Where the Protestant Episcopal Church stands; a review of official definitions versus non-official theories concerning the nature and extent of the church catholic

Front matter

McCrady, Edward, 1868- Where the Protestant Episcopal Church stands

WHERE THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH STANDS

WHERE THE

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

I. — The Proposed Name — Its Significance 3

II. — Official Declarations Concerning the

II Official Declarations Concerning The Church Catholic

II

OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS CONCERNING THE CHURCH CATHOLIC

HAVING now demonstrated our contention from the indirect evidence afforded by the official attitude of the Church on the matter of Lay Baptism, we will next proceed to establish it from the direct evidence of the Church's definitions of, and declarations concerning, the Church Catholic or Universal. That, officially ^ she has never limited her conception of the Catholic Church to those particular bodies organized under the government of the Historic Episcopate, as so many of her clergy are doing to-day in her name, but without her authority, will be clear from the following facts :

(i) In the "Prayer for all Conditions of Men," the English Church officially identifies the Church Catholic as co-extensive with "all those who profess and call themselves Christians, " and as the number of those who do thus profess and call themselves Christians is not limited to those who are members of Episcopal Churches, but includes all Protestants, it follows that the Church here again, in this Prayer, officially recognizes all Protestants as members of the Catholic Church. In the English Prayer Book the passage in question reads as follows: "More especially, we pray for the good estate of the Catholick Church; that it may be so guided and governed by Thy good Spirit, that all who profess and call themselves Christians, may be led into the way of Truth, and hold the Faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of Hfe." In our own Prayer Book the first clause is changed slightly in its wording, but bears precisely the same import: "More especially we pray for Thy Holy Church Universal; that it may be so guided," etc. Note, moreover, that this Prayer was not issued until 1662. Hence it was the official expression of the Church on this subject at the time of the Restoration. As it is universally conceded that no doctrinal or other changes have crept in since that day, it is obvious that this continues to be the official view to-day.

(2) The same definition is again repeated in the Prayer "for the whole state of Christ's Church Militant here m Earth." "Beseeching Thee to inspire continually the Universal Church with the spirit of Truth, unity, and concord: And grant that all they who do confess Thy Holy Name, may agree in the truth of Thy Holy Word, and live in unity and godly love." (Communion Office, Eng. Pr. Bk.) By referring to our own Prayer Book, it will be seen that the same Prayer with only a few unessential verbal alterations has been officially authorized. Still further on, in the same Office, we note: "The Mystical Body of Thy Son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people." The wording is the same in both the American and EngHsh Prayer Books.

(3) Again, in a Prayer set forth by the Church (circa 1572) we read: "Be merciful (0 Father of all mercies) to Thy Church Universal dispersed throughout the whole world: and grant that all they that confess Thy Holy Name, may agree in the truth of Thy Holy Word, and live in godly concord and unitie. "

(4) Again, in the Bidding Prayer of the Church of England, pubhshed in the Canons of 1604 (Canon 55), and set forth by authority of Convocation, we find these words: "Ye shall pray for Christ's Holy Catholic Church, that is, for the whole congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the world:' If, still ignoring the plain and obvious meaning of all these official utterances, there are any yet ready to assert that the Church authoritatively supports their Tractarian theory that the Episcopate is absolutely essential to the existence of a true Church; if there are yet any who, in defiance of the above quotations, are disposed to maintain this, on the pretext that such expressions as "the congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world," of "the blessed company of all faithful people," were intended to refer only to those who were faithful to the true doctrine of the Church and the Episcopate, and who were, therefore, the only true "Christian people," we reply that this whole fine-spun hypothesis will be found to be completely shattered by a little further examination of the evidence before us. For first of all, the statement, that "all who profess and call themselves Christians" are to be regarded as members of the Church Catholic, in itself contradicts this assumption. The further fact that all' who have been baptized, whether by a valid ministry, or only by laymen, have been officially pronounced members of the Holy Catholic Church, places the attitude of the Church of England towards these non-episcopal bodies beyond all question.

