But it will be said, the dropping the succession even for a time would be a departure from the principles of the Church of England. This prejudice is too common not to deserve particular attention. CHAPTER V. It would be to the greatest degree surprising if the Church of England, acknowledged by all Protestant churches to lay a sufficient stress on the essential doctrines and duties of the Gospel, should be found so immoderately attached to a matter of external order as must in some cases be ruinous to her communion. But, far from this, it will not be difficult to prove that a temporary departure from Episcopacy in the present instance would be warranted by her doctrines, by her practice, and by the principles on which Episcopal government is asserted. Whatever that Church holds must be included in the "thirty-nine articles of religion;" which were evidently intended for a comprehensive system of necessary doctrine. But what say these articles on the present subject? Simply that "the book of consecration of archbishops and bishops and the ordering of priests and deacons, doth contain all things necessary thereunto; neither hath it any thing that of itself is superstitious and ungodly."* The canons speak the same sense, censuring those who shall "affirm that the government of the Church of England by Archbishops, Bishops, etc., is anti-Christian or repugnant to the word of God." And those who "shall affirm that the form and manner of making and consecrating bishops, priests, and deacons, containeth any thing in it that is repugnant to the word of God, or that they who are thus made bishops, etc., are not lawfully made, etc."t How can such moderation of sentiment and expression be justified, if the Episcopal succession be so binding as to allow no deviation in a case of extreme necessity? Had the Church of England decreed concerning Baptism and the Lord's Supper, only that they were not repugnant to the word of God, "and that her offices for those sacraments were not superstitious and ungodly," would she not be censured by almost all Christendom, as renouncing the obligations of those sacraments? Equally improper would be the application of such moderate expressions to Episcopacy if (as some imagine) she considers it to be as much binding as Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The book of consecration and ordination carries the idea no farther, except that the preface as altered at the Restoration (for it was not so in the old preface) affirms that "from the apostles' times there have been these orders in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons." But there is an evident difference between this and the asserting the unlawfulness of deviating from that practice in an instance extraordinary and unprovided for. * Article 86. + Canon 7. + Canon 8. Next to the doctrine of the Church, let us inquire whether her practice will furnish us with a precedent to justify the liberty we plead. Many of the English Protestants, during the persecution by Queen Mary, took refuge in foreign countries, particularly in Germany and Geneva. When Protestantism revived at the auspicious accession of Queen Elizabeth, and at the same time a cloud was gathering on the continent in consequence of the Emperor's victories over the princes of the Smalcaldic league, many of the exiles returned to their native land, some of whom, during their absence had been ordained according to the customs of the countries where they had resided; these were admitted without reōrdination to preach and hold benefices; one of them* was promoted to a deanry, but at the same time, as several of them were endeavoring to make innovations in the Established Church, it was provided in a law (13th Elizabeth 12) that "whoever shall pretend to be a priest or minister of God's holy word, by reason of any other form of institution, consecration, or ordering, than the form set forth by act of Parliament before the feast of the nativity of Christ next ensuing, shall in the presence of the Bishop -- declare his assent, and subscribe to all the articles of religion agreed on, etc."† Here existed an extraordinary occasion, not provided for in the institutions for common use; the exigency of the case seems to have been considered, and there followed a toleration, if not implied approbation, of a departure in that instance from episcopal ordination. There can not be expected another example, because no similar instance of necessity has happened, unless that at the Restoration be considered as such; but it is presumed no stress will be laid on the omission of the like indulgence at that period, when the minds of the ruling Episcopalians, irritated by sufferings, were less intent on conciliation than on retaliation.