of the missionary priests, in order to produce
divisions in the English Church. On such slender
grounds does the assertion rest : and yet we find
it repeated by one writer after another, until
many persons actually receive the statement as
an undoubted fact.
T. L.
No. II.
(Vol. xi. No. 296. Page 510.)
T. L. has implied that the offer of Pope
Pius V. (IV.?) to confirm the use of the English
Liturgy, upon the condition of Elizabeth recog-
nizing the Papal supremacy, rests solely on the
authority of Cam den and Ware. Your corres-
pondent has omitted to refer to the testimony
of Lord Chief Justice Coke, who at the Norwich
Assizes in August, 1606, only three years after
the Queen's death, publicly affirmed in his Charge
that " the Pope wrote a letter to Elizabeth, in which
he consented to approve the Book of Common
Prayer, as used amongst us, as containing, says
he, nothing contrary to the truth, and com-
and assiduously propagated about the year 1581, some twenty
years only after the supposed occurrence, and some twenty-two
years prior to the decease of Elizabeth, no attempt at denial
was made on either side during the Queen's lifetime ? E. C.H.^
prehending what is necessary to salvation, though
not all that ought to be in it ; and that he
would authorize us to use it, if her Majesty
would receive it from him and upon his au-
thority. And this, adds he, is the truth touching
Pope Pius V., ivhich I have often heard from
the Queen's own mouth. And I have frequently
conferred with noblemen of the highest rank of
the state, who had seen and read the Pope's
Letter on this subject, as I have related it to
you. And this is as true as that I am an
honest man." 3 Charge, p. 28.
It is, of course, a matter of small moment to
8 The above quotation is taken from Courayer ; the exact
words of the Charge, as recorded by Pricket, are as follow
" That Pius Quintus, whom those of their side do account to
have been a good Pope, (though by false persuasions too much
misled,) before the time of his excommunication against Queen
Elizabeth denounced, sent his letter unto her Majesty, in which
he did allow the Bible, and Book of Divine Service, as it is
now used amongst us, to be authentick, and not repugnant to
truth. But that therein was contained enough necessary to
salvation, though there was not in it so much as might con-
veniently be, and that he would also allow it unto us, without
changing any part ; so as her Majesty would acknowledge to
receive it from him the Pope, and by his allowance ; which her
Majesty denying to do, she was then presently by the same
Pope excommunicated : And this is the truth concerning Pope
Pius Quintus, as I have faith to God and Men. I have often-
times heard avowed by the late Queen her own words ; and
I have conferred with some Lords that were of greatest reckon-
ing in the State, who had seen and read the Letter, which the
10
a member of the Church of England, whether the
Bishop of Rome recognised our Orders, and ap-
proved our Liturgy, or no ; but should any of your
readers be curious in the matter, they may see
the pros and cons in Courayer's Defence of the
Dissertation on the Valid it ij of the- English Or-
dinations, vol. ii. pp. 359 378.
K C. HAKINGTON.
The Close, Exeter, June, 1855.
No. III.
(Vol. xii. No. 319. Page 458.)
Some time since, Mr. Harington stated, that,
in alluding to the alleged offer from the Pope
to Queen Elizabeth to confirm the Book of
Common Prayer, I had omitted the direct tes-
timony of Sir E. Coke, My position was that
the rumour was a trick of the seminary priests.
In the speech or charge to which Mr. Harington
alludes, it is broadly asserted that the offer was
made in a letter from the Pope to the Queen.
It is surprising to me that such an assertion
should not have led Mr. Harington to discredit the
report ; certainly no evidence can be adduced
Pope sent to that effect ; as have been by ine specified. And
this upon my credit, as I am an honest man, is most true."
The Lord Coke His Speech and Charge, London, 1607.
For " the error in the Pope's name, Quinlus for Quartus," see
Courayer's Defence, &c., Vol. ii, p. 362, and Inf. p. 14, Note 7.
11
in proof that such a letter was ever written.
It is to me clear that all the various accounts
were derived from one and the same source,
namely, the fabrication of the missionary priests.
But my object in this note is simply to inform
your readers that Sir E. Coke never hazarded
such an assertion. It is true that a charge
containing the passage quoted by Mr. Harington
was published in Coke's name ; but this pub-
lication was repudiated by Coke as a forgery.
Consequently, any statement founded on that
charge is worthless ; thus my position, adopted
on Ware's 4 authority, remains unshaken. The
question is of no importance, yet still it is
desirable that accuracy should be regarded in
all statements.
T. L.
No. IV.
(Vol. xii. No. 320.
It would have been more satisfactory had
your correspondent T. L. given his authority for
stating that " Sir E. Coke never hazarded such
an assertion " as that which I have attributed to
him, and that " the Charge containing the passage
was repudiated by Coke as a forgery." I will
4 [Sec Sup. p. 6, Note 2.E. C. #.]
12
mention two of my authorities in refutation of
this statement, Courayer's Defence of the
Dissertation on the Validity of the English
Ordinations, vol. ii. pp. 360, 378, (where T. L.
will find much information on the subject,) and
Twisden's Historical Vindication of the Church
of England in point of Schism, p. 176. I should
in fairness state that I am aware of the ' Address
to the Reader' prefixed by Coke to the Seventh
Part of his Reports, in which he protests against
"the practice of publishing an erroneous and ill-
spelled pamphlet, under the name of Pricket, as
a Charge given at the assizes holden at the city
of Norwich, August 4, 1606." But he does not
" repudiate the publication as a forgery ;" so far
from it, he acknowledges the Charge, but " protests
that it was not only published without his privity,
but (besides the omission of divers principal mat-
ters) that there is no one period therein expressed
in that sort and sense (eo sensu et significatione)
as he delivered it." This, though strong language,
as regards Pricket's blunders, by no means
bears out T. L. in his assertions, if he refers
to this Address. Nay, it would seem, from
subsequent passages, that Coke alluded to the
garbled character of his Charge on law questions,
not on matters of fact, as related by him, for he
adds that " Readers learned in the laws would find
not only gross errors and absurdities on law, but
palpable mistakings on the very words of art ;
13
and the whole context of that rude and ragged
style, wholly dissonant (the subject being legal)
from a lawyer's dialect." (Cokes Reports, voL iv.
Address, p. 8, edit. 1826J Any one reading the
charge 5 (which is now before me), will see that all
this, and much more, may be very true, without
the least suspicion of inaccuracy being cast on the
passage under dispute, which merely relates a
solemn statement 6 of fact as made by Coke. It
may be important to bear in mind that Sir R. Twis-
den, who was well acquainted with Coke's Address,
and who quotes it in support of a correction which
he suggests, (Pius IV. instead of V.) adduces this
very Charge of Sir E. Coke, and this very passage,
in confirmation of the proposal of Pope Pius to
Queen Elizabeth. Twisden adds that, " I, myself,
have received it (the story) from such as I cannot
doubt it, they having had it from persons of nigh
relation unto them, who were actors in the
managing of the business." 7 Courayer also, though
5 The Lord Coke His Speech and Charge, London, 1607.
6 See Sup. p. 9, Note 3.
7 The whole passage runs thus : " The Queen's moderation
was better received at Rome than at home ; where the Pope,
however a violent heady man, considering no doubt his
own loss in breaking off all commerce with so potent a
kingdom, began to hearken to terms of accommodation, and
was content things should stand as they are, the Queen
acknowledging his primacy, and the reformation from him.
But his death ensuing the 18th August, 1559, left the design
14
referring to Coke's complaints of his " Speeches
to be prosecuted by his successor Pius IV., who, by letters
(sent by Vincentius Parpalia, a person of great experience,
employed by Cardinal Pooh, in his former negotiations, and
of late in that hither,) of the 5th of May 1560, directed
' Charissimce in Christo filice Elizabethce Reginw Anglicc," did assure
her, ' Omnia de nobis tibi polliceare, quce non modo ad animcc
lues salutem conservandam, sed etiam ad dignitatem regiam sta-
biliendam et cotijirmandam, pro authoritate, pro loco, ac munere
quod nobis a Deo commissum fuit, a nobis desiderates^ &c.
Upon this, and their relations who then lived, and had part
in the action, the English affirm Pius IV. would have con-
firmed the Liturgy of the Church of England: and indeed
how can any imagine other? For doubtless nothing could have
been more to her dishonour, than so suddenly to have changed
what she had with so great consideration established ; and the
Pope assuring her she might promise herself from him all he
could do, I know not what less or other he could expect
she would ask. But where Sir Edward Cook, in his Charge
at Norwich, as it is now printed, says, this offer came from
Pius V., I conceive it a mistake, and should have been Pius
IV., (as in another place he names Clement the 9th who
yet never was, for Clement the 8th,) and the rest of the
narration there not to be without absurdities, and to be one
of those deserves the author's censure, v, hen he says, there is
no one period in the whole expressed in the sort and sense
that he delivered it; for certainly Pius V. from his coming to
the Popedom 1566, rather sought by raising against her
foreign power abroad, and domestick commotions at home,
to force her to his obedience, than by such civil ways as
we now speak of to allure her ; though the thing itself is
no question true, however the person that offered it be mis-
taken in some circumstances.
They that make a difficulty in believing this, object it to
being published, not only without his order and
have been first divulged 1606, 46 years after the proffer of
it. That Sir Edward Cook averred to have receive! it from
the Queen herself, not then alive to contradict him. But
for my part I confess I find no scruple in it, for 1 have
ever observed the wisdom of that Court, to give what it
could neither sell nor keep; as Paulus IV. did the Kingdom
of Ireland to Queen Mary, admitted the five Bishopricks,
erected by her father, approved the dissolution of the Mon-
asteries made by him, etc., of which nature no question this
was. For the being first mentioned 46 years after, that is
not so long a time but many might remember : and I
myself have received it from such as I cannot doubt of it,
they having had it from persons of nigh relation unto them
who were actors in the managing of the business. Besides,
the thing itself was in effect printed many years before ;
for he that made the answer to Saunders his seventh book,
De visibili Monarchia, who it seems had been very careful
to gather the beginnings of Queen Elizabeth, that there
might be an exact history of her, ' tandem aliquando, quia
omnia acta diligenter observavit, qui summis Rlepubliccv neyotiis
consulto interfuit,' relates it thus :
That a nobleman of this country being about the begin-
ing of the Queen's reign at Rome, Pius IV. asked him of
her Majesties casting his authority out of England, who
made answer that she did it being persuaded by testimo-
nies of Scripture, and the laws of the realm, nullam illius
csse in terra aliena jurisdictionem. Which the Pope seemed
not to believe, her Majesty being wise and learned, but did
rather think the sentence of that Court against her mother's
marriage to be the true cause ; which he did promise not
only to retract, ' sed in ejus gratiam quatcunque possum prccterea
facturum, duin ilia ad nostram Ecclesiam se recipiat, et debitum mihi
primatus titulum reddat,' and then adds, ' extant adhuc apud nos
16
knowledge, but with abundance of faults," (alluding
to the above preface,) quotes from the Charge,
articuli, Abbatis Sanctae Salutis (Parpalia) manu conscripti, extant
Cardinalis Moronaa literce, quibus nobilem ilium vehementer hortabatur,
ut earn rem nervis omnibus apud reginam nostram sollicitaret.
Extant hodie nobilium nostrorum aliquot, quibus Papa multa
aureorum millia pollicitus est, ut istius amidtice atque fccderis
inter Romanam Cathedram et Elizabetliam serenissimam authores
essent' This I have cited the more at large, for that
Camden seems to think, what the Abbot of St. Saviour pro-
pounded was not in writing, and because it being printed
seven years before the Cardinal Morona's death, by whose
privity (as Protector of the English) this negotiation passed,
without any contradiction from Rome, there can no doubt be
made of the truth of it. And assuredly, some who have
conveniency and leisure may find more of it than hath been
yet divulged: for I no way believe the Bishop of Winchester
would have been induced to write, it did constare of Paulus
IV., nor the Queen herself, and divers others of those times,
persons of honour and worth, (with some of which I myself
have spoken,) have affirmed it for an undoubted truth, did
not somewhat more remain (or at least had formerly been)
than a single letter of Pius IV., which apparently had
reference' to matters then of greater privacy. And there I
hold it not unworthy a place, that I myself talking sometime
with an Italian gentleman (versed in publick affairs) of this
offer from the Pope, he made much scruple of believing it,
but it being in a place where books Avere at hand, I shewed
him on what ground I speak, and asked him if he thought
men could be devils to write such an odious lie, had it not
been so. ' Well (says he) if this were heard in Rome amongst
religious men, it would never gain credit; but with such as
have in their hands the Maneggi della Corte \_The Transactions
of the Court] (for that was his expression) it may be held true.'' "
17
without the least hesitation, the passage under
discussion, and founds upon it a lengthened argu-
ment of several pages. I shall therefore be curious
to learn the authority upon which T. L. asserts
that "Sir E. Coke never hazarded such an assertion,"
and that he " repudiated " his published Charge
" as a forgery." On one point I agree with T. L.,
that "it is desirable that accuracy should be re-
garded in all statements."
E. C. HARINGTON.
The Close, Exeter, Dec. 1855.
No. V.
(2nd S. Vol. i. No. 2. Page 39.)
I certainly relied on Coke's own assertion as
Historical Vindication of the Church of England in point of
Schism, p. 175. " He that made answer to Sanders' s Seventh
Book" above referred to, was Dr. Bartholomew Clerke, styled
by Soames (History of Reformation, Vol. iv. p. 725, Note S.) " a
respectable contemporary authority, who had excellent means of
information, and who appeals to existing vouchers, both docu-
mentary and personal, that some papal concession was to be
expected beyond the recognition of Elizabeth's legitimacy." The
title of Clerke's Reply is " Fidelis Servi subito Inftdeli Responsio,
cum examinatione errorum N. Sandcri in Libro de Visibilis Ecclesia
Monarchia."
Soames also quotes the passage in the Charge relative to
this question, without implying the slightest doubt as to its
authenticity. History of Reformation, Vol. iv. p. 726. See also
Inf. p. 25, Note 7.
18
quoted by Mr. Harington, and I still think that
the words bear me out in my conclusion. In this
opinion, I am supported by the writers in the
Biographia Britannica? I regard the story as so
improbable, that I cannot but view Coke's words
as involving its rejection, and the repudiation of
all the statements in the charge. The fiction, in
my opinion, is so manifest, that I can never believe
that it was received by Coke.
I was quite aware of what had been advanced
by Courayer, whose statements I had folly
considered. 9 I wish to refer Mr. Harington to
Constable's reply to Courayer on this particular
point. After that reply, I cannot depend on
Courayer in his relation of a story about the
Pope.
My opinion has ever been, that the story was an
invention by the missionary priests to promote
their own ends. There is, indeed, another sup-
position. Thus Durell affirms, that the story was
a Puritan invention, for the purpose of inducing
the belief among the people that the Book of
Common Prayer must be Popish. Fuller, who was
generally prepared to give credit to reports, cer-
tainly rejected this story.
T. L.
8 P do not admit this. The reader may judge for himself by
referring to Vol. ii. p. 1397, Note y.E. C. H.~\
9 [Is this possible? See Inf. p. 27. #. C. H.]
19
No. VI.
(2nd S. Vol. i. No. 3. Page 60.)