Besides all this, the possibility of any reasonable doubt as to the Church's position is absolutely eliminated by the fact that she has gone beyond these general statements, and in a number of other instances has in so many words recognized these non-episcopal congregations as true "Churches," and, together with the Greek, Roman, and her own communion, included them by name in the Holy Catholic or Universal Church. Thus, as early as 1550 the German Protestants in England were acknowledged as constituting a genuine branch of the Church. A patent was granted them by Edward VI. to protect them in their rights, "that by the Ministers oj the Church of the Germans, and other strangers, a sound interpretation of the most Holy Gospels, and the administration of the Sacraments according to the word oJ God and Apostolic customs may exist.'' Moreover, in the Bidding Prayer, set forth by authority in 1604 — a portion of which we have just quoted, the Church of Scotla^id is specifically mentioned, by name, as a part of the Holy Catholic Church, which Church, at that time, was a non-episcopal, i. e. Presbyterian body. The passage reads as follows: "Ye shall pray for Christ's Holy Catholic Church, that is, for the whole Congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world, and especially for the Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland." (Canon 55.)' Again, we have a copy of a license issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Gnndal) to one John Morrison a Presbyter of the Church of Scotland, permitting him to officiate without re-ordination in the Church of England, and assigning as a reason the validity of his Presbyterian ordination in ''the Reformed Church of Scotland, ^^ to wit: "Since you, the aforesaid John Morrison . . . were admitted and ordained to sacred Orders and the Holy Ministry, by the imposition of hands, according to the laudable form and rite of the Reformed Church of Scotland . . . we, therefore, . . . approving and ratifying the form of your Ordination and preferment done in such manner aforesaid, grant to you a license and faculty, with the consent and express command of the most reverend Father in Christ, the Lord Edmund, by the Divine Providence Archbishop of Canterbury," etc. (License dated April 6, 1582. See full text of same in Strype's Life of Archbishop Grindal. Also cited by Goode and other authorities.) This is official recognition by the highest authority in the Church

' The assertion, sometimes met with in " Catholic " text-books, that the Church of Scotland here mentioned was not Presbyterian, is without foundation. The matter is fully discussed a few pages further on.

of England both of the integrity of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland as a true branch of the Catholic Church, and of the consequent validity of its non- Episcopal ordinations. Moreover, we may here add, parenthetically, that this particular instance is only one of many, it being a fact well known to all historians (though strangely ignored and suppressed by High Churchmen) that the Chiirch of England for more than a hundred years not only officially recognized the validity of the ordinations of such non-Episcopal Churches, but habitually admitted their Ministers to her own communion without reordination. This has been attested by Strype, Hall, Cosin, Burnet, Fleetwood, Keble, Hallam, Macaulay, and many others. Thus, Hallam tells us: "It had not been unusual from the very beginning of the Reformation to admit Ministers, ordained in foreign Churches, to benefices in England; no reordinaton had ever been practiced with respect to those who had received imposition of hands in a regular Church ; and hence it appears that the Church of England, whatever tenet might have been broached in controversy, did not consider the ordination of Presbyters invalid." {Constitutional History, p. 224.) Says Macaulay, "The Church of Rome held that Episcopacy was of Divine institution, and that certain supernatural graces of a high order had been transmitted by the imposition of hands through fifty generations from the eleven who received their commission on the Galilean Mount to the Bishops who met in Trent.

A large body of Protestants, on the other hand? regarded Prelacy as positively unlawful, and persuaded themselves that they found a very different form of ecclesiastical government prescribed in Scripture. The founders of the Anglican Church took a middle course. They retained Episcopacy, but they did not declare it to be an institution essential to tJie welfare of a Christian Society, or to the efficacy of the Sacraments.'' (Jlist., vol. i., chap. i.) " Certainly it was her practicey' declares Bishop Fleetwood, ''during the reigns of King James and Charles I.; and to the year 166 1, we had MANY ministers from Scotland, from France, a7id the Low Countries, who were ordained by Presbyters only, and not by Bishops, and they were instituted into benefices with cure; and yet were never re-ordained, but only subscribed the Articles." {Works, p. 552.) Nor, we may add, was this custom ever discontinued because wrong in principle or doctrine, but as will be presently shown, because practical considerations rendered it highly ijtexpedient. After the overthrow of Episcopal Government in England during the days of Cromwell, it was deemed positively necessary in order to insure its stability in the future, that all Ministers coming into the Church from other denominations, should give evidence of good faith, by submitting to Episcopal Ordination, before being honored with benefice and cure. In fact, it was justly complained that it was hardly fair to allow men who were openly opposed to Episcopacy, and who declined to be ordained by Bishops, to be promoted to benefices in an Episcopal Church and supported out of the pockets of a people who desired an Episcopal Government.

