No Presbyterian could reason more to the purpose than Bishop

would attend it. In this condition of things, it was found necessary to encourage and employ all persons indiscriminately, who were known to be disaffected to Popery, and were thought able, by writing or preaching, to combat successfully its distinguishing principles. Whittingham was a person of this character, and although not lawfully ordained, yet, by the connivance of some, and the interest of others, he obtained the Deanery of Durham. Travers, a noted Puritan, and a popular preacher, one of those who went over to Antwerp for ordination, finding the Mastership of the Temple vacant, made use of all his interest to obtain it; and he succeeded so far, that he engaged even the Lord Treasurer, Burleigh, to recommend him for the appointment. But the Archbishop opposed it, alleging his irregular behaviour, and the insufficiency of his ordination. The event was, that Travers was set aside, and the place given to his competitor, the celebrated Hooker. His friends, however, made a shift to keep him in as a preacher of the afternoon lecture.

66

Having shown in what manner Whittingham and Travers got their preferments, I shall go on to observe, that there were, in the former part of this reign, many instances of mere Laymen, without any kind of ordination, who had the address to possess themselves of livings in the Church. • Nicholas, Bishop of Bangor,' says one who was most circumstantially acquainted with the history of those times, having this year (1567) made some inspection into the condition of his diocess, sent the Archbishop, according to his order, the names of all the Dean and Chapter, and of all the Ministers in his diocess, with account of their residency and their hospitality; such also as were not Deacons nor Priests, and yet held ecclesiastical preferments. To the end, as he wrote, that his Grace might pereive, how men that were no Ministers had such livings, to the utter decay of learned men to be Ministers, where others had that liberty to hold benefices, and not to be in orders.** If then the preferments of such men as Whittingham and Travers are a proof, that in this reign the ordination of Presbyters was allowed to be valid; those preferments which were held by the Laity are also a proof, that no ordination at all was thought to be

necessary.

"But neither of these conclusions ought to be admitted; since we know upon the strongest evidence, that it was the doctrine of the Church throughout the whole of the reign we are considering, that ordination was of divine appointment, and that Episcopal ordination was of apostolical institution; and that it was an established law from the very beginning of it, that no man should 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,' without Episcopal ordination. Yet, notwithstanding, it was impossible to prevent transgressions of it in some instances; and such instances show, not what was approved of, but what was overlooked or permitted, through the necessity of the times. These irregularities, however, were corrected by degrees; and, in a course of years, they were entirely removed. In 1586, the Archbishop took cognizance of the case of Travers, objecting to his ordination at Antwerp, and his denying to receive the orders of the Ministry according to the English book of ordination.' Travers drew up the reasons for his conduct, and presented them to the Lord Treasurer, who sent them to the Archbishop. The Archbishop returned them with short marginal animadversions, some of which I will transcribe, for the use of Dr. Chauncy and his friends. 'As to that

"Life of Parker, p. 256."

White.* Had the same just and liberal views been discovered by others, no controversy had arisen. Had it been consistent with brevity, the Bishop might easily have shown that the assertion of Bishop Burnet is correct; he might have given other instances in practice, particularly the ample licence of Archbishop Grindal to John Morrison, who had no other ordination than by a Scots Presbytery;† and he might have enlarged on the striking instance of assertion, that Ministers lawfully made in any Church of sound profession in the faith, were acknowledged such in any other; and this to be the universal and perpetual practice; the Archbishop made this only exception; always excepting such Churches as allowed of Presbytery and executed it. Then as to his examples, this was the Archbishop's animadversion-that he knew no such foreign Ministers executing their Ministry here; but if there were, their cause was far differing from his-that Mr. Whittingham, had he lived, had been deprived, without special grace and dispensation; although his cause and Mr. Travers's were nothing like-That the laws of this realm required, that such as were to be allowed as Ministers in this Church of England, should be ordained by a Bishop, and subscribe to the articles before hini. Lastly, whereas Travers had said, that the last Archbishop of Canterbury was acquainted with his manner of calling to the Ministry, and so was thre Bishop of London, and were contented he should preach at the Temple (as he had done now almost six years), and that the present Archbishop himself had not taken any exceptions against it; our Archbishop said, that this was to abuse their patience, and that he never allowed of his kind of calling, neither could be allow of it."‡

Who can say, after reading the last paragraph of the above extract, that Whitgift, who is the Archbishop there quoted, did not maintain the neces sity of Episcopal ordination? Or who will contend that the few irregularities which took place in the time of Elizabeth, during a period of imminent difficulty, invalidate the declarations of the public offices of the Church, which maintain the necessity of Episcopal ordination?