T. L. has (agreeably) disappointed me. I had an-
ticipated some proof that Sir E. Coke " had never
hazarded the assertion " attributed to him, and
that "he repudiated the Charge containing the
passage as a forgery." This proof has resolved
itself into T. L.'s conviction that "the story is
improbable," and therefore that " Coke's words "
(quoted from his Reports) must involve its re-
jection.
I believe that the words of Sir E. Coke cannot
by any possibility be so construed. 1 But why is the
story " improbable " ? Does T. L. deny that Pius
IV., in reply to the Guisiards and Spanish faction,
who objected to a Nuncio being sent into England,
declared " that he would humble himself even to
heresy itself, in regard that whatsoever was done to
gain souls to Christ did beseem the (Roman) See '"?
(Heylyn's Reformation, vol. ii, p. 354, edit. 1849.)
In a previous communication (1st S. xii. 458.)
T. L. expressed his " surprise that the assertion that
the offer (of recognising the Book of Common
Prayer) was made in a letter from the Pope to the
Queen, should not have led Mr. Harington to dis-
credit the report." May I ask why ? Does T. L.
also reject as a forgery the letter " To our most dear
1 See Sup. p. 12.
20
Daughter in Christ, Elizabeth, Queen of England"
addressed to her by Pope Pius, and transmitted,
through the medium of Vincentio Parpalia, the
same year (A.D. 1560), and which is given in full
by Camden, Collier, and Ware \ (Camden's History
of Elizabeth, p. 46, edit. 1688 ; Collier's Eccles.
Hist., voL vi. p. 395, edit. 1840; Ware's Foxes and
Firebrands, Pt. iii, p. 15.) Or does he gainsay the
statement of Heylyn, with reference to what was
urged upon Elizabeth in favour of the Nuncio's
admission in the following year, " That the Pope
had made a fair address unto the Queen by his last
year's letters " ? (History of the Reformation, vol. ii.
p. 354, edit. 1849.) And if not, why does the
allusion to a papal missive render the story "im-
probable " in the estimation of T. L. ? But, after
all, there is no necessity to admit that " the offer
was made in a letter from the Pope to the Queen,"
if it be meant that a particular letter contained the
specific offer ; nor do the words of Coke necessarily
imply as much, even supposing that Pricket had
printed them verbatim ; though it is clear that the
offer, if made, was connected immediately with a
written communication from the Pope. Now we
find that the Pope, in the letter to the Queen
which he sent with his Nuncio, distinctly tells her
that
" Vincentio shall treat with you more at large,
and shall declare our fatherly affection ; whom we
pray your Highness that you will graciously receive,
21
diligently hear, and give the same credit to his
speech ivhich you would do to our self!'
Upon which passage Camden (who, by the bye,
does not imply his disbelief in the story, but just
the contrary) remarks :
" What matters Parpalia propounded I find not,
for I do not think his instructions were put in
writing ; and to roave at them with the common
sort of liistorians I list not. That Queen Elizabeth
still persisted, like herself, Semper Eadem, Always
the same, and that the matter succeeded not to the
Pope's desire, all men know. The report goeth,
that the Pope gave his faith ' that he would dis-
annul the sentence against her mother's marriage
as unjust, confirm the English Liturgy by his
authority, and grant the use of the Sacraments
to the English, under both kinds, so as she would
join herself to the Romish Church, and acknow-
ledge the primacy of the Church of Rome ;' yea,
and that a certain 1000 crowns were promised
to those that should procure the same." Cam-
den's History of Elizabeth, p. 47, edit. 1688. See
the Latin Version, Sup. p. 5, Note 1.
T. L., in his first communication, (1* S. xi. 401,)
stated that Ware "mentions the rumour (as to
the Pope's offer) in his Hunting of the Romish
Fox, only for the purpose of refuting it." That
the passage referred to can bear no such meaning 2
2 See Sup. p. 6, Note 2.
22
is clear, from another passage in his Foxes and
Firebrands, wherein, having given in full the
letter of Pope Pius to Elizabeth, he states that
"This Papal Epistle could not prevail, neither
could Vincent Parpalia's other overtures unto the
Queen, to confirm out of his own authority the
English Liturgy, and to allow in England the
Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to be under both
kinds (as at Bohemia], provided that her Majesty
would rank herself and her subjects with the
Church of Rome, and own all from that See and
its authority. But God gave her His grace, which
was above all these proffers, neither to tolerate
Popery within her dominions, nor to accept of these
proffers from the hands of Home ; in which act she
verified the motto, Semper Eadem." Part iii. p. 1 7.
Shall I be pardoned by T. L., if I ask him in
future (should he deem another communication
requisite) to specify the work, page, and edition
of the author to whom he may refer? The
mention of a name only renders an investigation
somewhat difficult. He refers me, for instance, to
"Constable's reply to Courayer on this particular
point." In what work of Constable is this reply
to be found I I am acquainted with one work
only of Constable, viz. his Remarks upon F. Le
Courayer s Book in Defence of the English Or-
dinations, by Clerophilus Alethes (attributed to
Constable); but this cannot be the work referred
to by T. L., as it is a reply to Courayer's Dis-
23
sertation, whereas the reference to Coke's Charge
by Courayer is in the 2nd vol. of his Defence
of the Dissertation, which I am not aware that
Constable ever answered. And, after all, who was
Constable \ A writer who implicitly believed, and
unhesitatingly adopted the monstrous fable of the
Nags Head Consecration ! a story utterly re-
jected by Lingard himself as a palpable forgery !
History of England, vol. vi. p. 668., edit. 1849.
E. C. HABINGTON.
The Close., Exeter, Jan. 1856.
No. VII.
(2nd S. Vol. i. No. 5. Page 98.;
We are, it seems, contending about a point
which we cannot settle. We can only hold to
our own opinions.
Mr. Harington seems to think that the Pope
actually made the offer. On the contrary, I con-
tend that there is no evidence to support such an
opinion ; and, moreover, that the proposal is so
improbable, that it is scarcely possible to believe
that it could have been made. Coke assuredly
disavowed the charge which was put forth in his
name ; and therefore its statements in such a
matter cannot be received. 3
3 [See Sup. p. 12. E, C. //.]
24
It is safer to adopt the view which was adopted
by Ware and others, namely, that the whole was
a fiction invented by the priests to promote their
own ends. 4 Camden only speaks of a rumour.
It is singular that the Archbishop of Spalato
expressed a belief that the Pope might be induced
to confirm the English Liturgy ; but he did not
allude to any offer of such a tiling at a previous
period. 5 Such a man contending for such an object
would certainly have mentioned the offer if he had
believed the story.
The priests succeeded in their object ; for in
various publications by the Puritans the story is
alleged as a proof that the Church of England
was popish and idolatrous.
I regard the Book of Common Prayer as so
utterly hostile to Rome, that I cannot believe
that such an offer could have been made. In such
a case, therefore, I could not depend on doubtful
evidence ; were it even possible for a Pope to
sanction the Book of Common Prayer, the fair
4 [Is this so ? See Sup. p. 6, Note 2. Neale seems to have
held a very different opinion respecting Ware's conviction of the
truth of the story ; for having stated, as an undoubted fact, that
Pius IV. did make the proposals in question, he quotes as his
authority one writer only, viz. Robert Ware! History of the
Puritans, Vol. i. p. 142, edit. 1822. E. C. ZT.]
5 [Could T. L. ever have read what the Archbishop of
Spalato (Mark Antony de Dominis) has written on the subject ?
See Inf. p. 29, Note 2. E. C. fll]
25
inference would be, that Papists see nothing in
our Liturgy at variance with the Breviary and the
Missal ; and thus the assertions of the Puritans
and Presbyterians would be proved to have been
correct. Home must renounce her errors before
a Pope could offer to confirm our Prayer Book.
I therefore not only look upon the thing as im-
probable, but as impossible ; and I am inclined
to think that in this view I should be supported
by almost all Papists and Protestants.
Mr. Harington seems inclined to smile at my
assertion of a repudiation on the part of Coke.
Yet can any of the statements of the alleged
charge be received after Coke's assertion, that no
one period was " expressed in the sort and sense
that he delivered it." I regard this as a complete
repudiation of the publication. 7
I can easily believe that Pius IV., without com-
mitting himself or his Church, may have secretly
furthered the circulation of the story for the
purpose of creating divisions among Protestants.
Beyond this my belief does not extend.
T. L.
6 [See the Keply of Pope Pius to the Guisiards and Spanish
Faction, Sup. p. 19. E. C. H.]
7 [See Sup. p. 12. It is worthy of remark that Abbot's
opponent, John Euda3mon, in his Apology for Garnet, against
Sir E. Coke, (1610,) brings a charge of forgory and false state-
ments against Coke himself, and founds the accusation upon the
Speech, and the passage in the Speech, which T. L. repudiates !
E. C, //.]
26
No. VIII.
(2nd S. Vol. i. No. 7. Page 135.)
I willingly leave the question of " Pope Pius and
the Book of Common Prayer " where it is, " un-
settled," if T. L. pleases so to pronounce it ; but I
shall be pardoned for reminding T. L. that in his
first communication (May 25th, 1855), he volun-
teered a "settlement" of the point at issue, contrary,
I submit, to evidence ; and hence were elicited the
few remarks which I have since ventured to offer.
How far T. L. has succeeded in " settling " the
question in favour of his own views, I must leave
to the decision of the reader. T. L.'s last commu-
nication merely contains a renewal of his former
positions and a reiteration of his previous convic-
tions; whether they are tenable or not I wish not
categorically to pronounce ; but I may hazard a
doubt whether " almost all Papists and Protestants,"
will acquiesce in T. L.'s conclusions ; nay, I question
whether, after all that has been advanced, they will
allow him to claim either Camden, Coke, or Ware. 8
By the bye, T. L. has not answered my question
respecting Constable's Reply to Courayer, on the
subject before us ; I must therefore reply to it
myself. The fact is that Constable never did res-
8 To the authorities already adduced I may add, Strype's
Annals of the Reformation, Vol. i. pt. 1, p. 339, edit. 1821,
and Dr. Warner's Eccks. History of England, Vol. ii. p. 427.
27
pond to the 3rd Chap, of the 5th Book of Courayer's
Defence of the Dissertation, or to any portion of it ;
and it is to this Work, and to this Chapter of
Courayer, that I have so repeatedly referred. What
Constable did was simply this, to copy from Le
Quien's Answer to Courayer's Dissertation some
thirty lines, in reply to about seventeen lines of
Courayer, in wliich Camden's statement is inci-
dentally mentioned. But could T. L., when he
penned the paragraph respecting Constable, be
really aware that Courayer responded to Le Quien,
and consequently to Constable, in an elaborate
defence of the story for the truth of which I con-
tend ; that this defence occupies the entire 3rd
Chap, of the 5th Book of the Defence of the Disser-
tation ; and that, in addition to the authorities
already adduced, Courayer quotes the clear and
direct testimony of Abbot, Bishop of Salisbury, in
his answer 9 to the Apology for Garnet, (A.D. 1613,)
9 "Ad Litteras accedo, (writes Abbot,) quas Cokus Oratione
Norvici de Tribunal! habita a Pio V. ad Elizabethan! Re-
ginam missas commeminit ; quibus Fidem Pontifex fecerat
se Liturgiam nostram Anglicanam, et Reformatce Religionis
Formulam, suo Calculo et Authoritate probaturum, modo a
se acciperet omnia, ipsi accepta referret, eoque se Sedi
Romance subjectam darct. Litterce autem illae satis apud nos
celcbrcs fucrunt, agitatrc snepius in Parliamentis, et a Regina
ipsa commemorataa, etiam a vestris quoque confessai ; qui
cum nihil adferre posscnt quod in Liturgia nostra reprehen-
derent, indc sibi causara recusationis aiTipuerunt, quod ilia
28
and of Lancelot Andrewes, in his Reply 1 to Bellar-
Ecclesise Romanoe probata non esset. Celebris eo Nomine
Thomas Treshamus Eques Auratus, Pater Francisci Proditoris,
qui sub Expeditione Hispanica de Recusatione postulatus
recognovit palam Litteras illas, et ilia tantum quam dixi
Causa refractarius mansit. Memoratae quoque illae in Con-
cionibus, prsesente Regina ipsa, quin et Teste advocata; nee
tamen quisquam e vestris sive privatim sive publice mutire
in contrarium ausus est." Antilogia contra Apologiam Eudcemon
Johannis Jesuitce pro Henrico Garneto, p. 15.
" This passage " (adds Courayer) is of very great importance
in many respects. We not only see in it the truth of Letters
being sent from Rome, but we also learn from it that the Queen
had several times made mention of them in her Parliaments ;
that she was appealed to for the truth of them in public sermons;
that the Catholicks themselves durst not disown them ; that Sir
Thomas Tresham in particular acknowledged them for certain,
and that all the reason he gave for not conforming to the Liturgy
was, that the Church of Home had not solemnly approved it.
These are plain facts, which we do not find any one ever went
about to contest ; and they are founded not upon uncertain
reports, but upon testimonies given publicly, attested even by
those who might have learned them from the Queen herself, and
so well supported as to convince even the Catholicks them-
selves." Defence of the Dissertation, Vol. ii. p. 365.
1 " Certe, illud tentatum constat, et a Paulo (Pio) IV. conditi-
onem impetratam, porro et Reginse ipsi delatam esse, dum
in Primatum ipsius consentire modo vellet, de caster is si a
se fieri peteret, si Autoritate sua factum agnosceret, gratiam
facturum Pontificem ut Sacra hie omnia hoc ipso, quo mine
sunt apud nos modo, procurari fas esset." Tortura Torti, p. 1 65,
edit. 1851. "This fact, (to adopt the remark of Courayer),
is alledged with all the assurance that certainty and
notoriety can inspire; but what renders it still more
29
mine (A.D. 1610), in illustration of the fact? 2
How was it, by the way, that BeUarmine, who had
it in his power to discover the falsehood, (if false-
hood it had been,) never attempted to reply to the
statement of Andrewes 1 But I forbear to adduce
any further authority or to advance any additional
arguments, as I have agreed to leave the question
" unsettled" I must content myself with recom-
eredible, is, that I do not know that BeUarmine ever
pretended to disown it. And yet he had it in his power
to discover the falsehood of it, and his silence is almost
equal to a concession, since, had this fact been as in-
jurious to the memory of the Popes, as Father Le Quien
pretends, that CardinaJ at least, as zealous for their honour
as for the truth, would not have failed to expose it, and
shew the falsehood of it." Defence, Vol. ii. p. 366.
2 " It was, without doubt, from all these authors, and not from
Camden alone, that Antony de Dominis, (Archbishop of Spalato)
took the same fact, which he gives us as sufficiently authorized
to deserve credit. ' Ab authoribus certe non vanis, (says that
author,) audio Pontificem Romanum Regimes JEltzabethce obtulisse
Pennissionem gcneralem, qua omnibus Romano- Catholicis liceret
adire Templa Protestantium, ac his Precibus se adjungere ed Con-
ditione, ut Regina dictam Precum Formulam pr&ciperet ut a Papa
datam, ac Populo Anglicano Pontificia Autoritate prcescriptam,
quod quidem ilia prudenter recusavit.' Pie had seen several of those
who reported this fact upon their own knowledge, and who
knew it from the original. Such certainly he means by
' Authoribus certe non ranis,' and not a bare vulgar rumour, and
still less the Presbyterians, whose fiction, had this been so, he
would not have adopted, as he was engaged in a system, and in
principles very opposite to that party." Defence, Vol. ii. p. 366.