‡ Let us next take a view of the grounds on which the authority of Episcopacy is asserted. The advocates for this form maintain that there having been an episcopal power originally lodged by Jesus Christ with his Apostles, and by them exercised generally in person, but sometimes by delegation, (as in the instances of Timothy and Titus,) the same was conveyed by them before their decease to one pastor in each church, which generally comprehended all the Christians in a city and a convenient surrounding district. Thus were created * Whitingham. Bishop Burnet says (History of his own Times, Anno 1661) that until the act of uniformity passed soon after the Restoration," those who came to England from the foreign churches had not been required to be ordained among us." If so, the argument founded on practice extends farther than it has been here urged. The act of Elizabeth, however, had no operation beyond the Christmas next ensuing; neither indeed did it pronounce that a good ordination which would have been otherwise defective; but its being meant to comprehend those who were AT THAT TIME invested with foreign non-episcopalian ordination, is evident from their being actually allowed to preach and hold benefices, on the condition of their subscribing the thirty-nine articles. Bishop Burnet assigns a reason still less excusable, that many great preferments were in the bands of obnoxious persons, who, on account of their services towards the Restoration, could not otherwise be rejected than by making the terms of conformity difficult. History of his own Times, Anno 1661. the apostolic successors, who, on account of their settled residence, were called bishops by restraint; whereas, the Apostles themselves were bishops at large, exercising episcopal power over all the churches, except in the case of St. James, who from the beginning was Bishop of Jerusalem. From this time, the word "episcopos," used in the New Testament indiscriminately with the word "presbuteros," (particularly in the 20th chapter of the Acts where the same persons are called "episcopoi" and "presbuteroi,") became appropriated to the superior order of ministers. That the Apostles were thus succeeded by an order of ministers superior to pastors in general, the Episcopalians think they prove by the testimonies of the ancient fathers, and from the improbability that so great an innovation (as some conceive it) could have found general and peaceable possession in the second or third century, when Episcopacy is on both sides acknowledged to have been prevalent. The argument is here concisely stated, but (as is believed) impartially; the manner in which the subject is handled by Mr. Hooker and Bishop Hoadly being particularly kept in view. Can any reasonable rule of construction make this amount to more than ancient and apostolic practice? That the Apostles adopted any particular form, affords a presumption of its being the best, all circumstances at that time considered; but to make it unalterably binding, it must be shown enjoined in positive precept. Bishop Hoadly clearly points out this distinction in his answer to Dr. Calamy. The latter having considered it as the sense of the Church, in the preface to the ordinal, that the three orders were of divine appointment, and urged it as a reason for non-conformity; the Bishop, with evident propriety, remarks that the service pronounces no such thing; and that, therefore, Dr. Calamy created a difficulty where the Church had made none; there being some difference (says he) between these two sentences-bishops, priests, and deacons are three distinct orders in the Church by divine appointment—and from the Apostles' time there have been in Christ's Church, bishops, priests, and deacons."+ Now, if the form of Church government rest on no other foundation than ancient and apostolic practice, it is humbly submitted to a consideration, whether Episcopalians will not be thought scarcely deserving the name of Christians, should they, rather than consent to a temporary deviation, abandon every ordinance of positive and divine appointment. Any person reading what some divines of the Church of England have written against Dissenters, would in general widely mistake their meaning, should he apply to the subject before us, the censures he will sometimes meet with, which have in view, not merely the merits of the question, but the duty of conforming to the Established Church in all things not contrary to the law of God. Thus Bishop Stillingfleet, who at the Restoration had written with great tenderness toward the Dissenters, and many years after The original of the order of bishops was from the presbyters choosing one from among them. selves to be a stated president in their assemblies, in the second or third century. Smectymnaum Divines, as quoted in Neal's History of the Puritans, anno 1640. Reasonableness of Conformity, Part I. wards preached a sermon on a public occasion containing severe animadversions on their separation; on being accused of inconsistency, replies (in the preface to his treatise on the Unlawfulness of Separation) that the former was "before the laws were established;" meaning principally the act of uniformity. So, also, Bishop Hoadly says the acceptance of reördination by the dissenting ministers would not be a denial of that right which (as they conceive) presbyters had to ordain; but a confession that their former ordination was "so far null and void; that God did not approve the exercise of that right in opposition to the lawful settled method."* Dr. Henry Maurice,† who also has written with great learning and reputation in defense of Episcopacy, makes the same distinction, observing that the "Dissenters do foreign churches great injustice when they concern them in their quarrels," the ordination of the latter being "not only without, but in opposition to bishops, against all the established laws of this Church, etc." Even where the same distinction is not expressed, it is generally implied. Whether the above censures are well or ill-founded, is a question that has no connection with our subject; they can not be thought applicable to the liberty here pleaded.