pal church of this country, it seems, are a branch of this Roman church. Since this is the state of the evidence afforded by the Fathers, how do you prove your position, "that when the church of England undertook to throw off particular doctrines and ceremonies of the church of Rome, which she considered as neither taught in scripture, nor consistent with purity, she retained, unaltered, the three orders of the ministry, as manifestly belonging to the days of the apostles; and the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, received since the independence of this country, the order of bishops, through an unbroken and divinely protected succession?" p. 17. How will you prove, in the first place, that the Roman church itself was established on a regular succession? You will hardly rely on the unauthenticated account, that the apostle Peter lived some time at Rome, and at length was crucified there, ♦ which even by Origen is considered only a tradition. How do you know, that the bishop, in whom the Roman church originated, was not ordained by presbyters, as it is certain such ordinations were common? To me this appears quite as probable as any other supposition. How is it ascertained, that even the first bishop of Rome was ordained by a bishop, and not by presbyters? Eusebius himself, who is considered the highest authority on this subject, acknowledges, that it is no easy thing to give any further account of the successors to the apostles in the government of the churches, than what is found in the writings of St. Paul. And is it not still an unsettled question in * Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. ii. c. xxxv. l. iii. c. iv. as quoted by Doddridge, Lec. vol. ii. p. 345, 355. history, who were the first seven bishops of Rome? Such then is the dark and uncertain evidence of the divine succession of the stock from which the English church sprang. In the next place, is it certain, that the English bishops can be traced up to the church of Rome? In the opinion of Dr. Doddridge, it has been very satisfactorily proved by Mr. Jones, that, in the year 668, the regular succession of bishops had become nearly extinct. Many persons about this time were ordained by Aidan and Finan, who were monks of the Scottish monastery of Columbanus, and only presbyters. They were afterwards made bishops by the northern princes, whom they converted, but not by a regular episcopal ordination. Many others were made bishops from among their converts, but with nothing more than presbyterian ordination. Is it not more than possible, that the English succession is derived from this source? Again, the validity of archbishop Parker's consecration, in the time of queen Elizabeth, is well known to be, at least, very questionable; yet this is the origin of the present English succession. Edward the sixth abolished the Romish form of ordination, and substituted a new one in its place, which is still retained in the church. The old form was restored by queen Mary, but rejected again by Elizabeth, and that of Edward adopted. When Parker was nominated to be archbishop of Canterbury, in 1559, she issued a commission to certain bishops to perform the ceremony of consecration, according to the prescribed form. Some of them refused to comply, alleging that such a consecration would not be valid. She issued another commission to such persons, as she knew would not refuse, but whose episcopal authority was much to be doubted. The catholics immediately disputed this consecration, and have almost universally denied its validity. They profess to have proved, that Barlow, the consecrating bishop, was never himself consecrated. They say, that no record of this transaction was found or cited, till more than fifty years afterwards, when the Lambeth Register was first quoted. And even this register entirely destroys the validity of the consecration, by showing it to have been performed according to king Edward's ordinal, which was not consistent with any former usage of the church. I shall not pretend to decide on these objections of the catholics; but if well founded, they must prove the invalidity of Parker's consecration, and the weakness of all pretensions in the church of England to a divine succession. To my mind, these objections, and others, briefly and clearly stated in the memoir of the Abbé Renaudot, are convincing. Some of them are partially removed in Courayer's elaborate answer, but he has by no means cleared the subject of difficulties; and when it is known that he was an "apostate monk," as the catholics call him, who wrote to gain the favour of an English prince; we can have little respect for his candour, or regard for his authority. Episcopacy was abolished by an act of parliament, in Cromwell's time. All ordinations were then presbyterian, and how is it ascertained, that the succession of episcopal ordinations was not then broken, or at least, that some persons were not afterwards con secrated bishops, who, during this period, had received only presbyterian ordination? Moreover, it has been the opinion of many of the most eminent divines and learned men of the church of England, that the superiority of bishops to presbyters was nothing more than a human institution, and consequently, that ordinations by either was valid. To the middle of the seventeenth century, it was the prevailing sentiment of many distinguished divines, that bishops had no power of ordination or jurisdiction, except in conjunction with the presbyters. In an article of the treaty of Uxbridge, (1644) it was declared, "that the bishops shall exercise no act of jurisdiction or ordination, without the consent and counsel of the presbyters."* Bishop Leighton disclaimed all pretences to the sole power of bishops. One of the articles which he proposed to the dissenting brethren, in the conference at Paisley, runs thus; "all church affairs shall be managed in presbyteries and synods, by the free vote of the presbyters, or the major part of them."+ Dr. Burnet, in speaking of the power of a bishop, says, "ordinations ought not to be so performed by him, as to exclude the assistance and concurrence of presbyters, both in the previous trial, and in the ordination itself." And even Hooker admits, that "bishops, in the church of Christ, have such authority, as both to direct other ministers, and to see that every one of them should observe that, which *Bibliotheca Regia, London, 1659, part i. § 4. † Case of Accommodation, 1671, p. 2. Gilbert Burnet's Conferences, Glasgow, 1673, p. their common consent hath agreed on."* These quotations may be seen at large, with their references, in the fourth chapter of Sage's Vindication. In the same place may be seen references to a great many other authors, of the highest authority, who express the same sentiments. Among others are Andrews, Whitgift, Chillingworth, Usher, Hall, Barrow, Stillingfleet, Sherlock, Parker, Taylor, Hammond. Archbishop Bancroft believed in the validity of ordinations by presbyters. The following is from Hickman. "Some that had been ordained by mere presbyters, offered themselves in king James's time, to be consecrated bishops in the church of Scotland. Dr. Andrews, bishop of Ely, moved this question; whether they should not first be episcopally ordained presbyters, that they might be capable of being admitted to the order of bishops? But archbishop Bancroft, a most rigid asserter of episcopacy, answered; there was no need of it since ordination by presbyters was valid."+ From these facts, it must certainly be admitted, that in some periods of the English church, ordination by presbyters has been considered valid; and how is it known, that the succession of office may not be traced back from the bishops of the present day, to those who had been thus ordained? And how can Ecclesiastical Polity, b. vii. § 6. ↑ Peirce's Vindication, p. 167. How does the whole mass of testimony, which has here been given, agree with the singular assertion in the book of Festivals and Fasts, that "throughout the universal church for fifteen hundred years, no instance occurs of ordination by presbyters, that was considered valid!" p. 45. |