30
mending those who may be interested in the ques-
tion, to examine for themselves, and I will venture
to predict that they will find that " the assertion
does" not "rest upon such slender grounds" 3 as T. L.
would induce them to believe.
E. C. HARINGTON.
The Close, Exeter, Feb. 1856.
3 See Sup. p. 8.
Printed by W. and H. Pollard, North Street, Exeter.
The Bull of Pope Pius the Ninth,
AND THE
Ancient British Church.
A LETTER,
&c.
E. C. HAEINGTON, M.A.
CHANCELLOR OF THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF EXETER.
LONDON :
F. & J. RIVINGTON,
EXETER : H. J. WALLIS, J. SPREAT, & A. HOLDEN.
MDCCCL.
The following LETTER, which has already appeared in
the columns of " The Western Luminary," is reprinted, with
ADDITIONS, REFERENCES, and NOTES, at the suggestion of
several Friends.
A LETTEK,
MR. EDITOR,
At a moment when every Englishman is read-
ing with astonishment, if not with alarm, the Bull of Pope
Pius the Ninth, respecting the appointment by the Pope
of twelve Bishops and a Metropolitan to thirteen Sees in
England, in order to effect the " fourth conversion " of this
country to the " Catholic faith," it may not be undesirable
to point out, through the medium of your columns, the
gross perversion of historical facts contained in the Bull of
His Holiness, relative to the British Church perversions
which, from the time of Baronius, l Parsons, 2 and Cressy, 3
have been industriously circulated, in order to uphold the
assumed Supremacy of Rome over the Church in Britain.
At a moment, also, when the Church of England must
meet the Church of Rome, and challenge her to the proof
of the claims which she insolently assumes, I am the more
anxious to bring these points before members of the Church
of England, from the fact, that few of our popular Church
' Annales Ecclesiaslici.
2 A Treatise of Three Conversions of England.
3 The Church History of Brittany.
Histories touch upon the period so deeply important to
every English Churchman, viz., from the earliest Intro-
duction of Christianity into this kingdom, probably in the
First century, to the mission of St. Austin, at the close
of the Sixth. Thus Carwithen, in his History of the
Church of England, devotes some thirteen lines only to
this deeply interesting period ; and even the Bishop of St.
Asaph, to whom we are much indebted for A Sketch of the
History of the Church of England, though he refers to many
important events connected with the Early Church in this
Island, tells us, that " any considerable investigation into
the records which are left us, respecting the early History
of the British Church, can offer little beyond labour, accom-
panied with very trifling hopes of reward;'' whilst Mr.
Macaulay, 4 in his very pretty Historical Romance, seems
to imply that Christianity had not been preached in this
Island before the Saxon Invasion, or at least was extinct in
Britain long prior to the mission of the Papal emissary, St.
Austin. And I may add, that many of our school " His-
torical Charts," commence the English History with the
year 595, and state that " Christianity was at this time
introduced into England !"
The consequence of all this neglect respecting the study
of the records of our Early Church is, that young gentlemen,
who have " finished their education," though membeis of
4 " While the German Princes, who reigned at Paris, Toledo, Aries, and
Ravenna, listened with reverence to the instructions of Bishops, adored
the relics of Martyrs, and took part eagerly in the disputes touching the
Nicene Theology, the Rulers of \Vessex and Mercia were still performing
savage rites in the temples of Thpr and Woden." This may be all very
true ; but Mr. Macaulay might have told his readers, in order to prevent
mistakes, that three British Bishops were present at the Council of Aries
in the Fourth Century; that three British Metropolitans occupied their
respective Provinces at the close of the Sixth ; and that seven British
Bishops conferred with St. Austin at the beginning of the Seventh.
the Church of England, are sent into the world to read
Papal Bulls, and Father Parsons's Treatises on the " Three
Conversions of England," (under St. Peter, Pope Eleuthe-
rius, and St. Austin, in the First, Second, and Seventh
centuries,) as profoundly ignorant of everything which
relates to the periods in question, as they are of Hindoo
Mythology. And what is the result ? That Pius the Ninth,
well aware of the lack of information on this head which
prevails in England, "has instituted at Rome, a Special
Congregation, entitled " De rebus Britannicis," to ivhich he
has entrusted the care of Romish Ecclesiastical affairs in Eng-
land ;" 5 and the members of this "special congregation"
are ignoring the Church of England, ad libitum, by the aid
of the grossest historical fallacies ; whilst the great mass of
the members of the Church of England, a Church which
is, and claims to be, a living and independent branch of
the One Holy Catholic Church of Christ, are, alas, totally
unprepared to resist the gainsayer.
Now, what is the position of the Church of Rome on the
subject in question ? I quote the Papal Bull issued on the
24th of September, 1850: "History proves that, since the
first ages of the Church, the Christian Religion was carried
into Great Britain, where it flourished until towards the mid-
dle of the Fifth century. After the invasion of Angles and
the Saxons in that island, government, as well as religion,
fell into a most deplorable state. At once, our most holy
predecessor, Gregory the Great, sent the monk Augustine and
his followers ; then he created a great number of Bishops,
joined to them a multitude of monks and priests, brought
the Anglo-Saxons to submission, and succeeded in re-estab-
lishing and extending the Catholic Faith in all that country,
which then began to assume the name of England." Now,
5 See Dr. Wordsworth's Sequel to Letters to M. Gondon, p. 254.
all this, doubtless by the aid of the " special congregation,"
" De rebus Britannicis" is very cleverly and cautiously
worded ; but it implies, at least, that this country, from the
first, has been indebted to the Romish See for the blessings
of Christianity, that on St. Austin's arrival, and for a long
period prior to his mission, the Episcopate in Britain had
ceased to be, and that the conversion of England, in the
Seventh century, was the result of the labours of this Ro-
man monk. I believe, however, that not one of these points
can be fairly established ; and not only so, but that the
contrary can be proved; though, from the very circum-
stances of the case, arising from the Saxon invasion, the
materials connected with British Church History are un-
happily very scanty. I trust, therefore, that I shall not
be deemed presumptuous, if I direct your readers, and
churchmen in general, to the works of Inett, 6 Stillingfleet, 7
Barrow, 8 Mason, 9 Beveridge, 1 Lloyd, 2 Kales, 3 Owen, 4
and Burgess, 5 for the purpose of examining this important
period of our Church History ; and I think that they will
find in them the following positions established :
I. That the British Isles were not indebted to the
Church of Rome for the first G Introduction of Christianity,
that the arguments in favour of the preaching of St. Paul
6 Origines Anglicance. ' Origines Britannicce.
8 A Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy.
9 A Vindication of the Church of England, 8fc.
1 Pandectte Canonum ; Annotationes in Can. Cone. Nicasni Primi.
2 Historical Account of Church Government, as it was in Great Britain
and Ireland, when they first received the Christian Religion.
3 Origin and Purity of the British Church.
4 Rome no Mother Church of England.
& Tracts on the Independence of the Ancient British Church.
6 The reader will find much information on this point in Yeowell's
Chronicles of the Ancient British Church, ch. 2, 3 ; and in Hughes's Horce
Britannicce, vol. ii., pp. 11-18.
in Britain are so strong, as scarcely to admit of a doubt in
the minds of those who have duly studied the question,
aided by the researches of the Welch 7 Archaeologists ;
whilst the claim in favour of St. Peter rests upon the testi-
mony of Metaphrastes, a writer of the Tenth century ; and
the claims in favour of Simon Zelotes, Joseph of Arimathea,
Aristobulus, &c., as advanced by Cressy, and others, are
now generally deemed unworthy of notice.
II. That the story of King Lucius and Pope Eleutherius,
cannot be adduced in favour of the * second conversion '
of this country by Romish missionaries, inasmuch as there
is no proof that the light of Christianity had been ex-
tinguished in Britain at the period assigned to him, at
the close of the Second century ; whilst the fact of his
supposed emissaries, Elvanus and Medivinus, being British
Christians, and, in fact, instrumental in the conversion of
Lucius, would imply the reverse. But more than this :
we know that Britain was at this time in subjection to
the Romans ; that the idea of an independent king in
Britain, who could change the affairs of religion as he
thought fit, is therefore an absurdity ; for " what place,"
asks Stillingfleet, 8 " is now left for such a king as Lucius
is represented?'' We may, with Stillingfleet, admit that
there was such a king as Lucius, and that he was subordi-
nate to the Romans in some part of this island, holding
some petty territory under them, but whose acts, neverthe-
less, could not, in any-wise, compromise the Christian
Church then existing in Britain. Nor again, " was it," (to
adopt the language of Collier,) 9 "as Harpsfield fancies, upon
any information Lucius could receive of the Pope's Supre-
macy and universal Pastorship, that all controversy was to
7 See The Ecclesiastical Antiquities of the Cymri, by the Rev. John
Williams.
8 Origines Britanniccp, p. 61. 9 Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, p. 39.
8
be determined there in the last resort, and that the care
of all the churches lay particularly upon that Bishop's
shoulders. At that time of day, there was neither practice
nor principles set on foot, to give Lucius any such persua-
sion ; as, amongst other things, will appear by the contest of
the British Bishops with St. Augustine the monk.'' " The
truest account of this embassy, (adds Collier) seems to be
this: King Lucius being convinced of the truth of the
Christian Religion, and having had a long intercourse and
correspondence with the Romans in Britain, from hence we
may reasonably suppose him acquainted with the fame of
Rome. We may likewise fairly suppose him informed of
the progress of Christianity in that city, and that there was
a Bishop fixed there, the twelfth in succession from the
Apostles. From this general information, it is likely he
might be desirous to understand how far the British Chris-
tians and those of Rome agreed. He might likewise fairly
presume the Christian Religion was taught there without
mixture or sophistication ; the distance of time between the
Apostles and the present Bishop being so little ; and the
town, as Irenseus argues, having a particular advantage,
being, as it were, the general rendezvous of commerce and
correspondence, a resort being made thither from all places,
upon the score of its being the imperial city. These were
reasonable considerations, which might move King Lucius
to send his agents to Rome, and not any opinion of a
Supremacy, settled by St. Peter upon the Bishop of Rome ;
of which pretended privilege, the British Christians had no
notion at that time, nor a great while after, as I have
already hinted." l
1 Let me specially direct the reader's attention to the following elu-
cidation of the story of King Lucius and Pope Eleutherius from The
Ecclesiastical Antiquities of the Cymri, or, The Ancient British Church, Sfc.
" When Lleinvg (Lucius) ascended the throne, he became deeply im-
9
III. That the British Church was, until the Seventh
pressed with the necessity of providing more amply for the Church,
regulating its external affairs as bearing upon the state in a more defined
and permanent manner, and more clearly distinguishing it from ancient
Druidism. With this view, he applied to Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome,
A. D. 173-189, by means of Medwy and Elvan, native Christians, requesting
to be furnished with the Roman and imperial laws, in which he doubtlessly
expected to find certain ordinances respecting the Church. Eleutherius
sent him in reply the following letter.
" ' You have desired us, that we should send you a copy of the Roman
and imperial laws, with a design to make them the rule of justice in the
realm of Britain. As for the imperial laws, we may dislike and disapprove
them at any time ; but the law of God is above all censure and exception.
I mention this, because, through the mercy of God, you have lately
received the Christian faith in the kingdom of Britain, so that now you
have the privilege of consulting both the Old and New Testament. Out
of these holy volumes you may, by the advice of your subjects, collect
a body of law, which, under God's protection, may enable you to govern
your realm of Britain. For, according to the royal prophet, you are God's
vicegerent within your own dominions, ' the earth is the Lord's, and the
fulness thereof, the world, and they that dwell therein.' And again,
according to the same royal prophet, ' thou hast loved righteousness and
hated iniquity, therefore God, even thy God, has anointed thee with the
oil of gladness above thy fellows.' And elsewhere in the Psalms David
prays, ' Give the King thy judgments, O God,' &c. ' Thy judgments,'
not any secular regulations, not any systems of royal sanction. Now,
the King's sons, which follow in the text, are Christian subjects, who
live in peace and tranquillity under your protection, and, being sheltered
by your administration, are cherished, as the Scripture speaks, ' as a hen
gathers her chickens under her wings,' &c. As for the people of the
kingdom of Britain, they are your subjects, and committed to your care ;
amongst whom, it is your part to promote unity and good understanding,
to bring them to a submission to the Gospel, and into the bosom of the
Church ; to restrain them from disorder ; to support, protect, and govern
them, and screen them from the insults of injurious malice. 'Woe to
thee, land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning.'
I do not suppose that a king is here called a child either for having lived
too little or too long, upon the score of his first or his second infancy ;
but this character of disadvantage is given him for his folly and injustice,
for his licentious and extravagant conduct, according to the royal prophet,
10
century, perfectly independent of the See of Rome;
' the blood-thirsty and deceitful men shall not live out half their days,' &c.
By ' eating,' we are to understand gormandizing, which proceeds from a
luxurious appetite, and is commonly attended with a train of other vices.
These disorders make a man incapable of the blessings of religion ; for,
according to King Solomon, ' Into a malicious soul wisdom shall not
enter, nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin.' A king has his royal
title from the functions of government, not from the advantage of power.
As long as you govern well, you will be a king in propriety of language ;
but if you fail in this point, the royal character will not belong to you, and
you will lose the very name of a king, which I heartily wish may never
happen. God Almighty grant, that you may so govern the realm of Bri-
tain, that you may reign with Him for ever, whose representative you are
in your kingdom above-mentioned. '*
" The conveyance of this letter was entrusted to Dyvan and Fagan, both
of British extraction, and both most probably descendants of some of the
royal captives taken to Rome with Carodog. Dyvan, indeed, is ascer-
tained to be the great grandson of Manawydan, Bran's brother, and there-
fore a kinsman of Lleirwg. The selection of such persons was judicious,
and well calculated to promote the design of the king.
" What Lleirwg by their aid accomplished, is briefly, though not very in-
telligibly, specified in the Triads. One says, that he " made the first
Church at Llandaf, which was the first in the Isle of Britain, and bestowed
the privilege of country and nation, judicial power and validity of oath,
upon those who might be of the faith in Christ." Triad 35. Another
Triad, speaking of the three archbishoprics of the Isle of Britain, states :
" The first was Llandaf, of the gift of Lleirwg, the son of Coel, the son of
Cyllin, who first gave lands and civil privileges to such as first embraced
the faith in Christ." Triad 62.
" The explanation of the whole seems to be this : Christianity had
naturally and gradually become incorporated with Bardism, and Evan-
gelical worship was performed in the Druidical circles. Still, however,
" Though several objections have been urged against the credit of this letter, it has never
yet been disproved. It has been popularly thought that it exhibits a view of the national
affairs of Britain materially different from what they really were at the time under considera-
tion. It is now, however, sufficiently evident, that such a view is perfectly coincident with
the representation of native records, so that any argument founded upon that opinion must
be fallacious. Moreover, the circumstance that the alleged epistle of Eleutherius, though
not noticed in any of the Welch records, should yet agree with the tenor of their statements
as to the station and character of Lucius, is singularly corroborative of the genuineness of
the composition itself."