§ Again, it can not be denied, that some writers of the Church of England apply very strong expressions to Episcopacy, calling it a divine appointment, the ordinance of Christ, and the law of God, and pronounce it to be of divine right. Yet, in reason, they ought to be understood only as asserting it to be binding, wherever it can conveniently be had; not that law and gospel are to cease rather than Episcopacy. Mr. Hooker, who uses such strong expressions, makes, nevertheless, a clear distinction between matters of necessity and those of ecclesiastical polity; as may be seen at large in his third and fourth books. Even Archbishop Whitgift, said by some to have been the first in his high station, under whose patronage such preten * Reply to Objections against Episcopal Ordination. + The same distinction is accurately drawn and fully proved by Stillingfleet, in "the Irenicum." But as that learned prelate was afterwards dissatisfied with his work, (though most probably not with that part of it which would have been to our purpose,) it might seem uncandid to cite the authority of his OPINION. Burnet, his cotemporary and friend, says, (History of his own Times, anno 1661,) to avoid the imputation that book brought on him, he went into the humors of an high sort of people beyond what became him, perhaps beyond his own sense of things." The book, however, was, it seems, easier RETRACTED than REFUTED; for though offensive to many of both parties, it was managed (says the same author) with so much learning and skill, that none of either side ever undertook to answer it. Maurice against Clarkson, page 453. § In England the members of the Established Church consider the Dissenters as blamable in not conforming to it as such, there being nothing required contrary to the law of God. These, on the other hand, blame the members of the Establishment for not yielding to their conscientious scruples, which thus exclude them from public offices, and subject them to considerable burthens. Such were the principal sources of the animosities which have subsisted between the two parties; and hence arises an argument for charity and mutual forbearance among religious societies in America, with whom the same causes of contention and mutual censure have no place, and with whom, of course, the same degree of bitterness would be less excusable than in England. Dr. Warner says (Book 14) that "Archbishop Bancroft was the first man who had preached up the "diviue right of Episcopacy in the Church of England," The first occasion of his doing this, is said by others to have been when he was Whitgift's chaplain. sions were annexed to Episcopacy, and whose zeal for that form and the other rites of the Church, made him verily believe in the famous conference at Hampton Court that "the king spoke by the spirit of God," is quoted by Bishop Stillingfleet, as asserting that "no kind of government is expressed in the word or can necessarily be concluded from thence."* In short, particular expressions which writers use from zeal for that form they endeavor to establish, are not to be given in proof of their opinions concerning the conduct suited to extraordinary occasions. Many instances to the same purpose might be produced of English divines qualifying such high expressions, and guarding against seeming consequences; but this part of the subject shall conclude with the authority of a clergyman of this country, who a few years ago wrote on episcopal government. He insists on it as of divine right, asserts that "the laws relating to it bind as strongly as the laws which oblige us to receive baptism or the holy Eucharist,”† and that "if the succession be once broken, not all the men on earth, not all the angels of heaven, without an immediate commission from Christ, can restore it." Nevertheless, he acknowledges "the necessity of bishops is no more than a general necessity, or in other words, bishops according to the belief of the Church of England, are necessary only where they can be had." He then distinguished between cases where the necessity is real, and those where Episcopacy had been willingly and expressly rejected, as by the people of Scotland and the English Dissenters. Now if even those who hold Episcopacy to be of divine right, conceive the obligation to it to be not binding when that idea would be destructive of public worship, much more must they think so, who indeed venerate and prefer that form as the most ancient and eligible, but without any idea of divine right in the case. This the author believes to be the sentiment of the great body of Episcopalians in America; in which respect they have in their favor, unquestionably, the sense of the Church of England, and, as he believes, the opinions of her most distinguished prelates, for piety, virtue, and abilities. CHAPTER VI. It is to be expected that the far greater number of writers in defense of Episcopal government confine their observations to the ordinary state of the Church, without giving their opinion on supposed cases of necessity. Yet, if it were required to multiply authorities, and writers were consulted with that view, it is probable that many more than the following might be produced. But, as the lawfulness of deviation, in cases of necessity, is a fair inference from the sentiments of (perhaps) all, it will be sufficient if those quoted expressly to the purpose rank among the most respectable for their authority. The first-mentioned shall be the venerable Hooker. His books on eccle *Irenicum, Chapter 38. + Dr. Chandler's Appeal, p. 7. |
