Page images
PDF
EPUB

Calvin, though he might take a higher order in the Church than that of presbyter, would have lost his real supremacy: those who, as it was, were subordinate to the president, could not have been, by the very constitutions of the Church, subordinate to their fellow bishop. We are not, it is true, justified, from these facts, in asserting that Calvin was only prevented by a spiritual pride of place from acquiescing in and acceding to the episcopal discipline; but we cannot help very strongly suspeciing that such was the case. -The character and attainments of such men as those to whom we have alluded could not fail to make a strong impression on their age; and we find the Genevan doctrines soon silently spreading within the pale of the Anglican Church, and bringing with them, in no slight degree, ideas favourable to the Genevan discipline also. Hence we are not to be surprised if we find many of the early Reformers predestinarians and low Churchmen. Some stronger minds separated the two errors; some were strong enough to see and reject the dangerous laxity, but not acute enough to detect the doctrinal metaphysical error. This latter was the case with Grindall and Whitgift ; the former with Hooper and Bradford. Moreover, the excitement of progressive change had not passed away in the earlier part of Elizabeth's reign, when the final stand was made; and it was said to the Reformers that enough had been done—to the Reformation.

“ Hitherto shalt thou go, but no farther.” The Church had now, by the blessing of God, been purified from every Roman error ; she had preserved every element of Catholicity; and had the movement been allowed to make further progress, the results must have been unfavourable: but it was not to be expected that, after so many years of progressive changes, the love of change, for its own sake, would not have arisen in many minds. Such persons identified reformation, naturally enough, with alteration; many others really preferred the Genevan discipline, and entertained the hope that further changes would be introduced, till the framework of the Anglican Church would assume a Genevan character; others, struck with horror at the depths of Roman corruption which had been so lately, so boldly, and so constantly laid bare before them, and mistaking reverse of wrong for right, looked favourably and with earnest hope on any alteration whose tendency bore an anti-Roman appearance. All these persons objected to, and resisted the stop made by the Anglican Church in the reign of Elizabeth ; and they accordingly formed the Puritan party in the Church, complying but in part with her requisitions, and preaching doctrines which they knew to be in opposition to her Articles and Liturgy. The more violent of these distinguished themselves by the Mar-prelate publications; the more learned, by their bulky argumentative folios.

A singular and well meant, but we venture to think injudicious, line of conduct, adopted by our prelates during that reign, tended much to render thinking persons of opinion that presbyterian orders were valid, and consequently the presbyterian succession apostolical—though, in fact, it did not imply so much. This was the practice of licensing without re-ordaining such persons as, having been presbyterially ordained, were desirous of employment in the English communion. It is possible that some of the bishops thought presbyterian ordination valid, where episcopal ordination was unattainable, and that the members of foreign Reformed Churches were in this condition. We have already shown that it had been attainable, yet was not sought; but their expressed reason for not re-ordaining such persons was, that they had been ordained “ according to the laudable custom of foreign Churches.” It is to be observed that, had they re-ordained them, it would have been a great discouragement to the Reformed Churches on the continent, because it would have amounted to a denial that their orders were valid ; and this, whatever their own private opinions might be, the heads of the Anglican Church felt very unwilling to do. It would have seemed a hard thing to condemn all the foreign Protestants for the fault of Calvin, or all the preachers for the fault of those who ought to have been bishops. It was impossible to judge of the difficulties which each particular district presented, and accordingly our bishops accepted them as they were. We cannot help thinking that a better effect would have been produced by re-ordaining them openly: for, first, the discipline of the Church is not to be set aside from motives of delicacy; and, secondly, as to any injury inflicted on the foreign Protestants by our not recognizing their

orders, that should have been left in the hands of God, who will protect and keep his own, even though the path of our duty may seem to make against them.

But when Dissenters or low Churchmen appeal, as they sometimes do, to these appointments, as a proof that, in the earlier ages of the Reformed Anglican Church, presbyterian orders were held valid, we reply that the argument falls to the ground, as it may easily be resolved into the judgment of individual bishops, and not that of the Anglican Church. Nor does it always imply a recognition of presbyterian orders as valid, even by the bishop appointing and employing the parties. We admit that Providence, and not our own wisdom, nor, in this instance, the wisdom of our ancestors, has extricated us from the difficulty. The larger number of the individuals so appointed (and be it remembered that there were but few) were employed by bishops, who considered that their ordination dated from their being presbyterially set apart on the continent: but we are prepared to show that the episcopal license is of itself good and valid ordination. This may seem a bold assertion, and one contrary to many canons of many councils, and one, too, equally contrary to the more apostolic practice of our Church at present. Moreover, we do not contend for its propriety or expediency; but we simply enquire, what constitutes ordination? Is it the laying on of episcopal hands, or a commission by episcopal authority? Is not this latter the essence of the whole, and is not every other part a ceremony?-solemn ones we admit, apostolical ones we grant–ceremonies which ought on no account to be prætermitted; but are they of the essentials of the ordinance ? We contend not; and we think this one of those rites and ceremonies which every Apostolical Church claims a right to decree for herself. There is no express command that hands should be laid on the head of the person ordained, as it is commanded that water and a certain form of words should be used in baptism, and bread and wine in the eucharist. We allow at once, and freely, that we think the omission would be totally inexcusable, because we have so many scriptural proofs that such was the apostolic practice. We allow that it would be inost irreverend, nay, most disgraceful, in these days; and it is only

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

orders, that should have been left in the hands of God, who will protect and keep his own, even though the path of our duty may seem to make against them.

But when Dissenters or low Churchmen appeal, as they sometimes do, to these appointments, as a proof that, in the earlier ages of the Reformed Anglican Church, presbyterian orders were held valid, we reply that the argument falls to the ground, as it may easily be resolved into the judgment of individual bishops, and not that of the Anglican Church. Nor does it always imply a recognition of presbyterian orders as valid, even by the bishop appointing and employing the parties. We admit that Providence, and not our own wisdom, nor, in this instance, the wisdom of our ancestors, has extricated us from the difficulty. The larger number of the individuals so appointed (and be it remembered that there were but few) were employed by bishops, who considered that their ordination dated from their being presbyterially set apart on the continent: but we are prepared to show that the episcopal license is of itself good and valid ordination. This may seem a bold assertion, and one contrary to many canons of many councils, and one, too, equally contrary to the more apostolic practice of our Church at present. Moreover, we do not contend for its propriety or expediency; but we simply enquire, what constitutes ordination? Is it the laying on of episcopal hands, or a commission by episcopal authority? Is not this latter the essence of the whole, and is not every other part a ceremony ?-solemn ones we admit, apostolical ones we grant-ceremonies which ought on no account to be prætermitted; but are they of the essentials of the ordinance ? We contend not; and we think this one of those rites and ceremonies which every Apostolical Church claims a right to decree for herself. There is no express command that hands should be laid on the head of the person ordained, as it is commanded that water and a certain form of words should be used in baptism, and bread and wine in the eucharist. We allow at once, and freely, that we think the omission would be totally inexcusable, becapan

tural proofs that such was the apost

uld be inost

only

[graphic]
« PreviousContinue »