11
that this independence was established by the law of the
the change, as it would appear, was not universal even among the Si-
lurians. The Church, though in perfect accordance with the primary
object of Bardism, was, nevertheless, so different from the Druidical
department in polity and doctrine, as to require a legal sanction for the
transition. This could be obtained only by " the consent of the country,
the neighbouring country, and particularly the tribe." To adopt this
course was Elcutherius's advice to Lleirwg ; " Out of them (the Old and
New Testament) by the advice of your realm take a law " (ex Hits, Dei
gratia, per consilium regni vestri sume IcyemJ. Unless this was done, the
ministers of religion, though taken exclusively out of the Bardic order,
could not legally enjoy the civil and temporal privileges which belonged to
the Druids. Hence Lleirwg secured to them the " privilege of country
and nation, judicial power and validity of oath."
" The principal constitutional privileges and immunities enjoyed by the
Druids, as we have already seen, were the following : five free acres of
land ; exemption from personal attendance in war ; permission to pass un-
molested from one district to another, in time of war as well as peace ;
support and maintenance wherever they went ; exemption from land tax ;
and a contribution from every plough in the district in which they were
the authorised teachers.
" Judicial power," probably meant an appeal to, and redress received
from, a court of justice.
" The " validity of oath," mentioned in the Triad, implies the obligation
of contracts made by a Christian. It may be that the mode of " swearing
by the decalogue," the first kind of oath among the British Christians,
was now publicly sanctioned, and substituted for the old Druidical forms
enumerated in the following Triad :
" There are three sacred objects to swear by, the rod of office (or
truncheon) of the minister of religion, the name of God, and hand joined
in hand, and these are called hand relics. There are three other modes of
swearing ; a declaration upon the conscience, a declaration in the face of
the sun, and a strong declaration by the protection of God and his truth."
" Where it is affirmed that Lleirwg " made the first church at Llandaf,
which was the first in the Isle of Britain," we are to understand, that
under his authority arose the first Christian edifice which differed in its
structure from the Druidical enclosures. That the early Christians did
actually perform divine worship in the bardic circles, is pretty evident
from the fact that some of these still retain, in their names and other
circumstances, clear marks of their having been used for evangelical
12
Universal Church, as laid down in two of her General
purposes. Such is Cam Moesen, or the Carnedd of Moses, in Glamorgan-
shire, Cam y Groes, on the mountain of Gelly Onen, in the same county,
where a very ancient cross stands ; and Ty Illtud in Breconshire, and many
others.
" Lleirwg was nominal king of Britain. As we have elsewhere observed,
to concede to him the title would be perfectly agreeable to Roman policy.
Even about this very time, we are informed that the Emperor Lucius
Verus permitted the kings whom he conquered in the East to retain sub-
ordinately their former power and dominions. There is reason, however,
to suppose that the actual authority of Lleirwg was very circumscribed.
Many of the tribes had yielded to the different expedients of policy sug-
gested by the Romans, and conformed to their laws and manners. The
Cymry in general would probably still acknowledge him os their lord para-
mount ; hence in an old Saxon Chronicle, he is styled Rex Britwalana, or
king of the Britons of Wales. Some of his regulations might there-
fore have extended to different parts of the country, yet circumstances
would confine their particular application to that part of Siluria, which
was afterwards known by the joint names of Gwent and Morganwg, of
which he was the immediate chieftain. The national establishment of
Christianity in that territory, obtained for it, subsequently, the honourable
designation of "first archbishopric of the Isle of Britain." Triad 62.
" Several considerations of importance might have demanded the course
which the British sovereign took on this occasion. For instance, the
distracted state of the country might have prevented the full and effective
operation of Bardism, and consequently required for the Church a more
distinct and public patronage. The Romans looked with great jealousy
upon Druidism, because of its uncompromising opposition to foreign inva-
sion. This, as before remarked, was evidently exemplified by Suetonius
Paulinus, in his merciless attack upon the Druids in Anglesea. The col-
lector of the " Antiquitates Britannica? " asserts, indeed, that an edict was
actually issued by Marcus Antoninus Verus, a short time before the appli-
cation of Lleirwg, for the extermination of the Druidic order throughout
the provinces.
" Within the jurisdiction of Llandaf are four churches, bearing respect-
ively the names of Lleirwg, Dyvan, Fagan, and Medwy. As there are no
such traditionary traces of the ministries of those persons observable in any
other parts of the country, the circumstance adds weight to the inference
that their ecclesiastical arrangements were chiefly, if not solely, confined
to the patrimonial territory of Lleirwg. Dyvan is considered as the first
13
Councils 2 ; that the Decrees bearing upon this important
bishop of Llanclaf, and is said to have suffered martyrdom on the spot
which is now occupied by the church dedicated to his memory. He was
succeeded in the see by Pagan." pp. 66, 73.
"Again, we have it on record, that Lleirwg communicated with the
Bishop of Rome on the subject of the Church ; but, we trust that we have
clearly explained the nature of that communication, both from the Triads
and from the letter of Eleutherius himself. The Pope, in the very com-
mencement of his epistle, seems to betray a consciousness of British anti-
pathy to the imperial laws, and, therefore, as if to remove every pretext of
jealousy on the part of the clergy of this island, which might exist in con-
sequence of that circumstance, he repudiates all necessary connection
between the Church and State of Rome. Further, in commissioning per-
sons of British descent, one known to be a relative of Lleirwg, to bring
over his reply, and to aid the king in his projects, he proves how careful
he was to cultivate a Catholic union between the Churches of Britain and
Rome, without subjecting either to a compromise of liberty and independ-
ence. It is true that the native prelates are made to assert at the confer-
ence with Augustine, that they had received their ceremonies from
Eleutherius ; from the foregoing considerations, however, we can conclude
such to have been a mistake, arising naturally from a vague or confused
idea of the change which took place in the external aspect of the Silurian
Church, consequent upon the application of Lleirwg." p. 199. See also
Hughes's Horce Britannicce, vol. ii., pp. 43-9.
2 And we may add that the subsequent thraldom under which our
Church laboured until the Reformation, was the result of an unauthorized
usurpation on the part of Rome.
"Philodox, No. They were guilty of departing from the Church of Rome,
and consequently Schismatics.
" Orthodox. What do you mean by departing ? A withdrawing them-
selves from obedience to the Pope of Rome ? But, how doth it appear
that they were ever under it ? Dinoth, who was a man of great learning,
demonstrated, by many arguments, that there was no obedience due from the
Britons to Augustine. Moreover, they had very just reason not to submit
their necks to his yoke : to wit, lest they should thereby lessen the autho-
rity of the Archbishop of St. David's, in violation of the Nicene Canon,
whereby it was ordain'd, That every Church should preserve its proper
privileges. And surely, if Augustine had not been of a proud and aspiring
temper, he would have only requested of the Britons to lend him their
helping hand towards the conversion of the English, and not have de-
14
point are the 6th Canon of the General Council of Nice,
and the 8th Canon of the General Council of Ephesus ;
that, to quote the language of Bishop Beveridge, 3 in his
Annotations on these Canons, these decrees demonstrate
that " this Province of ours, during the first Six centuries
from Christ's incarnation, was independent, subject to no
foreign Bishop, but to its own Metropolitan alone. There-
fore, although the Bishop of Rome, from the time when he
first sent here the above mentioned Augustine, for a long
period exercised the highest jurisdiction in this kingdom, yet,
when at length his tyrannical yoke was shaken off, our Church
again rejoiced in her ancient privileges, privileges which
she claimed upon the strongest possible grounds, even the
sanction of the Universal Church, as specified in the afore-
said Canons :" and that, again, to quote the language of
manded their obedience to himself, and his Lord the Pope. But his pride
and arrogance discovered itself more fully, when he inquired of Pope
Gregory, How he ought to manage, with respect to the Bishops of Gaul and
Britain ? By which words 'tis plain, he aimed at a jurisdiction over the
French Bishops, as well as the British. Which Gregory well enough
perceiving, answered, We allow you no authority over the Bishops ofGo.nl,
because the Bishop of Aries hath received the pall from our predecessors for a
long time ; whom therefore we ought by no means to deprive of his wonted
jurisdiction. So much for his pride and arrogance. Mason's Vindication of
the Church of England, p. 87.
3 " Ipsa haec nostra Provincia per sex priora a Christo incarnato secula
auToxscpatof erat, nulli extraneo Episcopo, sed suo soli Metropolitano
subjacens. Quapropter, etiamsi Episcopus Romanus, ex quo supradictum
Augustinum hue primo misit, summam in hac gente potestatem diu exer-
cuerit, tamen excusso tandem tyrannico istius jugo, Ecclesia nostra antiquis
suis privilegiis, jure meritissimo, utpote ab universali Ecclesia in hoc
Canone prsescripto, iterum gaudet. Quse, faxit Deus, ei, juxta quod hie
prsecipitur, inviolata in posterum, ac perpetuo conserventur." Pandectae
Canonum, Annot. in Can. Cone. Nicceni Primi, p. 58. See also Bingham's
Antiq. of the Christ. Church, vol. i-, book 2, ch. 18, sect. 2, and vol. in.,
book 9, ch. 1, sect. 10, 11, 12.
15
Hammond, in his work on the CEcumenical Councils, 4
when treating of the 8th Canon of Ephesus, " the authority
which the Bishops of Rome in after ages claimed and
usurped over the British and other Western Churches, is
clearly contrary to this Canon, as well as to those of the
Council of Nice."
IV. That the Church in Britain was duly represented
during the Fourth century in three several Councils, viz.,
at the Synod of Aries, A.D. 314, where the Bishops of York,
London, and Caerleon, or Llandaff, attended as the repre-
sentatives of the British Episcopate ; arid again at the
Council of Sardica, A.D. 347 ; and lastly at the Council of
Ariminum, A.D. 359. That it is probable, also, that British
Bishops attended the Council of Nice, A.D. 325. That
subsequently to these several Synods, St. Jerome delivered
his valuable testimony in favour of the independence of
our Church, and of her sufficiency for salvation. Of the
independence of the Churches of Gaul, Britain, Africa, &c.,
he says, " All these Churches worship the same Christ, and
are governed by the same standard of faith. Neither is
the Church of the City of Rome supposed to be different
from the rest of Christendom ; however, if authority is in-
sisted on, Orbis major est Urbe, the rest of the Christian
world is preferable to Rome, and wherever a Bishop is fixed,
whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhe-
gium, or Alexandria, or Tanis, the character and dignity of
the office is the same." 5
* The Definitions of Faith, and Canons of Discipline, of the six (Ecumenical
Councils, Sfc. Let me direct the reader's attention to Bishop Bull's Cor-
ruptions of the Church of Rome, pp. 245, 7, and pp. 289294, vol. ii., edit.
1827. See also Extracts from Bishop Bull, inf.
6 " Nee alters Romanse urbis Ecclesia, altera totius orbis existimanda
est. Et Galli, et Britannia, et Africa, et Persis, et Oriens, et India, et
omnes barbarw nationes, unum Christum adorant, unam observant regulam
16
V. That at the commencement of the Sixth century,
(A.D. 519-522,) Dubricius, Archbishop of Caerleon, and
consequently Primate of Wales, convoked a general Synod
at a place, since called Llanddewi Brevi, in Cardiganshire,
for the purpose of refuting the errors of the Pelagians
which had been again revived: That this assembly was
numerously attended by individuals of the first distinction,
both laymen and ecclesiastics ; amongst whom were the
celebrated Paulinus, Dubricius, the Metropolitan of Wales,
Deiniol, Bishop of Bangor, and St. David, Bishop of Me-
nevia, who afterwards was promoted to the Primacy of the
Welch Church ; and that, chiefly by the learning and
eloquence of St. David, " the heresy," as Giraldus Cam-
brensis informs us, " was utterly dissipated and destroyed."
(See Parry's Cambrian Plutarch., p. 77, where the reader
will find abundant references to Leland, Giraldus, and
other writers.) We may add, that within ten years prior to
the arrival of St. Austin, the Metropolitans of London and
York, 6 Theonus and Thadiocus, occupied their respective
Provincial Sees ; not having retired from the Saxon perse-
cution into Wales before the year 587.
VI. That so far from the British Episcopate being
extinct when St. Austin arrived here, as implied in the
recent Papal Bull, we learn " that Augustine, after hav-
veritatis. Si auctoritas quseritur, Orbis major est Urbe. Ubicunque fuerit,
Episcopus, sive Romse, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii,
sive Alexandria, sive Tanis, ejusdem meriti, ejusdem est et sacerdotii.
Potentia divitiarum, et paupertatis humilitas, vel sublimiorem, vel infe-
riorem Episcopum non facit." Epist. ad Evag., torn, ii., p. 329.
6 Collier, vol. i, p. 144. The language of Ussher, to whom Collier refers,
is this, " Tune igitur (A.D. 587) Archiprsesules, Theonus Londoniensis et
Thadiocus Eboracensis, cum omnes Ecclesias sibi subditas usque ad
humurn destructas vidissent, cum omnibus ordinatis, qui in tanto dis-
crimine superfuerant, diffugiunt ad tutamina nemorum in Guallias."
Brit. Eccle. Antiq., vol. vi., p. 93, edit. 1847.
17
ing been consecrated Metropolitan of the English Nation,
at Aries, sought for instruction from Gregory, how he ought
to manage with respect to the Bishops of Gaul and Britain,
That the Pope tells him that he allows him no manner of
jurisdiction over the French Bishops, because the Arch-
bishop of Aries had received the pall from his predecessors
for a long time ; of which privilege the Pope did not think
it lawful to deprive them. The French Bishops, therefore,
were to be treated upon a level, and nothing offered but by
way of advice and persuasion ; for ' nobody ought to put a
sickle into his neighbour's corn.' But as to the Bishops of
Britain, he puts them all under St. Augustine's jurisdiction." 7
VII. That, in conformity with these instructions 8 from
7 Collier, vol. i., p. 159.
8 " When one compares these Epistles of Gregory, with those which,
upon his first advancement to the See of Rome, he wrote to the Patriarchs
of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and other Bishops
of the Catholick Church ; and the solemn Profession he therein makes,
that he received the Faith and Canons of the four first Councils, of Nice,
Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, with the veneration with which
he received the four Gospels of the Evangelists ; and considers the Zeal
and Warmth with which he opposed the Pretentions of his Friend and
Confident, John, Patriarch of Constantinople, to the Name and Title of
Universal Bishop, assuming to himself the Title of Servant to the Servants
of God ; one finds it very difficult to reconcile Gregory's professions
and shews of Humility, and zeal for the Canons, to that Authority he
assumed in his Instructions to Austin, and in the Model he sent over
to England.
" Thus much is evident, past all possibility of Dispute, from the Epistles
of Gregory, that the pretence to an universal Pastorship, by a Divine Right,
was not so much as thought of at Rome in his time ; and it is evident
from his Writings, that the Canons of the Church were yet thought
the measure of the Patriarchal Power; so that it is very odd and sur-
prising, to see this great Prelate, at the same time, breaking and asserting
the Authority of the Canons. The pretence of those who Justine him
upon the Patriarchal Power shall be consider'd in another place." Inett's
Qrigines Anglicance, vol. i., p. 27 ; see also ch. 4.
