before this event, Wilfred, educated at Rome, and or dained priest by Hagilbert, Bishop of Dorchester, was nominated Bishop of York. There being then but one bishop in England, he went to Paris and was there consecrated by the Bishop of Paris, and others. "During his absence they that stood for the way of the Irish churches (on the subject of the clerical tonsure and the observance of Easter) persuaded King Oswi to put into the church of York Ceadde, Abbot of Lindisferne, who was consecrated by one English and two British (Welsh) Bishops."* Wilfred returning, the King gave him the diocese of Litchfield, and he supplied the diocese of Canterbury during the interval between the death of Adeodatus and the arrival of Theodorus. Here then we see that there were six bishops at least in England and Wales, about the time in which Mr. S. considers Episcopacy to have become nearly extinct, * Dupin's Eccles. Hist. London ed. 1693, pp. 45—125. “These matters of fact, he says,-are certain, being affirmed by Eddi, who was Wilfred's disciple and author of his life,--by Pope John the VIIth's letters, and the narratives of Bede, and William of Malmesbury." While referring to Mr. Sparks's work we will notice what happens just now to strike our sight on the opposite page (36) to the one we have been commenting on, The sentiment ascribed to Eusebius is not his, but appears to be quoted, through Doddridge, perhaps, from Milton, "whose rage against Episcopacy was too great,"—as Bp. White justly observes," to permit the exercise of his judgement on any point connected with it." Eusebius referring to the lesser dioceses, intimates, that "it cannot be affirmed how many, and what sincere followers of the apostles, have governed those churches, but so far forth as may be gathered out of the words of Paul." This passage is at the place of his second reference; the first is to a chapter not in the book. Indeed whoever examines the history of the church, at this period, and observes the stress laid upon the succession-the frequent appeals to Rome in matters of discipline, &c. and the influence of that see in England, will not be content with doubtful assertions impugning acknowledged facts, but will require indubitable testi mony before he surrenders his opinion. Such testimony, we humbly conceive, is not to be produced. Dr. Campbell, Dr. Miller and other able opponents of Episcopacy, appear either not to be aware of the circumstance on which Mr. S. relies, or what is most probable, deemed it unworthy of credit. It is believed that no other difficulties are alleged, affecting the succession, till the time of Elizabeth, and those which were then urged by the partizans of Rome, (and are now it seems to be urged anew by another class of men,) were not very important. They laboured to prove that the bishops who consecrated Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, were not themselves consecrated, but it appears that they were true bishops, although they had been deprived of their jurisdiction by Mary.* In the same breath, they asserted that the reformers did not hold to the necessity of consecration to that office, and yet, that they had forged records to prove Bishop Parker to be duly consecrated! But these were not the opinions at Rome, for it is clearly testified by two respectable historians that Pius IV. offered Elizabeth to confirm what she had done, provided his supremacy was acknowledged.† *Robert Adam's Religious World, vol. ii. p. 381.-Note. † Cambden's Elizabeth, and Baker's Chron. Anno. 1560. We have before us a work by a romanist containing fifteen propositions We know that Archbishop Bancroft has been frequently quoted as saying that ordination by presbyters was valid. But on what occasion was this expression said to have been made? When three ministers of the Scotch church, presbyterially ordained, were called up to London to be consecrated bishops. If the ordination by presbyters was valid, where, we would ask, why the English orders are not valid. Among others,-they were not legal, nor canonical;-legal according to the laws of Mary then partially in force,-canonical according to the canons of the church of Rome. For the benefit of the Reviewer and his friends, we will lay before our readers the last proposition, meant, as we suppose, for the strongest. "It cannot be safe for a Christian to continue in a communion, where there are no true orders of bishops, and priests, or at least no certainty of such orders. Because, without true orders they can have no sacrament &c. no absolution, no eucharistic sacrifice, no lawful preaching, no keys &c. in a word, no church and no Christ," &c. We suspect that congregationalists come in for a share of anathema here. The validity of the English orders has been proved in an elaborate work, by Le Courayer, a divine of the French church; but it brought him under the censures of his brethren, and obliged him to take refuge among those whom he had defended. The "informality in English ordinations," which we are told, the romanist considers as nullifying them, was simply, the omission in the ritual of Edward the VI. of words designating in the sentence of ordination, the peculiar office to which the candidate was admitted, though it was fully expressed in the former and latter parts of the services. The truth is, the reformers were desirous of conforming as strictly as possible to the scriptural practice; the words used in consecrating, therefore, were similar to, if not the same with, those used by our Saviour in ordaining the apostles. Milbourne in his Legacy to the church of England, vol. i. p. 302. et seq. shows that a similar defect, if it is one, existed in the Greek ordinal, and that the orders of the Greek church were nevertheless allowed at Rome. -- was the necessity for Spotswood and his brethren, to receive imposition of Episcopal hands, that their future ordinations might be such? "A different account however is given," says Dr. Bowden,-" by Heylin, Collier, and Gray. Archbishop Bancroft said, there was no necessity for their passing through the intermediate orders of deacon and priest, as the Episcopal character might be conveyed at a single consecration; and for this, he cited two precedents in the ancient church, Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, and Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople." And it was doubtless on this ground, that Bishop Andrews, who first suggested the difficulty, assisted in their consecration. Bishop Burnet, however, says that the question was overruled by King James.* The three bishops returned to Scotland and consecrated others, "by which means a true and regular Episcopacy was at length introduced into the reformed church of Scotland," says Adam; who also quotes Bishop Guthry as saying, that, "it was not without the consent and furtherance of many of the wisest among the ministry." Their Episcopacy, certainly, was but of short duration. In twenty-eight years occurred an event, which the Reviewer, after the example he has set us, will certainly pardon us for not easily forgetting, and, surely, we have some cause to remember it. The Solemn League and Covenant for the entire EXTIRPATION of prelacy, was framed, sworn to, and carried into unrelenting execution. But this is a subject, on which, we must thank the Reviewer for it, we shall have occasion to speak hereafter. The * History of his own times, vol. i. p. 139. See also Collier's Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 702. bishops were driven into exile, where all died, except one. Twenty-four years afterward, Episcopacy was again restored to Scotland. Four persons were consecrated bishops in England; two of them being previously admitted deacons and priests; and the others already in Episcopal orders. From that time to the present, the succession has been regularly preserved in that country, and it was by the imposition of the hands of three of their successors that the late Bishop Seabury of Connecticut, derived his Episcopal authority.† It is admitted, by the Reviewer, that the English succession may be traced upward to Archbishop Parker. It is sometimes attempted by our opponents to show, that the reformers, did not believe in the divine institution of Episcopacy. It was in the second year of the reign of Edward VI. that the reformed ordinal was adopted; from it we select the following passages ;"It is evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the apostles' time, there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's church, bishops, priests and deacons." Preface. "Almighty God, who, by thy divine providence hast appointed divers orders of ministers in thy church, and didst inspire thine apostles to choose into the order of deacons," &c. "Almighty God, giver of all good things, who by thy Holy Spirit hast appointed divers orders of ministers in thy church," &c. Collects. Other passages might be produced to the same import, but these are For a list of their bishops, see Skinner's Prim. Truth, Appendix, No. i. p. 341. or, Journals Gen. Convention Prot. Ep. Ch. in U. S. (1789) p. 108. |