Says Bishop Hall, "The sticking at the admission of our brethren, returning from foreign Reformed Churches was NOT in the case of ordination, but of institution ; they had been acknowledged Ministers of Christ without any other hands laid on them; but according to the laws of our land, they were not capable of institution to benefice, unless they were so qualified as the statutes of this realm doth require. And secondly, I know those, more than one, that by virtue of that ordination, which they have brought with them from other Reformed Churches, have enjoyed spiritual promotions and livings without any exceptions against the lawfulness of their callings." {Works, vol. X., p. 341.) So also Macaulay, "Episcopal ordination was now {1662) for the first time, made an indispensable qualification for preferment. " {Hist., vol. i., p. 132.) But we shall produce abundant evidence a little later on as to this. For the present we merely desire to emphasize the fact that for more than one hundred years it was the regular custom of the Church of England to admit non-episcopally ordained Ministers to officiate, and to hold office and benefice, in her Communion, and that when the custom was discontinued, it was for practical considerations only, no doctrinal principle being involved. She still continued to recognize the validity of Presbyterian Ordination. As a recent writer — the late Dr. Chas. A. Briggs, has said: "It is an historical absurdity for members of the Church of

England and of the American Protestant Episcopal Church, to deny the validity of Presbyterial ordination, which was recognized as you show and as is well known to all historians, by the fathers and founders of the Church of England." But the weightiest evidence of all comes from the pen of one whom our "Catholic" brethren cannot afford to discredit. No name is held in greater reverence among them than that of John Keble — one of the leaders of the Tractarian movement — and yet no man more candidly though reluctantly admits the truth of this assertion. It is a subject of deep regret with him that the Church of England ever assumed such a position or officially sanctioned such a practice, but that she did do so, he does not hesitate honestly and squarely to admit in his Preface to Hooker's Works affirming that it is ''notorious'' that the extreme Episcopal claims advocated by his party were not maintained by the Reformers, and that ''numbers had been admitted to the ministry of the Church of England, with no better than Presbyterian ordination." (P. Ixxvi.) It is hardly necessary to add to this fact, what is but a necessary corollary therefrom, that the official recognition of the validity of the ordinations of these non-episcopal bodies is synonymous with the recognition of these bodies themselves as true "Churches.'' As no doctrinal position of the Church of England on this or any other matter was ever subsequently changed, if the words of later Revisers (especially the Revisers of 1661) are to be relied upon at all, it is a foregone conclusion that the Church is officially bound to this position to-day.

To return to our citation of facts, the Church of England in the year 1580, again officially set forth a prayer in which intercession was made in behalf of "the Churches of France, Flanders, and of such other places as were then suffering persecution. " (Proctor's Hist. Book of Common Prayer, p. 479, Note.) A similar prayer set forth in 1590, just ten years later, beseeches that "forasmuch as Thou hast promised to maintain and defend the cause of Thy Church . . . protect and strengthen Thy Servants our brethren in France that are now ready to fight for the glory of Thy Name ... so shall that proud generation have no cause to insult over Thy true Church, " etc. Again, Canon 30 (1604) asserts that it was not the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and reject {per omnia recedere) the Churches of Italy, Frajice, Spain, Germany, or any such like Churches, in all things which they held and practised," etc., — a statement which while implying the disagreement of the Church of England upon certain points both with the Church of Rome and the above named Protestant Churches, none the less recognizes all of them as ''Churches.'' In a celebrated work entitled Synopsis Papismi, which though written by an individual clergyman of the Church of England only, was afterwards set forth by authority of the Church herself as expressing her official views, a number of the non-episcopal Protestant bodies are recognized hy name as true Churches and the validity of their ministries endorsed. To