B
18
his Holiness, Augustine endeavoured to obtain the submis-
sion of the British Bishops to his newly assumed authority ;
and for this purpose, obtained two conferences with them in
the years 601-3; at the second of which 9 "seven Bishops
were present, together with Dinoth, Abbot of Bangor, and
many other most learned men," according to ' Bede. That
according to the same testimony, and that of one ever
favourable to the cause of Rome, the result of the inter-
view was, that " the Britains declared they would not comply
with him in any one of the particulars urged upon them, nor
own him as their Archbishop." That " if we turn from
Bede and look to Leland and others, we shall find that the
British 2 writers give a more ample account of this matter
9 " The names and titles of the seven Bishops who attended the second
Council are not specified, and later writers, who differ considerably with
each other, have endeavoured to point out the seven Dioceses to which
they belonged. The Bishopricks regularly established in Wales were five,
Menevia, or St. David's, Llandaff, Llanbadarn, Bangor, and St. Asaph.
To these may be added Gloucester, where, according to the Welsh gene-
alogies, a British Bishop resided about this time. The seventh must be
left to conjecture ; but as the Cornish or Western Britons must have had
several native Prelates in this age, and it has been asserted that there was
a British Bishop in Somerset so late as the reign of King Ina, (A. D. 688
to 725,) the distance of their country from the place of meeting is not too
great to suppose that some one of them was present. The most probable
date of the two Councils, for both are believed to have been held in the
same year, is 603. Augustine died in 605, and the battle of Chester, or as
the Welsh have named it, the battle of the Orchard of Bangor, appears to
have been fought in 607." Rees, Essay on the Welsh Saints, p. 292. See
also, The Ecclesiastical Antiquities of the Cyrnri, p. 208 ; Spelman's Con-
cilia, p. 106 ; and Wilkins's Concilia, torn, i., p. 24.
1 Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, lib. ii. cap. 2.
2 " To weaken the authority of the manuscript, from which the British
writers obtain their account of the interview, it is objected, ' There was
then no Bishop of Caerleon upon Usk, nor had been since the metropoli-
tical jurisdiction was transferred to Menevia by St. David.' In answer to
this, it is granted that, from the time of Dubricius, the see was transferred,
19
than is extant in Bede, who is thought to be very sparing
in what concerns the British affairs. But from the British
writers, Leland observes, that { Dinoth did, at large, dispute
first to Llandaff, and then to St. David's ; but this latter translation was
not agreed to by all the British Bishops : for in the time of Oudoceus, the
Bishops of Llandaff challenged the metropolitical privilege of Caerleon to
themselves, and therefore would not be consecrated by the Bishop of St.
David's : and Caerleon having been the ancient metropolitical See, it was
no absurdity at all, to mention that place in a dispute which depended
upon ancient right : for the authority over the British Churches was not
upon the account of St. David's, or Llandaff, but lay in the metropolitical
jurisdiction, which belonged to the See of Caerleon. But farther, the
certainty of the British Churches rejecting the Pope's authority, and
Augustine the monk's jurisdiction, does not depend on the credit of this
Welch manuscript ; for this point is sufficiently cleared from Bede's own
words, where the British clergy declare, as we have observed already,
against owning Augustine for their Archbishop. Whereas, had they owned
the Pope's authority, they ought to have submitted to Augustine, who
acted by the Pope's commission, and had his orders to be their superior.
Now, it was not possible for them, at such a distance from Rome, to
express their disowning the papal authority more effectually than by
rejecting him whom his Holiness had sent to be Archbishop over them.
Besides, Nicholas Trivet, in his manuscript history, written in old Norman
French, and cited by Sir Henry Spelman, Trivet, I say, in this manuscript,
affirms expressly that Augustine did demand subjection of the Britons to
him, as the Pope's legate; but Dinoth, in the name of those Churches,
refused it. Now, the British Churches being thus independent of the See
of Rome, at the coming of Augustine the monk, they were under no obli-
gation to own his authority : and thus their case being the same with the
Cypriot Bishops, the Pope was bound, by the general Council of Ephesus,
to leave them in that state of independency, and not to attempt any en-
croachment upon their liberties. To this Pope Gregory was particularly
obliged, because, at his first promotion to the See, he declared, in a letter
to the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, &c., that he received the four
general Councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, with
the same submission and regard he did the four Gospels.
" If it be enquired why the British clergy were so tenacious of their old
customs, as to break with Augustine, rather than alter their way of keeping
Easter, comply in some of the circumstances of Baptism, and in preaching
B "
20
with great learning and gravity, against the receiving the
authority of the Pope or of Augustine, and defended the power
of the Archbishop of St. David 1 s ; and affirmed it not for
British interest to oivn either the Roman pride, or the Saxon
to the Saxons ; to this it may be answered, that these terms were not
demanded upon the level, not as conditions of brotherly communion, but
as marks of submission and inferiority. That the case stood thus appears
from Bede's expression, " Si in tribus his mihi obtemperare vultis," &c.,
i. e., If they would be governed by his proposal, and own his authority in
these three things, he would close with them in the rest. But the British
Bishops, perceiving their liberties were struck at, answered to the point,
and told him, " they could not give him satisfaction upon those heads, nor
receive him for their Archbishop." Now, why should they refuse the
owning his superiority, had it not been demanded ? This, very probably,
was the reason of their being shocked at his receiving them sitting. It
was not the bare missing a compliment that disobliged them ; but
they looked upon this negligent manner as an instance of authority,
and that Augustine received them with this state to distinguish his
superiority, and practise upon his pretences : this made them take
particular notice of his behaviour, and look upon the omission of usual
respect as no good sign. They concluded among themselves, that if he
refused rising to them, when they were upon articles, they had reason to
expect he would treat them with great neglect when he had them under.
" If it be farther enquired, why the British clergy were so backward to
assist in converting the Saxons ? Leland seems to hint at one reason,
which might make them thus disinclined : " This writer charges it as an
omission upon Gregory, in not putting the Saxons in mind of their
usurpation upon the Britons, in not refreshing their solemn oaths upon
their consciences, and pressing them to their restitution ; for the Pope had
no authority to confirm them in their usurpation. The pretence of bringing
in the true faith could not justify such a practice ; for if principles were
thus loose, if this latitude was once allowed, no princes could be safe in
their dominions."
" These reasons, it is likely, put together, made the British Prelates
unwilling to unite with the Roman missionaries, which had otherwise been
inexcusable." Collier's Eccl. Hist., vol. i., p. 178. See also Stillingfleet's
Origines Britannica, p. 356, where he " considers the liberty or indepen-
dency of the British Churches." For other ' reasons ' which influenced
the British Prelates, see inf. p. 30.
21
tyranny ; and tJial they knew of no obedience due to him thai
Augustine called the Pope, but what they owed to every Chris-
tian ; for the British Bishops had no superior but the Bishop
of Caerleon, of Uske.' 3 And Giraldus Cambrensis, though
3 " These Accounts lie so cross to the Sentiments of those Men, who
have formed a Judgment of the ancient Rights of the Bishops of Rome,
from the Power they have of late possessed, or pretended to, that, as the
'foresaid learned and judicious Prelate has observed, great pains have
been taken to obscure or pervert them. Sometimes they pretend, that
Gregory did not give Austin Power over the British Church : Sometimes,
that he did not insist on it : sometimes they quarrel with the Manuscript
from whence part of this Account is taken. But when all is said, Baronius,
according to his way of speaking, says, that the Britons and Scots had
lived in a long continued Schism, that is, according to his notion of Schism,
long before the coming of Austin they had held no external Communion
with the Church of Rome ; or, in other words, they had never thought
themselves within the Patriarchate of the Bishops of Rome, and had never
owned the Jurisdiction of those Prelates, but governed themselves by their
own Metropolitans, as the whole Catholic Church had done before the
Patriarchal Institution.
" And nothing is more manifest, than that this was the case of the whole
Catholic Church, before the institution of Patriarchs ; and continued after
to be the case of all those Churches which lay within the bounds of the
new Patriarchates ; and, in particular, it is as evident that this was the
case of the British, Scottish, and Gallic^ Churches, as it is that the
Council of Ephesus allowed the continuance of this Government to the
Cyprian Churches in particular.
" And it is no less evident, that that Council allowed the same liberty
to all those Churches which were not, at the time of that Council, within
the Bounds of the new Patriarchates. And indeed, Baronius could have
no other reason for charging the Britons and Scots with a long Schism, if
their independance on the Church of Rome had not been at least as ancient
as the Council of Ephesus ; for that Council was held about the Year 431,
which was but about 166 Years before the coming of Austin; during which
time there is so little appearance of any communion or correspondence
betwixt the British, Scottish, and Roman Churches, that we are not to
wonder, if Baronius charge the Britons with a long Schism.
" But there is great reason to wonder at the Confidence or Ignorance
of those later Writers, who, after Baronius his Account of a lasting Schism,
22
a wonderful zealot for the authority of the Bishops of Rome,
has not only observed, that Bede has nowhere mentioned
any submission of the British Church to Austin, or his
successors, though constituted Metropolitans thereof by the
Bishops of Rome, but has given such proof that the British
Church was, for several ages after the coming of St. Austin,
governed by its own Metropolitans, without so much as own-
ing the primacy of the Archbishops of Canterbury; and his
proofs are so well ascertained by matters of fact, that there
pretend to tell us, that the Britons did not disown the Authority of the
Bishops of Rome : But if the Authority of Baronius, the Account of Bede,
the Epistles of Gregory and the British Writers, were capable of being
denied or misunderstood, the Synodical Epistle of Laurentius, Successor
to Austin, and the whole series and course of the following Transactions,
betwixt the Missionaries on one hand, and the British and Scottish
Churches on the other, put it past all dispute, that the setting up a
Foreign Jurisdiction on the one side, and opposing it on the other, was
the chief subject of the present and following Controversies." Inett's
Origines Anglicana, vol. i., p. 33. I would direct the reader's attention to
the following remarks of Bingham, in his chapter on the avroxj^aXoi.
"Even after the advancement of Patriarchs, several Metropolitans con-
tinued thus independent ; receiving their ordination from their Provincial
Synod, and not from any Patriarch ; terminating all controversies in their
own Synods, from which there was no appeal to any superior, except a
General Council And this was also the ancient liberty of the Bri-
tannic Church before the coming of St. Austin the monk, when the seven
British Bishops, which were |all that were then remaining, paid obedience
to the Archbishop of Caerleon, and acknowledged no superior in spirituals
above him. As Dinothus, the learned Abbot of Bangor, told Austin in the
name of all the Britannic Churches, that they owed no other obedience to
the Pope of Rome than they did to every godly Christian, to love every
one in his degree in perfect charity : other obedience than this they knew
none due to him whom he named Pope, &c. ; but they were under the
government of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Usk, who was their Overseer
under God." Antiq. of Chris. C%.,b. ii., ch. 18, sec. 2. See also Bingham
on The true ancient Limits of the Bishop of Rome's both Metropolitical and
PatriarchalJurisdiction, and his Exceptions of Schelstrate, relating to the
Britannic Church, considered, b. ix., ch. 1, sects. 10, 11, 12.
23
seems no ground to doubt, but that that Church continued
its freedom and independence, till a change in the affairs of
the British nation did, in after ages, bring both their Church
and State to submit to the English Establishment." 4
VIII. That "not only were the British and Irish Churches
in a flourishing condition at the coming of St. Austin, but
the Britons and Irish Scots, before his coming, had done a
great deal towards restoring Christianity to the British
Island, and were worthy instruments in forwarding the
eternal salvation of those men whose fathers had massacred
their ancestors and laid waste their country. For, as Bede
observes, 5 Columba came from Ireland about the year 565,
and converted the Picts, inhabiting the northern parts of
Britain ; and the Saxon Chronicle agrees with the account
of Bede. As for the southern Picts, they had been con-
verted long before by Nennianus, (A. D. 412,) a British
Bishop ; and an Episcopal See was founded, the Church
whereof was dedicated to St. Martin ; and from the
building thereof with white stone, was known in Bede's
time, and long after, by the name of Candida Casa, or
Whittern, in Galloway, in Scotland." 6
IX. That so far from Augustin having fulfilled the
directions of Gregory, by establishing twelve Suffragans
in the Province of Canterbury, and twelve Suffragans
under a Metropolitan at York, so far from " re-establish-
ing and extending the Catholic faith in all this country,"
as asserted by Pius the Ninth, we learn that he failed in
all these particulars. " For," (I quote the language of
Inett,) " thus much is evident, that the Britons did, in
* Inett's Origines Anglicanae, vol. i., p. 33.
5 Hist. Eccl. lib. 3, cap. 4.
fi Inett's Orig. Angl. vol. i., p. 12. See also Lloyd's History of the
Government of the Church in Britain, &c., p. 50.
24
the most solemn and most public manner that was pos-
sible, disavow the authority of Gregory ; and the English
did not go one step further in the pursuit thereof, than
they were led to it by their convenience or interest, but
for the most part acted contrary to it in every particular.
The Metropolitan of York was not appointed by Austin ;
nor were the Pope's directions, as to the number of Suf-
fragans, one jot better obeyed ; for it was almost one
age before the Archbishops of Canterbury were generally
owned as Primates of the English Church, and nearly
five ages before their authority was generally received
by the Britons ; besides, it was a long time before the
Archbishop of Canterbury came to have twelve Suffragans,
but the Province of York has never obtained half that
number to this day." 7
X. In fact, we learn that "all that we can depend upon
as having been effected by St. Austin, after his unsuccessful
attempt to reduce the British Bishops to compliance, is
this, that in the year 604 he consecrated three Bishops,
viz., Mellitus, to preach to the East Saxons, Justus, to be
Bishop of Rochester, and Laurentius, to succeed him in the
See of Canterbury. That this was the state of the Saxon
Church at the death of St. Austin, whether we place that
event in the year 604 or 607." We learn further, that
" after the death of Ethelbert, Paganism revived in Kent ;
that Mellitus was driven from his See ; that the people of
Essex and Middlesex cast off their Christianity ; that the
missionaries despaired of preserving the New Church, and
agreed to leave England and return to Rome ; that the
Bishops of London and Rochester fled to France, and that
the people of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Lincolnshire relapsed
into Paganism ; 8 so that little remained of the boasted suc-
7 Origines Anglicance, vol. i., p. 28. 8 Ibid, ch. 3, pp. 38, 40, 41, &c.
25
cesses of Austin.o Again, we learn, from the elaborate
9 The following Extract from Ingram's True Character of the Church of
England, brings the point succinctly before the reader :
" It might, however, be objected that the present established Church of
England originated in the Anglo-Saxon, and is altogether distinct in
her origin from the Early British Church ; that at the time of the Saxon
settlement in Britain, the ancient Church of this country was extinguished,
and the confessors of the true faith were driven into Wales and Brittany :
that the Anglo-Saxon Church was founded by Augustine the Roman
monk, by whose instrumentality England was a second time converted to
the Christian Faith. But the truth of these objections we most emphati-
cally deny. The Church of Britain was not extinguished, though persecuted
and oppressed. The Anglo-Saxon Church was not founded by Augustine ;
neither was England converted by his instrumentality, but chiefly by the
labours of the Scots and Irish missionaries.
" The learned Mason, on the authority of the early writers, proves that
the extent and success of Augustine's preaching in Britain for the con-
version of the Saxon settlers and other inhabitants, was very limited in
comparison to that of the native clergy. At the time of Augustine's
coming, the whole of Britain was divided into four nations, speaking
different languages, namely, the Britains, Picts, Scots, (that is, Irish,) and
Angles, including, under that common term, the Saxons and Jutes.
