And are you not ashamed to persecute me and others for your church's sake, which is Babylonian, and contrary to the true catholic church?" In the conference, in 1555, between the martyr Bradford and Dr. Harpesfield, of London, 'tell me,' said the former, 'whether the scripture knew any difference between bishops and ministers, which ye call priests?' To which question the Romanist answered, that there was not; thus proving, that in Queen Mary's days, both Romanists and protestants admitted this fact. Thus Thomas Beacon, a prebend of Canterbury, in his catechism, printed in 1560, teaches that there is 'no difference at all between a bishop and spiritual minister and presbyter, their authority and power is one."2 In 1578, as we have seen, dean Wittingham was excommunicated by Sandys, the archbishop of York, for want of episcopal orders. But upon appeal, his ordination was pronounced to be of a better sort than that of the archbishop himself.3 Robert Wright, who had been ordained by a presbytery at Antwerp, (having sought their ordination from certain scruples about his prelatical orders,) preached seven years in the university of Cambridge, with approbation, though afterwards silenced by the bishop of London.* At this time there were some scores, if not hundreds, in the church, who had been ordained according to the manner of the Scots, or other foreign churches.5 About the year 1582, we also find that the archbishop of Canterbury licensed John Morrison, a Scotch divine, and who had received no other ordination than what he had received from a Scotch presbytery, to preach over his whole province, in these words: 'Since you were admitted and ordained to sacred orders, and the holy ministry, by the imposition of hands, according to the laudable form and rite of the reformed church of Scotland; and since the congregation of the county of Lothian is conformable to the orthodox faith and sincere religion, now received in this realm of England, and established by public authority; we, therefore, approving and ratifying the form of your ordination and preferment, done in such manner aforesaid, grant you a license and faculty to celebrate divine offices, to minister the sacraments,' &c. By the 13 Eliz. c. 12, ordination by presbyters, without a bishop, was admitted; and ministers 1) See Fox's Acts and Monum. vol. iii. p. 293. 2) In Prynne's Engl. Prel. p. 434. 3) See the facts fully stated above, in B. i. ch. x. § 3. 4) Neal's Hist. vol. i. p. 310. 6) Neal, ibid, pp. 310, 311. who received their orders in foreign churches, were recognized.1 In 1586, in consequence of 13 Eliz. there were many Scotch divines in possession of benefices; and Mr. Travers, who had been ordained at Antwerp, was lecturer at the Temple, and afterwards provost of Trinity college, Dublin, and tutor to archbishop Usher.2 Of bishop Jewell, whose writings constitute the authorized exponents of the doctrines of the Anglican reformers, and who died in 1571, it is said, by a recent writer, that so decidedly presbyterian were his tendencies, and so liberal his views, that 'his contemporaries on the bench looked upon him as an enthusiast, having a decided leaning to the puritans." Dr. Bancroft,* who was archbishop of Canterbury, preaching at Paul's Cross on February 9th, in that noted year, 1588, told his auditory, that Aerius was condemned of heresy with the consent of the universal church, for asserting that there was no difference, by divine right, between a bishop and a presbyter; and that the puritans were condemned by the church in Aerius. The famous Sir Francis Knolls, being surprised at such doctrine, to which they were not in that age so much used as we have been since, wrote to the learned Dr. John Reynolds, who was universally reckoned the wonder of his age, to desire his sense about the matter. The doctor wrote him word in answer, that even Bellarmine the Jesuit owned the weakness of the answer of Epiphanius to the argument of Aerius. He cites also bishop Jewell, who, when Harding had asserted the same thing as Dr. Bancroft, alleged against him Chrysostom, Austin, Hierome, and Ambrose. He adds from Medina, Theodoret, Primasius, Sedulius, and Theophylact. And further adds, himself, Oecumenius, Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, on Titus; and another Anselm, Gregory, and Gratian. It may be added, says he, that they, who, for these five hundred years, have been industrious in reforming the church, have thought that all pastors, whether called bishops or presbyters, have, according to the word of God, like power and authority. Such, however, was the unpopularity of these sentiments in Bancroft's day, that, in his answer to the foreign churches, settled in London, he subsequently says: 'I am sensible of the merits of Edmond Grindal, bishop of London, and my predecessors in this bishopric, who had reason to take your churches, which are of the same faith with our own, under 1) Neal, ibid. 2) Neal, ibid, p. 289. 3) Dr. Taylor's Biography of the age of Elizab. vol. ii. p. 97. 