WHERE THE CPIURCH STANDS 39

quote: ''Neither is it true that there are no Ministers but by the ordination of Bishops, for this were to condemn all those Reformed Churches of Helvetia, Belgia, Geneva, with others which have not received this form of Ecclesiastical Government . . . so that we doubt not but that all the Reformed Churches professing the Gospel have true and lawful ministers, though they observe not all the same manner in the election and ordaining them. And this is the general consent of the Churches themselves.'' (Synop. Papismi, vol. vi., p. 368.) Let the reader note well that this is not merely the opinion of the author, Dr. Willet, but of the Church, for the entire work containing this statement was issued ''by the authority of His Majesty s royal letters-patent,'' and was further "seen and allowed by the Lords the Reverend Bishops, and hath also ever been in great esteem in both Universities ; and also much desired by all the learned, both of our Clergy and Laity, throughout our dominions." Again, the Church of England officially endorsed the statement of Dr. Richard Cosin in his answer to the Puritan work entitled, An Abstract on Certain Acts of Parliament, that differences merely in the form of government did not impugn the integrity of "the Churches of Denmark, Sweveland, Poland, Germany, Rhetia, Vallis, Tellina, the nine Cantons of Switzerland reformed, with their confederates of Geneva, of France, of the Low Countries, and of Scotland." Like the former, this work was also endorsed by the Church herself — "published by authority. " {Vide "An Answer to an Abstract," etc..

1584, p. 58. Quoted in Goode's Work on Orders.) Again, in a work which was "perused and by lawful authority of the Church of England allowed to be public," the said Church officially recognized ''all the neighbor churches christianly reformed," — referring to the wow-episcopal bodies on the Continent. This work — Exposition of the Articles, by Thomas Rogers, thus officially endorsed, Archbishop Bancroft "ordered all the Parishes in his Province to supply themselves with" — a fact which further proves that even the High Churchmen of that day (for Bancroft was one of the most conspicuous) did not attempt to defend the extreme principles that are advocated to-day.

Note

Since the above was written, our attention has been called to a criticism which is occasionally made by "Catholics" in regard to the statement that the Church of Scotland, referred to in the Bidding Prayer of 1604, was Presbyterian. A recent writer in the Living Church (Jan. 31, 19 14, p. 473) commenting upon a statement made by the Dean of Worcester (Dr. Ede) to the same effect, asserts with great confidence that this allegation "has been shown over and over again to be nothing but a fiction, and a vulgar error. " He declares that "in the year 1600 'the Presbyterian form of government was abolished by the King' (and that) Presbyterianism was not established until 1696, nearly a century later than the date of the Canon. James I. of England had created in 1600 (he means, of course, when King of Scotland only) nine dioceses in Scotland, and appointed Bishops to them; these Bishops were given seats as such by the Parliament of Scotland. . . . The Church set up by the King, and not the Presbyterian body is the Church referred to in the Bidding Prayer." Now if this is true, if Episcopal Government was established in Scotland in 1600, and the Bidding Prayer of 1604 referred to this Episcopal Church, and if the Church of Scotland continued to be Episcopal, and " Presb3rterianism was not established until