" Of these, the Britains, as we have already seen, had embraced the
Christian Faith in the times of the Apostles ; and, at the very time of
Augustine's mission, seven Bishops and a proportionate number of clergy,
with an Archbishop, presided over the Church of Christ amongst them.
" The Scots, (that is, Irish,) had also received the Gospel long before
Augustine was born ; for we read of Kiaranus, Albeus, Delanus, and
Ibarus, who exercised the episcopal office amongst that people before the
year 431, in which year Pope Celestine sent Palladius into Ireland as their
Archbishop.
" In the year 565, thirty-two years before the arrival of Augustine,
Columbanus came from Ireland to preach the Gospel to the northern
provinces of the Picts, as we learn from Bede, who also says that the
southern Picts were converted by Nynia, or Ninian, (A.D. 412,) a BRITISH
BISHOP, and " a most reverend and holy man." Of the three German
colonies which settled in Britain, namely, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes,
the Angles were most considerable, and peopled the large provinces of the
east, the middle, and the north of ENGLAND.
" The kingdom of the East Angles comprehended the counties of Suf-
26
details of Inett, that, in the middle of the Seventh century,
folk, Norfolk, Cambridge, and the Isle of Ely ; these were taught the
knowledge of Christ by Felix, a Galilean Bishop, and Furseus, " a holy
man," as Bede calls him, who came from Ireland.
" Mercia, or the kingdom of the Middle Angles, extended through the
counties of Chester, Nottingham, Derby, Stafford, Salop, Northampton,
Leicester, Lincoln, Huntingdon, Rutland, Warwick, Worcester, Oxford,
Gloucester, Buckingham, Bedford, Hereford, and a part of Hertford ; the
inhabitants of which received the Christian Faith in the reign of king
Peada, who, demanding Alchflede, the daughter of Oswi, king of Nor-
thumberland, in marriage, could not obtain her but on condition that he
became a Christian ; and, no sooner had he heard the truth preached, and
the promise of the kingdom of heaven, with the hope of the resurrection
and eternal life, than he freely declared that he would be a Christian, even
though he should not obtain the princess ; and being baptized by Finanus,
a Scots' Bishop, he returned with much joy, accompanied by four priests,
for the purpose of teaching and baptizing his subjects.
" With regard to Northumberland, the third kingdom of the Angles,
Paulinus, a Roman priest who came over to assist Augustine, by practices
unworthy a preacher of the gospel of truth, obtained from Edwin, the
king of that country, a pledge that he would with his subjects profess the
Christian religion ; which pledge Edwin fulfilled ; but he being slain, and
Paulinus forced to withdraw, Osrich and Eanfrid divided the kingdom
between them. They both having professed Christianity, relapsed into
heathenism, and by their influence recalled their people to idolatry ; soon
after which they were slain by Cadwalla, who ravaged the Northumbrian
provinces. So completely lost was the temporary profession of Christianity
which had been made in that kingdom, that no vestige remained of it ;
' no church, no altar, was left standing in the whole Country.' However,
it pleased God to enable Oswald, the son of Ethelred, to defeat Cadwalla,
and to establish himself on the throne. Having been himself converted
while in exile among the Scots, and being anxious that his people should
enjoy the blessings of Christianity, he sent to that country, requesting them
to send him a Bishop, by whose ministry his subjects might be instructed
in the Christian faith. Accordingly, Aidan was sent over, whose labours
the Lord so blessed, that the gospel was everywhere received. Aidan him-
self was consecrated to the see of Lindisfarne, and the Christian faith
continued to flourish in that part of England.
" If, again, we turn to the other two tribes who settled in Britain,
namely, the Saxons and Jutes, we find that the East Saxons, dwelling in
27
some fifty years after the death of Austin, the Conversion
the counties of Essex, Middlesex, and a part of Hertford, were first induced
to profess Christianity by the preaching of Millctus, who was ordained
their bishop by Augustine ; but it appears that the Christian faith did not
take deep root amongst them, for they relapsed into Paganism and expelled
Milletus from their country. However, on the accession of Sigibert the
true faith was again established. That prince having been converted at the
court of Oswi, brought the holy Bishop Cedd to preach the gospel amongst
his people. Cedd having been much blessed in his labours, repaired to
Lindisfarne and received episcopal consecration from Finanus, a Scots'
Bishop ; after which, returning to the East Saxons, he proceeded to form
their Church, ordaining Priests and Deacons to assist him.
" The West Saxons, comprising the inhabitants of Cornwall, Devon,
Dorset, Somerset, Wilts, Hants, and Berks, were indeed converted by the
Roman missionary Birinus, but not till thirty years after the death of
Augustine. Birinus was seconded in this mission by the Christian ex-
ertions of Oswald, king of Northumberland, who held the ancient faith,
and the work was carried on by Agilbert, who succeeded Birinus in the
see of Dorchester. He was a Gallican by birth, and, having studied in
Ireland, followed the custom of the native British Church.
" The South Saxons, or the people of Sussex and Surrey, were converted
from Paganism in the year 681, by Wilfred, a native of Britain, but who
had spent much time in Italy, and was attached to the Roman custom.
This same Wilfred sent Hildila to preach to the Jutes in the Isle of Wight,
after that island had been conquered by Cadwalla. These were the last
provinces in England which received the Christian faith, and certainly were
not indebted for it to the preaching of Augustine, who died nearly eighty
years before.
" If Augustine first brought the Christian faith to any of the German
settlers in England, it was to the Jutes, who inhabited the kingdom of
Kent ; but even amongst them he cannot properly be said to have laid the
foundation of a Christian Church ; for before his arrival, Lithardus, a
Christian Bishop who accompanied Queen Bertha from Gaul, preached the
gospel and administered the sacraments to the queen and her retinue in a
Church near Canterbury, the royal city of King Ethelbert. We cannot,
therefore, suppose that under such circumstances the king and the people
of Kent remained entirely ignorant of the name of Christ. While we
admit that Augustine was active and diligent in using the means which
were afforded to him for spreading more widely the Christian faith, we
must affirm that even in the kingdom of Kent he could only ' build on
28
of England was effected chiefly by British Missionaries;
that " all other parts of England, under the dominion of
the Saxons, with the exception of the kingdom of Kent,
and the West Saxons, and in some measure the East An-
gles, containing, in a manner, the whole tract of ground
from the Friths of Edinburgh on the north, to the Thames
on the south, were generally brought to the Christian faith,
by the labors of the Scottish or Irish clergy, or such Eng-
lish as had had their education under them 1 * for it pleased
God to grant the success to the English and Scotch clergy
which he had denied to those from Rome/ 2" That " the
only Conversion the greatest part of England owes to the
Bishop of Rome, was the Conversion to the Rites of the
Romish Church from those of the British and Saxon
Churches." That " the union of the Roman and Scottish
Churches, 3 (the latter being connected with the British
Church in the north,) was not effected till the year 673, at
another man's foundation,' and water that seed which Lithardus had
already planted. He cannot, therefore, be properly called the Apostle
of Kent, much less the ' Apostle of England.' Neither did the Anglo-
Saxon Church take her beginning from him, but chiefly, as we have seen,
from the labours of the Picts and Irish missionaries, who were of the
ancient apostolic Church of Britain," pp. 31 to 42.
1 Inett's Origines Anglicance, p. 60 ; see also Owen's Rome no Mother-
Church to England, p. 232.
2 I would direct the reader's attention to an important passage in
Mason's Vindication of the Church of England, on this point, pp. 73-5.
3 " Besides what is before related, there were many things which
favoured the Union of the Churches of the Scotish and Roman Esta-
blishment ; for the East-Saxons were at this time Tributaries to the
Mercians, and Wulfere, the King thereof, had a great Friendship with
King Alcfred, and was a favourer of Wilfrid, and by frequent Conver-
sation with him rendred very inclinable to come over to the Usages of
the Roman Church ; and Jarumman, Bishop of that Kingdom, dying
about the time that Theodore came into England, the Interest of the other
side was in a great measure broken by his Death, and that Prince easily
29
the Council of Hertford, under Theodore : 4 " that " our
historians generally agree that this Theodore was the first
Archbishop of Canterbury that was ever generally owned
as Metropolitan by the Saxons ; that the circumstances of
the union show plainly that the acknowledgement of his
authority was a voluntary act, founded on an agreement
of the English Princes among themselves, and not upon
any opinion of a power in the Bishop of Rome to constitute
a Metropolitan without their consent :" 5 and we also learn,
that " the terms of Communion lie so open to reproachful
reflection on the truth and honour of the Churches, wherein
the greatest part of the English people had received their
Baptism, that it is hard to say, whether there was more
brought to join in the Project formed by the Kings of Northumberland
and Kent to unite the Saxon Churches.
" As for the Kingdoms of the West-Saxons and East-Angles, they had
already received the Usages of the Church of Kent, and the South-Saxons
were yet unconverted : The way was thus prepared for the uniting of
the Saxon Churches, when Theodore came into Britain : But his Au-
thority as Metropolitan seems the greatest obstruction to this Affair;
for the Authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury had never yet extended
beyond the Kingdom of Kent.
" And Men who easily part with Usages, which leave their Interest
safe and untouched, are with difficulty brought to submit to Changes
which lessen their Rights or their Power. And the whole course of the
Saxon Story shews they knew no Authority the Bishop of Rome had to
give them a Metropolitan, against their Wills ; and the independance of
the several Kingdoms lay cross the Reason upon which the Authority of
Metropolitans was first founded ; and though our Historians are silent
therein, one has much ado to forbear thinking, that this was the true
reason why Wilfrid declined appearing at the first Synod held under
Theodore, and openly resisted the Authority of the second." Origines
Anglicance, vol i., p. 74.
4 It is worthy of remark that the second Canon of the Council of Hert-
ford, enacts, " That no Bishop should exercise any authority in the Diocest
of another."
* Inett, p. 61.
30
insolence in imposing on the one side, or more mortification
in submitting to them on the other ;" and " that if judgment
be made by the Ritual of Theodore, the English had a
multitude of burdensome and trifling ceremonies, in ex-
change for a worship much more agreeable to the plainness
and simplicity of the Gospel. 6
XL That, " besides the strong reasons they had for not
submitting to the jurisdiction of St. Austin, which will be
onsidered in the proper place 7 such was the aversion
which the Scottish Christians shewed to all communion
with those that came from Rome, that Dagamus, a Scotch
Bishop, refused not only to eat with them, but so much as
to lodge with them in the same house ; and so general was
the aversion of the British Christians to the doctrine and
worship planted amongst the English by Austin and his
followers, and to such degrees did it arise, that in the year
633, which was about thirty years after the first conversion
by St. Austin, Bede says, 8 ' to this day the Britons continue
such aversion to the faith and icorship of the English, that
they make no account thereof, and will no more communicate
with them than with Pagans."* And he who will ascribe all
6 Inett, p. 84. 1 Inett's Eccl. Angl. c. iv. 8 Eccl. His., 1. ii., c. 20.
9 The following Extracts from Inett will tend to elucidate the conduct
of the British Christians, as regards their aversion to the Church of Rome.
" Amongst other instructions brought over by Mellilus, Gregory directs
Austin not to destroy the places used by the Saxons for the Pagan Wor-
ship ; but that, having first cast out the Images of their Gods, he should
with Holy Water sprinkle the Walls thereof, build Altars, and furnish
them with Reliques, and thus set them apart for the Service of God. But
as to the Rites and Usages of the Pagan Worship, his Instructions are
more surprising, and seem better fitted to the following than the present
age ; and this was to treat the Rites and Ceremonies of the Pagan English,
as he did the places of their Worship ; not to abolish them, but having
first fitted them for it, by changing the end of those Institutions, he
should then introduce them into the Christian Worship.
" And amongst others of this kind, Gregory takes notice of a Saxon
31
this to the different manner of observing the Easter festival,
Festival, that seems to lie so cross to the purity of the Gospel-Worship
as one would have thought could never have been reconciled to it. And
whereas, saith Gregory, the Saxons used to slay abundance of oxen, and
sacrifice them to Devils, you shall not abolish this custom, but appoint
new Festivals, either in honour of the Saints to whom their Churches are
dedicated, or whose Reliques are deposited therein ; and making Arbors,
with branches of trees round their Churches, the Saxons shall be allowed to
kill their oxen, and feast, and enjoy themselves, as they did in their for-
mer Pagan state ; only they shall offer their thanks and praises unto God.
"And the reasons upon which this advice is founded, are the difficulties
of drawing of men from long continued usages ; the example of God, in
allowing the Israelites the use of the Egyptian Sacrifices ; and the hopes,
by such indulgence, to bring the converts, in time, to a better sense of
their duty to God. The reasons of Gregory admit of much dispute, but
the advice has a danger attending it, too visible to be the subject of a
question.
" And the success was such as might be expected from such a beginning ;
for this unhappy error took such root amongst the English, that about forty
years after, Ercombert King of Kent, was forced to forbid those idolatrous
practices, by a law which had at first been allowed to his ancestors : and
the Council of Calcuith, near two hundred years after the coming of Austin,
takes notice of the reliques of Paganism, then remaining amongst the
English ; and it may be, without looking further than the reasons and con-
duct of Gregory, one has a just view of the original of those usages which
in time became a burthen and reproach to the Western Church, and of the
reasons which first introduced them."
" Whereas in the first Conversions of the Nations, by the Apostles, and
their immediate followers, the greatest care was used, not only to bring
the Converts to a just idea of the Gospel Revelation, and conduct their
devotions by the general rules thereof ; but, as far as it was possible, co
leave no footsteps of the Pagan Worship ; and upon this ground, the use
of Images, and the Rites of the ancient Gentile Worship, were entirely
banished, and a plainness and simplicity, suited to the worship of God in
Spirit and Truth, generally introduced ; and great marks of this primitive
plainness appear in the Worship of the British and Scots, at the time of
Austin's coming ; whereas in that Worshp which Austin introduced, and
which had been fitted for the Northern people, who, in this and in two
preceding ages, had been brought into the Church, there appears abun-
dance of new Rites, and Pomp, and Ceremonies, which the British and
32
must have a contemptible idea of all that were concerned
in the quarrel." 1
We may add, that the representatives of the British
Church 2 in Wales preserved, with great firmness, an inde-
pendency of the Romish Church, until the end of the Eighth
century ; and that they did not submit to the Metropolitan
See of Canterbury until the close of the Twelfth century ;
for we find Giraldus Cambrensis " vindicating the privi-
leges of the Metropolitan Church of St. David's against the
ambitious pretensions of Hubert, (Archbishop of Canter-
bury in 1193,) who alleged its subordination to the superior
jurisdiction of Canterbury." 3
Now, I shall doubtless be told, that this is an imperfect
and unsatisfactory sketch of a very intricate portion of
our Church History. I am well aware that it is ; and
my intention is not to satisfy the public mind upon so
interesting a subject, by these few hasty lines, but to
prompt those, who may regard what has been advanced
as something important, or even as something new, some-
thing opposed to the generally received and popular view
of the question, to search for themselves, taking for their
guides sound, recognised, and standard authorities.
