Again, in the preface to the " Ordinal," she clearly affirms the three orders of the Apostolic ministryBishops, Priests, and Deacons; and says that these "offices were EVERMORE had in such reverential estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were admitted thereto by LAWFUL AUTHORITY.' Here she evidently does not refer us to her own particular authority in this matter, but to that which had been always, and then was such, in the church general or catholic. And this, it is indisputable, was resident only in the Bishops. What the English Reformers, therefore, who framed the Liturgy and Articles, meant, when they spoke of lawful authority in "ecclesia," cannot possibly be misconceived. The argument may be briefly summed up in the following queries and answers: 1.) Can there be a church without the sacraments? No.-Art. 19th. 2.) Can there be sacraments without a lawfully called and sent ministry? No.—Art. 23d. 3.) Can any but Bishops of Apostolic succession ordain the christian ministry? No.-Art. 36. and Preface to Ordinal. 4.) The visible church of Christ is that congregation of faithful men in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments are duly administered by a lawfully, appointed ministry, i. e., a ministry called and sent by the Bishopsthey only, according to the divine law and the practice of the universal church, possessing such authority. The opinions of Hooker, Chillingworth, and Burnet, are sometimes cited in opposition to the views which we have expressed above on the sense of the Articles. In forming an estimate of the weight of authority to which the opinions of these eminent men are entitled, we are to remember, first, that others in the same age, names of no less honor, held sentiments of an opposite character to theirs secondly, that the times in which they lived were well calculated to influence their judgments on this sub ject. At the best they were all interested parties—their personal sympathies enlisted either for or against the continental reformers. Catholic Protestants in England, who had carried on the reformation under the guidance of their Bishops, saw the erroneous and unsafe position of their brethren on the Continent, who, reforming the church without the Bishops of the church, had reformed themselves out of the church. And in the words of Hooker, they would "rather lament than exaggerate this their defect." There was a natural sympathy between them, arising from the similarity of their relations to Rome-both protesting and struggling against their common enemy. They were both emerging, as it were, from under the dark shadows of the same cloud of spiritual death. In one sense they were brothers armed against a common foe. They fought side by side, and rendered each other mutual aid. If, then, we know any thing of human nature, we will not wonder that the more fortunate church of England looked with a lenient and too charitable eye on the radical error of the churches on the Continent. Nor had they then seen the practical and full developements of that error. They could scarcely have formed an estimate of the wide-spread evil that has since resulted from it, in the dismemberment of the visible body of Christ, and the rapid growth of heresy. Considering the age in which they lived, therefore, and their peculiarly interesting connection with the churches of the Continent, our estimate of their opinions on this subject, at least, will be modified accordingly. But as to the opinion of Chillingworth on the point in question, which opinion is often cited to favor loose notions on the subject of the visible church and the ministry, it is manifestly unsustained by the facts of the case. He remarks-"Protestants do not make the true preaching of the word, and the due administration of the sacra ments, the notes of the visible church, but only of a visible church; now these you know, are very different things; the former signifying the church Catholic, or the whole church, the latter a particular church, or a part of the Catholic." Here it is to be observed, he uses almost the very words of the 19th article; and this passage of his is quoted as a comment on that article. But what saith the article itself; Does it say a visible church is known by these marks to which he alludes, or the visible church? The latter "The visible church of Christ”"Ecclesia Christi visibilis." If it be said in reply, that the 19th article, in its second part, specifies individual churches, as those of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, and therefore it is designed only to define some particular church, and not the whole; let it be remarked, that the object in specifying these was to affirm that they had erred as well in matters of faith, as in their manner of living and ceremonies.— This is an entirely distinct proposition from that in the first clause of the article. The first clause affirms a universal proposition of "The visible church of Christ," without restriction or qualification-and, of course, embraces all particular churches. Therefore, when Chillingworth declares, as he does in the above passage, that Protestants do not make the true preaching of the word, and the due administration of the sacraments, the notes of the visible church, but only of a visible church, he asserts what is not a fact, at least in reference to English Protestants. They did ever most strenuously insist on these fundamental truths for the whole church, and their own, as a part of it. Moreover, as we have shown, they insisted on an Episcopally ordained ministry, as the only lawful ministry who alone could preach the word and administer the sacraments; and that not only in their particular branch of the church, but generally in the church Catholic: and how manifestly absurd the contrary supposition, that they should declare certain things (as this ministry) not merely expedient, but absolutely necessary, as Christ's ordinance to themselves, which was not equally necessary for others. How could that which was not necessary to the whole church be necessary to any part of it? Had they declared that it was only expedient, and that they for their part did therefore adopt it, this were one thing; but when they say "it is not lawful for man in ecclesia, i. e. the Catholic church, why this is an en * Vide Bishop Hopkins on the Primitive Church, &c. tirely different thing. This makes it imperative under all circumstances, and in all particular churches, that the Bishops (they being the persons who have this authority in the church Catholic) choose and send ministers. "It is very remarkable," says Dr. Jablonsky, "that there is no doctrine or tenet of the christian religion in which all christians, in general, have for the space of fifteen hundred years, so unanimously agreed as in this of Episcopacy. In all ages and times down from the Apostles, and in all places, through Europe, Asia, and Africa, wheresoever there were christians, there were also Bishops, and even where christians differed in other points of doctrine or custom, and made schisms and divisions [rather heresies] in the church, yet did they all remain unanimous in this, in retaining their Bishops."Reflections in Sharp's Life, vol. II. p. 187. K |