Ed.

*It will be seen by the letter under the signature of an Episcopalian, that this compliment is disclaimed by the person for whom it was intended.

Ed.

That Archbishop Grindal was, in some instances, lax in his principles and discipline is confessed. His remissness in repressing the irregularities of the Puritans called forth the reproof of the privy council. The learned Collier, in his accurate and sensible history, inserts this letter of the privy council to Archbishop Grindal, and prefaces it with the following remark. Archbishop Grindal being thought too gentle and remiss in his management, the privy council wrote to him to complain of the relaxation of discipline." Col. Eccle. Hist. vol. ii. p. 571.

It is also a fact that he licensed Morrison; and Collier makes the following judicious remarks upon it. "Before the Archbishop's jurisdiction was returned, Dr. Aubrey, his Vicar-General, granted a preaching licence to one John Morrison, a Scotchman, in which he allows the orders of a Presby ter given him by the Scotch Church." Collier then inserts the licence, and afterwards remarks-"By the clauses" (in the licence)" of Quantum in nobis est (as much as in us lies), et de jure possumus (and according to right can do), et quatenus jura regni patiuntur (and as far as the laws of the kingdom suffer us), it is plain that Aubrey (who, as the Vicar-General of the Archbishop, granted the licence) was somewhat conscious of a strain upon the English constitution; and that the Archbishop was not so firm

"Life of Whitgift, p. 252.”

Whittingham. But he has done enough. One authentic instance is as good as a thousand. What credit now is to be given to the assertions, that "the validity of Presbyterial ordination has been denied from its origin"-and that it has been adopted from "necessity?" Where was the necessity that Whittingham and others should remain without Episcopal ordination? Were there no English Bishops; or were there none willing to ordain them? No such thing. Their ordination was admitted by the Church and by the state to be valid. Could not Calvin have obtained Episcopal ordination? Yes; he might have been a Bishop, a Cardinal, any thing he pleased. He was highly esteemed and honoured by the first Reformers, and his name will be had in everlasting remembrance.

The pamphlet of Bishop White is very rare, and therefore I cannot dismiss it without further extracts. This is doing justice to Episcopalians themselves; and I do not despair of its producing some effect upon those who are teaching things" contrary to sound doctrine."

[Remarks, by the Editor, on the preceding Number.]

The preceding number contains the very serious charge, that the author of the "Companion for the Festivals," &c. has "opposed those standards of his Church," which he solemnly promised to maintain. He intreats the patience and candid attention of the reader while he vindicates himself from this charge.

It will be recollected that he maintains the divine institution of Episcopacy; that Episcopacy, therefore, is to be placed on a footing with other divine institutions; and that of course a departure from it can only be excused by necessity, by unavoidable ignorance, or involuntary error. And as a necessary result of the divine institu tion of Episcopacy, he maintained, as a general proposition, subject, doubtless, to the exceptions above mentioned, that Episcopal ordi

to Episcopal right and apostolical succession, as might have been expected." Collier. Eccle. Hist. vol. ii. p. 579.

But because Grindal was lax in some of his principles and in his conduct, does it follow that the Bishops of the Church were generally so? Or, be cause, in the difficulty and confusion attending the settlement of a Church, some irregularities were connived at, is it a proof that the Church does not maintain the declarations of her public services? If one of the Presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church were to acknowledge a man as a Minister who had not received what that Church considers as a regular call and commission to the Ministry, would this prove that the Presbyterian Church does not maintain the necessity of such call and commission? Surely, the occasional irregularities of any Church, or the lax principles or conduct of some of her members, should not be considered as affecting her public faith and doc. trines. The triumph with which the author of Miscellanies adduces these instances, is surely premature. While the public standards of the Church of England, and her constant and acknowledged practice sanction only Episcopal ordination, some few irregularities in the first settlement of the Church, when, from peculiar circumstances, it was difficult and almost impossible to enforce strict order and discipline, will pass for nothing. Ed.

mation is necessary to the exercise of a valid ministry. Let us now see whether, in maintaining these opinions, he has opposed the standards of his Church.

He takes it for granted, that the book of consecration of Bishops and of ordering of Priests and Deacons,* is one of the standards of his Church; as this book is not only ratified by the Articles, but was solemnly set forth by the Church, several years before she formally adopted the Articles.