I must say one word, relative to the position taken by
the Pope as to the Church of England subsequent to
the Reformation. Pius the Ninth directly repudiates, con-
demns, and ignores, ecclesiastically as well as politically,
the Anglican Branch of the Church Catholic in this
Scots were utterly unacquainted with; and this consideration seems to
have occasioned the mighty aversion of the British, Scots, and Picts to
the Saxon Worship, and those who came from Rome to introduce it."
Qrigines Anglicance, pp. 23-25.
1 Inett, p. 26.
2 See Warrington's History of Wales, vol. ii., p. 404.
3 See Parry's Cambrian Plutarch, p. 160.
country, upon the grounds, we may suppose, (for we are
not favoured with the precise reasons in the Papal Bull,)
set forth by Dr. Doyle, 4 viz. the " Ordination " and " Mis-
sion " of the Bishops of the English Church. I will not
occupy your pages, or your readers' attention, with any
disquisition on this head ; suffice it to remark, that the
works of Bramhall, 5 Mason, 6 Browne, 7 Williams, 8 Courayer 9 ,
and of an host of other writers on this point, will furnish the
English Churchman with abundant materials for refuting
every argument advanced against the validity of English
Ordinations. I am told, indeed, that " Constable's Reply
to Courayer, ' (which is a very scarce work,) settles the
question in favor of Rome." I know, to my cost, that
the volume is " scarce," and dear, but its scarcity does
not arise from the avidity with which the work has been
purchased, or retained, on account of its intrinsic value,
but from the fact mentioned by Courayer, in his Defence,
that its weakness produced its suppression. If the story
of the " Nag's Head Consecration " be revived, or reverted
to, I would simply ask, in the language of the Bishop of
Exeter, in his Letter on the Coronation Oath? " What must
4 See Dr. Doyle's Examination before a Committee of the House of
Lords, pp. 379-380.
5 The Consecration and Succession of Protestant Bishops justified.
6 Vindication of the Church of England, 8fc.
7 The Story of the Ordination of Uie Nay's Head Tavern thoroughly
examined.
8 Succession of Protestant Bishops asserted.
9 A Defence of the Validity of the English Ordinations ; A Defence of
the Dissertation on the Validity, Sfc.
1 Remarks upon F. Le Courayer' 's Book in Defence of the English Ordina-
tions, by Clerophilus Alethes.
2 A Letter to an English Layman on the Coronation Oath, p. 330, in
which the members of the Church of England will find (as in nearly all the
works of this learned Prelate) the most irrefutable arguments against the
errors and false pretensions of Rome.
C
34
be the sentiments of men respecting their own cause, when
they can gravely pretend to give credit to such a miserable
fiction, exposed to the scorn of the world two hundred
years ago ; " and, I may add, repudiated by Dr. Lingard
himself? 3
In conclusion, Sir, I would remark, that this is not the
first time a battle has been fought with the Papists in
this country. At the close of the Seventeenth century,
the Sovereign himself waged an unhallowed warfare against
the Church of England : and how nobly did the Anglican
Divines come forward and overwhelm their adversaries
with utter confusion on every point of the controversy.
Even Mr. Macaulay admits, that " it was indeed impos-
sible for any intelligent and candid Roman Catholic to
deny that the champions of his Church were in every
talent and argument completely overmatched." 4 " There
were giants upon the earth in those days." The names
of one hundred and seven writers, clerical and lay, (mem-
bers of the Church of England,) from whom emanated
three hundred and seventeen anti-popish books and tracts,
are recorded in the pages of history ; whilst their opponents,
numbering only fifty, published one hundred and thirty
eight works and pamphlets. 5 These writings of our Divines,
3 History of England, vol. vii., p. 380 ; Edit. 1844. I may be permitted
to refer to my Succession of Bishops in the Church of England Unbroken, for
a digest of the authorities in defence of the validity of Anglican Ordinations.
* History of England, vol. ii., p. 110.
5 The Four Catalogues bearing upon this important controversy, are as
follow : The Present State of the Controversie between the Church of Eng-
land and the Church of Rome ; or an Account of the Books written on both
Sides, by Dr. Wm. Claget, 1687. A Continuation of the Present State of the
Controversy between the Church of England and the Church of Rome ; being
a Full Account of the Books that have been of late written on both Sides, by
Archbishop Wake, 1C88. These Catalogues having been published during
the Controversy, were consequently incomplete. In 1689 was published,
35
at the period referred to, (from 1680 to 1690,) will furnish
Ihe members of our Church with ample information on
every subject connected with the Romish controversy ; or
if these tracts are inaccessible, a digest of them will be
found in Gibson's Preservative against Popery, or, in a more
concise form, in Brogderis Catholic Safeguards. Let, then,
the members of the Church of England understand the
strong grounds which they have for protesting against the
present encroachments of Rome. Let them bear in mind
that the Church of England is a living branch of the One
Holy Catholic Church of Christ ; that by the law of the Uni-
versal Church, as laid down in her CEcumenical Councils,
she is independent of the See of Rome, and that she
claimed and acted upon this independence until the Papal
usurpations in the Seventh century. Let them protest upon
the ground, that the intrusion of a Metropolitan into
English provinces, and of Popish Prelates into English
Sees, all duly filled by Archbishops and Bishops ca-
nonically constituted thereto, is in direct contravention to
the decrees of the Catholic Church, which strictly prohibit,
under pain of incurring the charge of heresy and schism,
two Metropolitans from ruling in the same province, or
two Bishops from occupying the same Diocese. 6
The Catalogue of all the Discourses published against Popery, during the
Reign of King James II., by the Members of the Church of England, and by
the Nonconformists; with the names of the Authors of them ; by the Rev. Ed.
Gee ; and lastly, in 1735, the Rev. Francis Peck, published a Complete
Catalogue of all the Discourses written, both for and against Popery, in the
time of James II: containing in the whole, an Account of 457 Books and
Pamphlets, a great number of them not mentioned in the three former Cata-
logues ; and an Alphabetical List of the Writers on each Side.
" What are the decrees of the Catholic Church, in its General Councils,
concerning Episcopal jurisdiction ?
" According to them, there cannot be two Metropolitans in the same
Province, nor two Bishops in the same Diocese.
C 2
The following admirable passages from Bishop Bull, on
The Corruptions of the Church of Rome, in relation to
Ecclesiastical Government, fyc., should be read and studied
by every member of the Church of England, at the present
important moment :
" The Church of Rome hath quite altered the primitive
ecclesiastical government, by erecting a monarchy in the
Church, and setting up her Bishop as the universal Pastor
" These two propositions are clearly laid down by the Church in the
first four General Councils, which are of such paramount authority, that any
one who will venture to set himself in wilful opposition to them, incurs the
charge of heresy as well as of schism.
" In the eighth Canon of the Council of Nice the first general Council,
a prohibition will be found to this effect, that there may not be " two
Bishops in the same city." The second Canon of the second General
Council, that of Constantinople, specially enjoins that " no Bishop shall
intrude himself into a Diocese which does not belong to him, and thus intro-
duce confusion into the Church ;" and in the sixth Canon, it brands with
the stigma of heresy those " who separate themselves, and set themselves up
in opposition to lawful Bishops." The third General Council, that of
Ephesus, declares, that " no Bishop shall occupy, and exercise any func-
tion, in a province which does not appertain to him ; and if he shall pre-
sume to do so, he shall make restitution." The fourth General Council,
that of Chalcedon, in the twelfth Canon, orders that there shall not be
" two Metropolitans in the same Province."
" I might add other citations of a similar kind ; as, for instance, from
one of the earliest Councils, that of Antioch, in which it is enjoined
(Canon v.), that if " any one shall set up a rival altar against altar, he
shall be deposed, and never be restored to his former dignity ;" and that
" no Bishop (Canon xiii.) shall dare to invade the Diocese of another, and
confer orders in the same, and that all orders so conferred shall be deemed
invalid ; and (Canon xix.) that " no Bishop shall be consecrated without
the consent and presence of the Metropolitan."
" Let the present act of the Pope be judged by these Laws of the
Church, and it will then be seen what kind of deference he pays to her
authority, and what regard he has for her unity. Certainly it must be
affirmed, that, as far as this act is concerned, he does all in his power to
destroy both" Sequel to Letters to M. Condon, p. 255.
37
and Governor of the whole Catholic Church, and making
all other Bishops to be but his vicars and substitutes, as
to their jurisdiction.
" For that the Bishop of Rome had no such universal
jurisdiction in the primitive times, is most evident from
the sixth Canon of the first Nicene Council, occasioned,
as it appears, by the schism of Meletius, an ambitious
Bishop in Egypt, who took upon him to ordain Bishops
there without the consent of the Metropolitan Bishop of
Alexandria. The words of the Canon are these : " Let
the ancient customs prevail that are in Egypt, Lybia,
and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandi'ia have the
power over them all, forasmuch as the Bishop of Rome
also hath the like custom. In like manner, in Antioch,
and all other provinces, let the privileges be preserved
to the Churches." From this Canon it is plain, that the
three Metropolitan Bishops, or Primates, (they were not,
as yet, I think, called Patriarchs,) of Alexandria, Rome,
and Antioch, had their distinct jurisdictions, each indepen-
dent on the other; and that all other chief Bishops or
Primates of provinces had the same privileges which are
here confirmed to them. It is true, this Canon doth not
particularly describe or determine what the bounds are
of the Roman Bishop's power, as neither doth it the limits
of the Bishop of Antioch's jurisdiction, but only those of
the Bishop of Alexandria's province. The reason hereof
is manifest ; the case of the Bishop of Alexandria only
was at this time laid before the Synod, whose jurisdiction
in Egypt had been lately invaded by the schismatical
ordinations of Meletius, as I before observed. But that
the Roman Bishop's power, as well as that of the other
Metropolitans, had its bounds, is most manifest from the
example that is drawn from thence, for the limits of other
Churches. For what an absurd thing is it, that the Church
38
of Rome should be made the pattern for assigning the
limits to other metropolitan Churches, if that Church also
had not her known limits at the same time when this
Canon was made ! Intolerable is the exposition which
Bellarmin and other Romanists give of these words of
the Canon ; " forasmuch as the Bishop of Rome also hath
the like custom ;"- i.e. (they say,) " It was the custom of
the Bishop of Rome to permit, or leave to the Bishop of
Alexandria, the regimen of Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis."
Certainly, the words seem to imply a like custom in the
Church of Alexandria and in the Church of Rome ; and
the sense of the Canon is most evident, that the Bishop of
Alexandria should, according to the ancient custom of the
Church, (not by the permission of the Roman Bishop,)
enjoy the full power in his province, as by the like ancient
custom the Bishop of Rome had the jurisdiction of his.
But they that would see this Canon fully explained, and
cleared from all the trifling cavils and exceptions of the
Romanists, may consult the large and copious annotations
of the learned Dr. Beveridge, Bishop of St. Asaph, upon it,
where they will receive ample satisfaction. Vid. sup. p. 14.
" Thus was the government of the Catholic Church, in the
primitive times, distributed among the several chief Bishops
or Primates of the provinces, neither of them being accoun-
table to the other, but all of them to an CEcumenical
Council, which was then held to be the only supreme
visible judge of controversies arising in the Church, and to
have the power of finally deciding them. Hence the case
of the Bishop of Alexandria, before mentioned, was not
brought before the Bishop of Rome, or any other Metro-
politan, but referred to the Fathers of the Nicene Council,
to be finally determined by them.
" The universal pastorship or government of the Catholic
Church was never claimed by any Bishop till towards the
39
end of the Sixth century, and then it was thought to be
challenged by John, Patriarch of Constantinople, assuming
to himself the title of (Ecumenical or Universal Bishop ;
whom Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, vehemently
opposed, pronouncing him the forerunner of Antichrist,
who durst usurp so arrogant a title."
And again, " 'That the Church of Rome is the mistress of
all other Churches,' is another great untruth. A pro-
position which, if it should have been advanced in the first
ages of the Church, would have startled all Christendom.
Every metropolitical Church would presently have stood
up, and loudly pleaded her own immunities, rights, and
privileges, independent upon Rome or any other metropolis.
These rights and privileges were confirmed, as of primitive
and ancient custom, by the sixth Canon of the great Coun-
cil of Nice, as hath been before shewn ; established also by
the eighth Canon of the QEcumenical Council of Ephesus,
as by and by will appear. Indeed in the days of old, when
the Church of Rome was quite another thing from what
now it is, all other Churches upon several accounts paid a
singular respect to her, and gave her the preeminence; but
they never acknowledged her mistress-ship over them, or
themselves to be her serving-maids. This language would
then have sounded very harsh, and been esteemed insolent
and arrogant by all the Churches of Christ. In later days
indeed she hath made herself mistress, but a mistress of
misrule, disturbing the peace, invading the rights, and im-
posing upon the faith of other Churches.
" That * the Bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ,'
i.e. under Christ the head and governor of the Universal
Church, is another gross untruth. The universal pastor-
ship and jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, over all other
Bishops, was never heard of, never pretended to by any
Bishop of that Church for the first six hundred years and
40
more, as I have before shewn. To which all that I shall
now add concerns our British Church. We say then, our
Church of Britain was never under the jurisdiction of the
Bishop of Rome for the first six hundred years ; Britain
being a distinct diocese of the empire, and consequently
having a primate of her own, independent upon any other
primate or metropolitan. This appears first from the cus-
toms of our Church during that time, in the observation of
Easter, and the administration of baptism, different from,
as was before observed, the Roman custom, but agreeing
with the Asiatic Churches. For it is altogether incredible,
that the whole British Church should so unanimously have
dissented from Rome for so many hundred years together,
if she had been subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman
Bishop, or that the Roman Bishop all that time should
suffer it, if he had had a patriarchal power over her.
" Secondly, The same is evident by the unanimous tes-
timony of our historians, who tell us, that when Austin the
monk came into Britain, as St. Gregory's legate, (which
was after the Sixth century was fully complete and ended,)
and required submission from our Church to the Bishop of
Rome, as her Patriarch, the proposal was rejected, as of a
new and strange thing never heard of before. The answer
of Dinothus, the learned Abbot cf Bangor, in the name of
all the Britons, is famous, viz. ' That they knew no obe-
dience due to him, whom they called the Pope, but the
obedience of love, and that under God they were governed
by the Bishop of Caerleon.' Under God, i. e. immediately,
without any foreign Prelate or Patriarch intervening, they
were to be governed by the Bishop of Caerleon, as their
only Primate and Patriarch. Which privilege continued
to the succeeding Bishops of that See for several ages,
saving that the Archiepiscopal Chair was afterwards re-
moved from Caerleon to St. David's. And that this was
41
indeed the sense not only of Dinothus, but of all the whole
body of our British Clergy at that time, all our historians
tell us, witnessing the absolute and unanimous resolution of
the British Clergy, both Bishops and Priests, synodically
met together, not to subject themselves to the jurisdiction
of the Bishop of Rome. Fide Spel. Com. Gual Mon. ii. 12,
Bedam omnesque alias.