1696, nearly a century later than the date of the Canon," we should like to ask this plain question: Why, tJien, was it necessary to consecrate Bishops for Scotland in 1610? What had become of the Episcopacy which the King had established just ten years before (in 1600), and for whose preservation the English Church had authorized the prayer in question only six years before — especially if this Episcopacy was not overthrown, nor Presbyierianism establislied, until i6q6? The truth of the matter is, there is no warrant for this assertion, for it is a fact well known to historians, and admitted by one of the ablest exponents of High Church principles (John Henry Blunt), that the attempt of the King here cited was unsuccessful. Though he made appointments for the ofEce of the Bishopric, his appointees were never consecrated, nor did the Church of Scotland ever admit that they possessed any spiritual authority. Parliament, indeed, assisted the King in the attempt, and despite the opposition of the Kirk, gave them seats, but for all that, the Kirk refused to recognize their Episcopal authority, they exercised no Episcopal functions, and could not, in the very nature of things, attempt to do so as they were never consecrated. If they had been consecrated in 1600, and exercising authority in 1604, as the writer implies, there would never have been any further consecration in 1610. It was because these so-called Bishops were not Bishops in reality, had tiever liad consecration, had never exercised spiritual authority, nor had the Kirk consented to Episcopal government until 1610, that for that very reason it became necessary in that year (when her consent was finally obtained) that such consecration should be bestowed. It is ridiculous, therefore, to talk about the Bidding Prayer of 1604 referring to an Episcopal Church in Scotland, for the only Episcopal Church existing there at that time was one that officially denounced Episcopacy, and the only Bishops there, were men who had never been consecrated by any Bishop whatever. Moreover, we know that James himself admitted that his mere appointment did not constitute these men Bishops, and it is notorious that they were ever referred to derisively as "Tulchan Bishops," a vulgar expression for "dummies." In 1604, then, the year in which the Bidding Prayer was set forth, the Church of Scotland was not only Presbyterian, but militantly so, in defiance of the King. Yet it was formally admitted by the Church of England even at that time (when prejudice was so strong) to be a true part of the Holy Catholic Church.

As the whole history of this contest between James and the Church of Scotland throws light on some other matters relative to the main point of this discussion, it will not be amiss to go into it a little further, and in doing so, we shall quote extensively from this same well known High Churchman, to whom we have referred and whose opinions are of great weight with "Catholics." Says John Henry Blunt: " The peculiar course which the Reformation took in Scotland was in nothing more strange than in its results as to the episcopate. Some of the old Bishops turned with the times, and either retained the revenues of their Sees, as did Robert Stuart, Bishop of Caithness, and Earl of Lennox, or made over these revenues to some of their relatives, as did Alexander Gordon, Bishop of Galloway: m both cases ceasing to exercise the episcopal office although retaining the episcopal title. As these old Bishops died off, nominal successors were sometimes appointed by the Crown, or the Regents acting in the name of the Crown; and thus there were titular Bishops of ancient Sees who were never consecrated nor even in Priests^ Orders. (They were shrewdly named ' Tulchane Bishops ' a ' Tulchane ' or ' Tulchin ' being a stuffed calf's skin set up in sight of a cow to persuade her to give her milk.) This continuance of a nominal Episcopate, side by side with the Presbyterian establishment (mark the words) was much favoured by the Court party, but it is difficult to say whether from reasons of self-interest as regarded the ancient revenues of the Sees, or in the hope that the shadow of an episcopate might some day be turtied into a reality. ^^ "When the Young King James VI. became nominally independent, though only twelve years of age, in 1578, the General Assembly of preachers took much bolder action in respect to these titular Bishops than they had ventured to take while a strong-minded nobleman was Regent.

Meeting at Dundee in July, 1579, they first .passed an 'ordinance' declaring that the office of Bishop had no warrant in the Word of God. . . . After this, in 1580, they issued the "National Covenant," previously referred to, by which 'tlie government of the Kirk by Bishops' ... is 'declared to be unlawful within this Kirk. "... This opposition of the Presbyterian faction to the free action of the Crown . . . gave James a lasting hatred of Presbyterianism . . . and when he succeeded to the Crown of England he took measures for grafting a true Episcopate upon the Kirk, evidently with the view of gradually assimilating the ecclesiastical system of Scotland to that of England. In this purpose the King was probably supported by a strong anti-revolutionary party in Scotland: for in the year 1606 the Scottish Parliament passed an Act 'for the restitution of Bishops' [Note — this was two years after Canon 55, the Bidding Prayer, was passed, was an Act of Pariiament only, and did not alter the attitude of the Kirk.] The purpose of this act was that of enabhng the Crown to restore to the titular Bishops such portions of the Estates of their respective Sees as still remained in its hands. In the same year (1606) James endeavored to pave the way for the restoration of Episcopal Authority by proposing to the General Assembly that the titular Bishops should act as Moderators or Presidents in the Presbyteries within their Dioceses, thus giving them much more power in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs.