In opening this book, he is struck with the preface, which begins with the following sentence: "It is evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture, and ancient authors, that from the Apos tles' times there have been these orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons." The fair construction of this passage is, that the Holy Scriptures prove the institution of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and that ancient authors prove the

same.

But he will not rest the conformity of his opinions to the stand→ ards of his Church on this proof alone. Going on in the preface he finds the following sentence: "No man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in this Church, 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 Episcopal consecration or ordination." Here the lawfulness of a Minister is rested on his having Episcopal consecration or ordination. Is not this the very language of the "Companion for the Festivals and Fasts?" The force of the term "lawful" has been evaded in England, where the Church is established, by saying that by the term "lawful Minister," is merely meant his being acknowledged by the law of the land. In this country, however, no such evasion of the term can be resorted to. The term as used by the Episcopal Church here, can have only an ecclesiastical signification, and must mean lawful in the eye of the Church. Consider "lawful" as denoting sufficiency of authority; then, since the Church declares that no man shall be considered as a "lawful" Minister, who hath not had Episcopal consecration or ordination, she excludes all Ministers from having sufficient authority, who are not thus ordained or consecrated. Is not this the language of the "Companion for the Festivals," &c.? With what justice can the author of that book be accused of oppor sing the standards of his Church?

In the office for ordering Deacons, the first prayer thus commences: "ALMIGHTY GOD, who, by thy Divine Providence, hast appointed DIVERS ORDERS of Ministers in thy Church," &c. And the prayer goes on to rank DEACONS as one of the orders of Ministers thus appointed.

In the office for ordering Priests, the first prayer thus commences: "ALMIGHTY GOD, giver of all good things, who, by thy Holy Spirit, hast APPOINTED DIVERS ORDERS of Ministers in thy Church," &c. And the prayer evidently ranks PRIESTS among the orders thus appointed.

* This book is inserted in the Philadelphia edition of the Common Prayer Book, royal octavo, and in the New-York quarto edition.

In like manner, in the office for the consecration of Bishops, the second prayer thus commences: “ALMIGHTY GOD, giver of alt good things, who, by thy Holy Spirit, hast APPOINTED DIVERS ORDERS of Ministers in thy Church," &c. And the prayer plainly ranks BISHOPS among the orders thus appointed. In the other offices, the BISHOP ORDAINS. Deacons and Presbyters do not receive the power of ordination. It is vested, at his consecration, in the Bishop only.

Here then the Church expressly declares that Almighty God appointed divers orders of Ministers in his Church; that these orders are Deacons, Priests, and Bishops; to the last of whom alone appertains the power of ordination. Are not these the doctrines maintained by the author of the "Companion for the Festivals," &c.? With what justice can he be accused of opposing the standards of his Church? What he inculcates may not, indeed, be of much importance; but what the standards of the Church inculcate is of the first importance to all her Ministers and to all her members. If the above declarations from her services do not prove that she maintains the divine institution of Episcopacy, and acknowledges only Episcopal ordination, he confesses himself unable to judge of the meaning of terms or the force of language.

In peaceably and decently maintaining, in her public offices, the necessity of Episcopal ordination, the Episcopal Church gives no just cause of offence to other denominations. She exercises only the same right which they possess; a right of which no human power can justly deprive her. To deny her this right; to attempt to deter her from the exercise of it, by a system of denunciation, ridicule, and obloquy, is to display a spirit of persecution, which, in this age, and in this country, will surely be reprobated by good men of all denominations. Ed.

For the Albany Centinel.

CYPRIAN. No. IV.

THE instances that have been adduced of Titus at Crete, of St.

James at Jerusalem, of Epaphroditus at Philippi, of the seven Bishops of the Pro-Consular Asia, and of Timothy at Ephesus, are, surely, competent to demonstrate the existence of the Episcopal dignity in the Church of Christ during the Apostolic age. From these combined sources we derive accumulated and satisfactory evidence.

And let it not be forgotten, that, notwithstanding what has been said by the Miscellaneous writer, and by many other advocates of his cause, a strong argument in our favour is to be drawn from the exact correspondence between the orders of our Priesthood and those which were instituted in the Jewish Church. At least we have a right to avail ourselves of this circumstance, if it be admitted that the Apostles and the early Fathers adopted in their writings a legitimate mode of reasoning.