" This being the ancient privilege of the British Church,
we have an undoubted right of exemption from the juris-
diction of the Bishop of Rome by the ancient Canons of
the Catholic Church ; particularly by the sixth Canon of the
great Nicene Council above mentioned, by which it was
decreed, " That the ancient customs should every where
"obtain, and that the then privileges of every province
" should be preserved inviolate." But this is most evident
from the eighth Canon of the Council of Ephesus, occasioned
by the famous case of the Cyprian Bishops ; which was
this : the metropolitan of Cyprus being dead, (Troilus, the
Bishop of Constance,) the Bishop of Antioch pretended
that it belonged to him to ordain their Metropolitan,
because Cyprus was within the civil jurisdiction of the
Diocese of Antioch. Upon this, the Cyprian Bishops
made their complaint to the general Council at Ephesus,
grounding it upon the Nicene Canon, and pleading that
their Metropolitan had been of ancient time exempt from
the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Antioch, and was ordained
by a Synod of Cyprian Bishops ; which privilege was not
only confirmed to them by the Ephesine Council, but a
general decree passed, " That the rights of every province
should be preserved whole and inviolate, which it had of
old, according to the ancient custom." And it is to be
observed, that the Bishop of Antioch had a more colourable
pretence to a jurisdiction over the Cyprian Bishops, than
Gregory could have to a jurisdiction over our British
42
Churches : for Cyprus was indeed within the civil
jurisdiction of Antioch, but our Britain was originally
itself a distinct Diocese of the empire. Yet the Ephe-
sine Fathers judged, that ancient custom should prevail
in the case of the Cyprian Bishops : how much more
then should it in ours ? Certainly Pope Gregory, when
by his legate Austin he challenged to himself a juris-
diction over our British Church, was ignorant of, or had
forgotten, or else regarded not the Canons of the Nicene
and Ephesine Councils. If it be objected, that our British
Church afterwards submitted herself to the Bishop of Rome
as her Patriarch, which power he enjoyed for many ages,
and that therefore our first reformers cannot be excused
from schism, in casting off that power which by so long a
prescription he was possessed of; we answer, we did indeed
yield ourselves to the Roman usurpation, but it was because
we could not help it : we were at first forced, awed, and
affrighted into this submission. For who hath not heard of
the barbarous massacre of the poor innocent monks of
Bangor, to the number of twelve hundred, for refusing Austin's
proposal, and asserting the ancient rights and privileges of
the Britannic churches ? When this force ceased, and we
were left to our liberty and freedom of resuming our pri-
mitive rights, why might we not do it, as we saw occasion,
without the imputation of schism ? This is not only our
just plea, but it is ingenuously confessed by father Barns,
our learned countryman, and of the Roman communion.
His words are these : " The island of Britain anciently
enjoyed the same privilege with that of Cyprus, that is to
say, of being in subjection to the laws of no patriarch : which
privilege, though heretofore abolished by tumults and force
of war, yet being recovered by consent of the whole kingdom
in Henry the Eighth's reign, seems for peace sake most pro-
per to be retained, so it be done without breach of Catholic
43
unity, or incurring the charge of schism." Indeed, we had
very great reason to resume our primitive right and privi-
lege of exemption from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of
Rome, when by means thereof he lorded it over our faith,
and imposed manifest and gross corruptions both in doc-
trine and worship upon our consciences." 7
The language of a portion of the eighth Canon of the
Council of Ephesus, is so singularly applicable to the
present Papal aggression, that I will give it entire : " The
most beloved of God, and our fellow Bishop Rheginus,
and Zeno, and Euagrius, the most religious Bishops of the
province of Cyprus, who were with him, have declared
unto us an innovation, which has been introduced contrary
to the laws of the Church, and the Canons of the holy
Fathers, and which affects the liberty of all. Wherefore,
since evils which affect the community, require more at-
tention, inasmuch as they cause greater hurt, and especially
since the Bishop of Antioch has not so much as followed
an ancient custom, in performing ordinations in Cyprus, as
those most religious persons who have come to the holy
Synod have informed us, by writing and by word of mouth,
we declare that they who preside over the holy Churches
which are in Cyprus, shall preserve, without gainsaying or
opposition, their right of performing by themselves the
ordinations of the most religious Bishops, according to the
Canons of the holy Fathers and the ancient custom. The
same rule shall be observed in all the other Dioceses, and in the
provinces everywhere ; so that none of the most religious
Bishops shall invade any other province, which has not here-
tofore from the beginning been under the hand of himself or
his predecessors. But if any one has so invaded a province,
and brought it by force under himself, he shall restore it ; that
^ Bull's Works, vol. ii., pp. 245-7, and 289-94, Edit. 1827.
44
the Canons of the Fathers may not be transgressed, nor the
pride of secular dominion be privily introduced under the appear-
ance of a sacred office, nor we lose, by little and little, the
freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the deliverer of all men,
has given us by His own blood. The holy and QEcurnenical
Council has therefore decreed, that the rights which have
heretofore, and from the beginning, belonged to each
province, shall be preserved to it pure and without re-
straint, according to the custom which has prevailed of
old." 8 Stillingfleet tells us that Alford is much displeased
with Sir H. Spelman, for paralleling the case oj the British
Bishops and Augustine, with that of the Cyprian Bishops
against the Patriarch of Antioch. But for what reason ?
(asks Stillingfleet.) Why, saith he, 'The Council of
Ephesus did not permit the Cyprian Bishops to decline the
judgment of their Patriarch, but declared the Bishop of
Antioch not to be their Patriarch.' Very well ! And is
not this the very case here ? The Bishop of Rome
challenges a patriarchal power over the British Churches,
and appoints an Archbishop over them; but they deny that
he had any such authority over them, they being governed
by their own Metropolitan, as the Cyprian Bishops were ;
and therefore by the decree of the Council of Ephesus,
they were bound to preserve their own rights, and conse-
quently to oppose that foreign jurisdiction which Augustine
endeavoured to set up over them." 9
8 See Hammond on The Six (Ecumenical Councils, p. 69. Johnson
remarks with reference to this Canon, that, " By this Canon our Divines
have fully established the exemption of the British Church from subjection to
any Patriarch whatever. For it cannot be made appear that either the
Bishop of Rome, or of any other See, had any manner of jurisdiction over
us before the Canon was made ; and whatever power he has assumed
since, was contrary to this Canon." Vade-Mecum, pt. ii., p. 137.
9 Origines Britannicce, p. 364. The passage of Spelman to which Stil-
lingfleet refers is the following. " Abbas vero Banchorensis, qui Augus-
45
Lastly, let English Churchmen remember, that the
Church of England, as a branch of the Church Catholic,
claims the Rules or Canons decreed by the Church in her
General Councils as applicable to herself. I close, there-
fore, with the language of Bishop Beveridge " ETIAMSI
EPISCOPUS ROMANUS, EX QUO SUPRADICTUM AlJGUSTINUM
HUC PRIMO MISIT, SUMMAM IN HAC GENTE POTESTATEM
DIU EXERCUERIT, TAMEN, ExCUSSO TANDEM TYRANNICO
ISTIUS JUOO, ECCLESIA NOSTRA ANTIQUIS SUIS PR1VILEGIIS,
JURE MERITISSIMO, UTPOTE AB UNIVERSALI EcCLESIA IN
HOC CANONE PR/ESCRIPTO, ITERUM GAUDET. QUJE FAXIT
DEUS, EI INVIOLATA IN POSTERUM AC PERPETUO CONSER-
VENTUR." 1
Yours, &c.,
E. C. HARINGTON.
Exeter, November 5th, 1850.
tino hoc responsum dedit, sine dubio fuit celeberrimus ille Dionothus,
de quo supra in notis ultimis memoravimus. Manifestum etiam est, cum
ex hac sua responsione, turn ex illis quse ad ipso Beda hie in praecedentibus
referuntur, Britannicam Ecclesiam nullam sub hoc tempore agnovisse sub-
jectionem, out Romano ipsi Pontifici, out extraneo alicui alii Patriarchs,
vel communionem aliquam cum Romano Ecclesia coluisse. Subdebatur
autem, ut ab Eleutherii aevo, proprio suo Metropolitse (tanquam alterius
orbis Papae vel Patriarchs) Caerlegionis Archiepiscopo, qui, ut hie sug-
geritur, superiorem non agnovit in Ecclesise gradibus, at yn oligwr dan
Duw, id est, sub Deo absque alio intermedio, plebem et ecclesiam, sibi
creditam gubernasse : Orientales etiam ritus et Asiaticos, potius quam
Romanos imbibisse. Nee hoc quidam e schismatica aliqua pravitate, (quam
authores proculdubio illius sseculi perstrinxissent) nee contra sanctorum
Patrum institutiones, authoritate tertiae Synodi (Ecumenicce Ephesi habitie,
anno gratite 431, corroboratas : Cypriote causam similem contra Patriarcham
et clerum Antiochenum promoventibus." Concilia, p. 109, Notae.
l Pandecta Canonum Annotaliones in Can. Cone., Nicceni Primi, p. 59.
See some valuable information on the point, that " The Roman Pontiff
has not, jure Divino, any ordinary Jurisdiction over the Universal Church,"
in Palmer's Treatise on the Church of Christ, vol. ii., pt. vii., ch. iv.,
pp. 506-23 ; and" On the Patriarchate of Rome," ibid., ch. vii., pp. 538-46.
APPENDIX,
To which the attention of BRITISH SUBJECTS is earnestly solicited.
WE hear much respecting " the change which has taken place in
the character and principles of Popery since the days of Queen
Alary." Now this is sheer nonsense ; the principles of the Church of
Home remain precisely what they have been during the last Eleven
centuries. " The Church of Rome," says Lord Eldon, in the debate
upon the (Roman) Catholic Question, in 1829, " is ever mysterious
and unfathomable. Her Priests are animated by the deepest hostility
to the Protestant Church ; and though they tell you their religion is un-
changed, you ivill not believe it" Let us turn to some recognized
authority, and enquire how far the Church of Rome " ascribes to the
Pope an absolute, universal, and boundless authority over all pet-sons, and
in all matters, both spiritual and temporal, conferred upon him by Divine
right; so that all are obliged in conscience, to believe whatsoever fie doth
authoritatively dictate, and to obey whatsoever he commands ;" which is
an important point for the consideration, both of the QUEEN and her
SUBJECTS, at the present moment. I quote from the Prompta Biblio-
theca of Ferraris, which is adopted as a standard of Roman Catholic
Divinity, in which the authorities are the Decrees and Decretals of
Popes and Councils, and the writings of the acknowledged champions of
the Church of Rome. Under the word ' Papa,' Ferraris recognizes
the following traits of PAPAL POWER. " The Pope is of such dignity
and highness, that he is not simply man, but, as it were, God, and the
Vicar of God. Hence the Pope is of such supreme and sovereign
dignity that, properly speaking, he is not merely constituted in dignity,
but is rather placed on the very summit of dignities. Hence also the
Pope is ' Father of Fathers ;' and he alone can use this name, because
he only can be called ' Father of Fathers,' since he possesses the
primacy over all, is truly greater than all, and the greatest of all. He
is called 'most holy,' because he is presumed to be such. On account
of the excellency of his supreme dignity, he is called 'Bishop of
47
Bishops, Ordinary of Ordinaries, universal Bishop of the Church,
Bishop or Diocesan of the whole world, divine Monarch, supreme
Emperor and King of Kings.' Hence the Pope is crowned with a
triple crown, as King of heaven, of earth, and of hell. Nay, the Pope's
excellence and power is not only about heavenly, terrestrial, and
infernal things, but ho is also above angels, and is their superior ; so
that if it were possible that angels could err from the faith, or entertain
sentiments contrary thereto, they could be judged and excommunicated by
the Pope. He is of such great dignity and power, that he occupies
one and the same tribunal with Christ ; so that whatsoever the Pope
does, seems to proceed from the mouth of God, as is proved from
many Doctors. The Pope is, as it were, God on earth, the only
Prince of the faithful of Christ, the greatest King of all Kings, pos-
sessing the plenitude of power, to whom the government of the earthly
and heavenly kingdom is intrusted. Hence the common doctrine
teacheth, that the Pope hath the power of the two swords ; namely,
the spiritual and temporal, which jurisdiction and power Christ him-
self committed to Peter and his successors ; ' To thee will I give the
keys of the kingdom of heaven,' &c. : (Matt. xvi. :) where Doctors
note that he did not say ' key,' but 'keys,' and by this comprehending
the temporal and spiritual power : which opinion is abundantly con-
firmed by the authority of the holy Fathers, the decision of the
canon and civil law, and by the apostolic constitutions ; so that those
who hold to the contrary, seem to adhere to the opinion of the heretics
reprobated by Boniface VIII., in his Extravagant, entitled, Unam
Sanctam. Hence infidel Princes and Kings, by the decision of the
Pope, may be deprived, in certain cases, of that dominion which they
have over the faithful ; as, if they have occupied the country of the
Christians by violence, or endeavour to draw away their faithful
Roman Catholic subjects from the faith, or any such thing, as
Bellarmine, Suarez, Baros, Gonzales, Cardinal Petra, &c., very fully
demonstrate. And hence the Pope may cede those provinces which
formerly belonged to Christians, that were subsequently occupied by
infidels, to any Christian Princes to be redeemed. And if a King
become heretic, he can le removed from his kingdom by the Pope, to whom
the right of appointing his successor belongs, if his sons and nearest
relatives are heretics. Nay, in cases in which, on account of the heresy
of the King, the religion of his kingdom, and the faith of others seem to
be in danger, if he can in no other way prcccnl this loss, the Pope may
not only deprive him of his kingdom, but he may also concede it to a
48
Christian Prince and his successors, if this Prince will fight for and con-
quer it. Hence it is not wonderful, if to the Roman Pontiff, as the
Vicar of Him whose is the earth, and its fulness, the world, and all
they who dwell therein, be attributed supreme authority and power,
not only the spiritual, but also the unsheathed material, sword, just
cause being assigned for transferring empires, breaking sceptres, and
taking away crowns. Which plenitude of power, not only once, but
often, the Popes used, whenever it was necessary, by binding, most
courageously, the sword on their thigh, as is sufficiently manifest, not
only from the most ample testimonies of theologians, the teachers of
the right of the Pontiff and of Caesar, but also of innumerable
historians of undoubted credibility, profane as well as sacred, Greek
as well as Latin."
The concluding passages of Ferraris, touching the much disputed
question of the Pope's Infallibility, I will give in the original, lest I
should mistake the position of the Church of Rome, on a point of such
deep importance. " Papa tantae est auctoritatis et potestatis, ut possit
quoque leges divinas modificare, declararc, vel interpretari." ..." His
breviter notatis concluditur, quod Decreta, quse edit Papa ex Cathedra
circa Doctrinam Fidei et morum sunt infallibilia. Est de fide. Probatur
prima pars conclusions, scilicet quod infallibilia sint decreta Papae circa
Doctrinam Fidei ; Christus enim promisit, et dedit Papse in persona
Petri suam assistentiam, ne in definiendis rebus Fidei erraret" . . . Pro-
batur secunda pars conclusionis, scilicet quod infallibilia sint Decreta
Papae circa doctrinam morum. Est deFide, quod ecclesia sit sancta, ut in
Symbolo Apostolorum vocatur : ergo et de fide est, quod Papa docens
ex Cathedra errare non possit in tradenda doctrina morum; adeoque
Decreta db ipso ex Cathedra edita circa morum doctrinam sunt infalli-
bilia." Lu. Ferraris, Prompta Silliotheca, Canonica Juridica, Moralis,
Theologica, &c ; Verb. Papa, art. 2, sect, 30-46, torn. 7.
POLLARD, NOETH STREET, EXETER,
\ \
. w
- '. v -
IW*" -TTTi e
000 085 74 5
B