4) Calamy's Def. of Nonconf. vol. i. pp. 87-89. their patronage.' In 1610, also, when he was archbishop of Canterbury, he agreed, that where bishops could not be had, ordination by presbyters must be valid, otherwise the character of the foreign churches might be questioned. This was on the consecration of the Scotch bishops, when bishop Andrewes raised the question of their ordination, and consequent fitness for consecration. Bancroft insisted on their fitness, and justified his opinion by examples from antiquity, when all acquiesced in his opinion. In 1592, archbishop Adamson, who had lent himself, soul and body, as a royal tool, to king James, being called to look forward to the prospect of death, applied to the provincial synod of Fife for restoration to office, and recanted his episcopal sentiments.1 It was the design of Whitgift's work, which was written at the request of archbishop Parker, the first archbishop of the resuscitated English church, to prove that no certain form of government was enjoined in scripture, or to be perpetually observed in the church.2 Such, also, was the design of Hooker's immortal work, as has been fully shown. But he goes further. He says, 'Now whereas hereupon some do infer, that no ordination can stand, but only such as is made by bishops, which have had their ordination likewise by other bishops before them, till we come to the very apostles of Christ themselves; in which respect it was demanded of Beza, at Poissie, 'by what authority he could administer the holy sacraments, &c. (the reader will observe the instance cited.) To this we answer, that there may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination made without a bishop.' And, in a former passage of the same book, he distinctly admits the power of the church at large to take away the episcopal form of government from the church, and says, 'let them, (that is, bishops,) continually bear in mind, that it is rather the force of custom, whereby the church, having so long found it good to continue under the regiment of her virtuous bishops, doth still uphold, maintain, and honor them in that respect, than that any such true and heavenly law can be showed, by the evidence whereof it may of a truth appear, that the Lord himself hath appointed presbyters for ever to be under the regiment of bishops,' adding that 'THEIR AUTHORITY' is 'A SWORD WHICH THE CHURCH HATH POWER TO TAKE FROM THEM.' 1) Life of Melville, pp. 397, 398. 2) Def. p. 659. See Essays on the Ch. p. 234. 3) Lect. on the Apost. Succ. pp. 70, 71. 4) See given in Goode's Rule of Faith, vol. ii. pp. 94, 95. In 1582, archbishop Grindal1 issued a circular to the bishops, inciting them to make a collection in aid of the distressed protestants of Geneva, whom he designates as 'so notable and sincere a church.' Thus, says the episcopalian author of Essays on the Church, 'thus, for half a century consecutively, and under four successive primacies, we find the voice of the church of England unvarying on this point-that churches which were, as Grindal describes that of Scotland, 'conformable to the orthodox faith and sincere religion, now received in this realm of England,' were to be accounted as sisters, notwithstanding differences in discipline. The same episcopal writer adds: 'It was the judgment of her founders, perhaps unanimously, but at all events generally, that the bishop of the primitive church was merely a presiding elder; a presbyter ruling over presbyters; identical in order and commission; superior only in degree and in authority. . Mr. Palmer, as we have seen, confesses that it was the opinion of Jewell, Hooker, and Field, 'that a mere presbyter might confer every order except the episcopate;' in other words, that the apostolic succession of the presbyters might be continued by presbyters, the episcopate being laid aside or lost." These testimonies of learned, able, and pious divines of the church of England, and these facts, from her practice and spirit towards other churches, might be continued to a much later date. We have before us such a catena, which would fill one of our longest chapters, and which is itself but a portion of what we had collected. We must, however, omit it, with a simple reference to some works, where many of them may be found.* Enough has been given to prove, that the early reformed church. of England was made prelatical by the force of external circumstances, wholly beyond her control, and that the sentiments of her reformers and leaders were decidedly presbyterian. And we are also prepared to show, that such also have been the views of many of her wisest, best, and ablest members, down to the present day, and that they are not indistinctly shadowed forth even under the veil of those formularies, by which she now gives expression to her prelatical creed. 1) Ibid, p. 235, and Strype's Life, B. ii. ch. xiii. 2) Ibid, pp. 236, 237. 3) Essays on the Church, p. 251. 4) See Dr. Miller on the Min. part i. letter vii. and part ii. letter x.; Plea for Presb. p. 159, &c.; Henderson's Rev. and Consid. p. 268, &c. and 363; Goode's Div. Rule of Faith, vol. ii. 102, 103, where Idean Field's views are given at length; and bishop Overall and Mason, on pp. 97-100; Baxter on Episcopacy. |