This proposition was, after some resistance, adopted by the Assembly, and put in practice throughout the Kirk. {Even at this date, let it be noticed, the end was not attained. The King's appointees were merely permitted to occupy the Presbyterian office of ' Moderators. ' They were not recognized as Bishops either by the Kirk or the King, and could not be so recognized for the very plain reason that they had 7iever been Consecrated Bishops.) After this the King frequently urged the ' Bishops ' to take on themselves the administration of all Church aflfairs, and as they were unwilling to do so without the consent of the Ministers, an Assembly was at last called to consider the question in June, 1610. ... At this Assembly nine resolutions were assented to which practically established the jurisdiction of the Crown and the Bishops. . . . The jurisdiction of the Episcopate being thus restored, James I. prepared to restore it to its proper spiritual position by having some of the titular Bishops consecrated. Accordingly, John Spottiswoode, Archbishop of Glasgow, Andrew Lamb, Bishop of Brechin, and William Couper, Bishop of Galloway, were summoned to London, where the King told them that he had restored the revenues of the Bishoprics, and had appointed worthy men; but (note the following words) that as he could 7iot make them Bishops, nor could they make themselves so, he had called them to England that they might be consecrated, and that being thus made true Bishops instead of mere titular ones, they might return to Scotland and consecrate the rest."

It will be seen now from this account, given by one of the greatest authorities among High Churchmen, that the statements of Mr. Hall are absolutely without foundation. No Bishops were consecrated for Scotland or estabhshed over the Church of Scotland until 1610, ten years after the date he alleges, and six years after the Bidding Prayer was authorized. Even the "jurisdiction of the Episcopate" was not admitted, according to Blunt, until the year 1610, and no attempt to consecrate Bishops, until their lawful jurisdiction within the Church had been established. In short, it was not till 1606 — two years after the Bidding Prayer had been authorized — that the Scottish Parliament even yielded to the pressure brought to bear upon it and passed an Act "for the restitution of Bishops" (the very wording of the title betraying the fact that Bishops had not been restored at that time) and even then the Kirk held out against the measure, nor did it finally surrender until June, 16 10, four years later, when it finally assented to the "Nine Resolutions." After the action of the Scottish Parliament in 1606, James succeeded in getting the Kirk to allow his appointees to preside over their Assemblies, but aside from the fact that this again was two years after the Prayer in question was authorized, and so can affect our argument in no way whatever, aside from all this, we repeat, it was even then with the distinct understanding that they were "Moderators" or Presidents in the Presbyteries only.

This was a strictly Presbyterian arrangement, nor did James or any one else in England flatter themselves that this concession meant an Episcopal form of Government for the Church. They well knew, and the King admitted, as we have seen, in so many words, that they were not Bishops, for they had never been consecrated, and could not, therefore, in the very nature of things, presume to exercise episcopal functions. They were simple Presbyters presiding as Presbyterian "Moderators" over a strictly Presbyterian Church. There was no Episcopal Church in Scotland, then, before 1610, and the petition in the Bidding Prayer of 1604 was for the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Moreover, what is thus admitted by so prejudiced an authority as Blunt, is of course corroborated by numbers of other writers not so hostile to the cause of Presbyterianism. We need mention only one of these. Neale, in his History of the Puritans tells us that, "In the year 1580, the General Assembly with one voice declared Diocesan Episcopacy to be unscriptural and unlawful. The same year King James, with his family, and the whole nation, subscribed a Confession of Faith, with a solemn league and covenant annexed, obliging themselves to maintain and defend the Protestant doctrine and the Presbyterian Government. After this the Bishops were restored by Parliament to some parts of their ancient dignity; and it was made treason for any man to procure the innovation or diminution of the power and authority of any of the three estates; but when this Act was proclaimed, the Ministers protested against it, as not having been agreed to by the Kirk.