Boultbee on Articles XXIII, XXXVI: Of Ministering in the Congregation; Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers

The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, imd ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the wime time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all tilings necessary to puch Cousccration and Ordering:

De Episcoporum et Ministrorum consccratione,

Libellus de consccratione Archiepiscoporum, et Episco- porum, et de ordinatione Presbyterorum et Diaconorum editus nuper temporibus Ed- wardi VI. et auctoritate Par- liamenti illis ipsis temporibus confirmatua, omnia ad ejusmo- di consecrationem et ordinati- on em necessaria continet, et

neither hath it anything that of itself is superstitious or ungodly. And therefore who- soever are consecrated or or- dered according to the Bites of that Book, since the second year of the aforenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Kites ; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

nihil habet, quod ex se sit, aut superstitiosum, aut im^ pium ; itaque quicunque juxta litus illius Hbri consecratir aut ordinati sunt, ab anno secundo praedicti regis Ed- wardi, usque ad hoc tempus^ aut in postei-um juxta eosdem ritus consecrabuntur, aut or- dinabuntur, rite atque ordine, atque legitime statuimus esse et fore consecrates et ordina- tos.

Notes on the Text of Articles XXIII and XXXVI.

In Article XXIII. the following equivalents may be noted*

• In the congregation ; ’ Latin, in ecclesid (as in Article XIX.)»

• Lawfully called ; ’ Latin, legitime vocatos. * Authority ; * Latin, potestas.

In Article XXXVI. we may note the phrase * rightly, orderly, and lawfully ; ’ Latin, rite, atque ordine, atque legitime^ The word * rightly,’ therefore, in this place signifies correctly in respect of form and manner.

Article XXIII. is identical with the twenty-fourth of 1552. It is partly taken from the Confession of Augsburgh, which declares,* * No one ought to teach publicly in the congregation (ecclesia), or to administer the Sacraments, nisi rite vocatus* Article XXXVI. was entirely recast in 1562. It takes the place of Art. XXXV. of 1552, which asserted that the second Prayer book of King Edward (Liber nuperrime traditus, &c.), together with the Ordinal, was in accordance with the Gospel,, and to be received by the people.

Observations on Articles XXm. and XXXVI.

Article XXIII. is so general in its terms that it might be admitted by any body of Christians who maintain the prin-

Art. XIV. o 2

196 AsncLEs xsul asd xxstl

[…]

Oar eDfpnrj in the £nt instance lesotres itadf into the qoesCioo whedier the durtj-sxth Article is meant to hsre smplj an indnsiTe fcrce. or also an exdosxre lorce. That is, whedier it means only to maintain die Taliditj <^ the Kngliah mode of ordinaticn as against objectors to the same, or also to pronounce against the xaliditT of odier modesL It seems clear that the thirtj-axth Article can hare no soch exdnsire ioroe-for-thts reason. If it excludes amy^ it excludes all who are not consecrated or ordained according to our fenn, whether eposcopaUj or not; whidi would prore too much. This Ardcle therefore asserts the Talidity of our orders, and leares die question of other modes of ordination untouched.

The preface to the Ordinal may at fiist sight be considered more exclusive. It declares that the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons have continued from the time of the apostles; and it proceeds to order that none shall be ac- counted to be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon of the Church of England who has not been ordained according to this ritual, or has not previously received episcopal ordination.

This prohibitory clause was added in 1662. It, therefore, stands as part of the more exclusive system adopted at the Hestoration, and embodied in the Act of Uniformity of Charles 11. Before that time, an Act of parliament, 157 1, permitted men ordained otherwise than by the form of the English Church to hold benefices in England, on condition of their duly subscribing the Articles of Religion, and reading them during morning service in their own church.*

That this continued to be the practice is witnessed by the unexceptionable testimony of Bishop Cosin in a letter written in 1650, quoted in Dean Goode’s * Rule of Faith.’ » * There- fore, if at any tiitie a minister so ordained in these French

Strype’s « Annals/ B. I. c. 7. * Vol. ii. p. 293, 2nd ed.

churches came to incorporate himself in ours, and to receive a public charge or cure of souls among us in the Church of England (as I have known some of them to have so done of late, and can instance in many other before my time), our .bishops did not reordain him to his charge, as they must have done if his former ordination here in France had been void. Nor did our laws require more of him than to declare his public consent to the religion received amongst us, and to subscribe the Articles established.’

It appears, therefore, that previously to the Act of Uni- formity of 1662, the Church of England admitted the validity of the ordinations in the foreign Protestant churches. That act for the first time required that episcopal ordination should be an absolute requisite for ministering in our Church, and at the same time the above clause was added in the pre&ce to the Ordination Service denying the character of a minister of the Church of England to any one not episcopally ordained. The change thus introduced will be judged of in different ways according to the sympathies of different persons. But the conclusion is inevitable that our Church has passed no opinion in any of her formularies on the usages of foreign non-episcopal Churches ; but has simply ruled since 1662 that their ministers shall not be admissible, as such, into her service.

Our position, therefore, so far, is this. The Church of England has pronounced episcopacy to be of primitive and apostolical antiquity. She has also for the last two hundred years absolutely required episcopal ordination for all her own ministers. With regard to other differently constituted foreign churches, she is silent.

We may now endeavour to describe the position of different parties in relation to the subject before us. The Episcopalian (as such) usually, asserts, with the preface to our Ordinal, the historico-eccleaastical fact of the primitive antiquity of the three orders of the ministry. He also asserts either that he can trace them in the New Testament, or at least that nothing in the New Testament is inconsistent with their early ex- istence. But he can scarcely £vil to acknowledge that there

198 AETICLES XXni. AND XXXVI.

is no scheme of Church government definitely drawn out in tho New Testament; nor any command enforcing any particular form of order or discipline on the Church at large. Many would add to this, that such a precept would be inconsistent with the genius of Christianity as a imiversal religion, flexible and adaptable as regards it outer organisation.

Agreeing in the above general statement, Episcopalians vary much in their deductions and resulting opinions.

I. The most extreme school sees in the historical fiict, the equivalent of an apostolical precept binding for ever on the Church. It thus refuses to recognise the existence of a church where regular episcopal organisation is not found.

II. The general tone of English divinity, as represented from the first by men of different schools, has been more moderate than this. It has accepted th6 historical &ct, and grounded upon it a satisfactory confidence in the apostolicity and regularity of the constitution of the English Church. But it has refused to admit anything into the category of the essentials of a Christian church, which is not positively laid down in the New Testament, or derived from it by direct inference. For this moderation the student will have been prepared already by the discussion of the Notes of ‘the Church under Article XIX. With these views most of our leading divines have admitted the validity of foreign non-episcopal ordination, some sparingly and grudgingly, others fully and cheerfully.

The regular transmission of holy orders from generation to generation, in episcopal lines from the apostles’ time to our own, is usually styled apostolical succession. “We shall next, jn pursuance of the plan of this work, exhibit the opinions of some representative English divines on the necessity, not the fact, of this succession. We may first refer to Hooker, the great defender of the Church of England. Book vii. 14, he thus writes : * Now whereas hereupon some do infer, that no ordination can stand but only such as is made by bishops, which have had their ordination likewise by other bishops before them, till we come to the very apostles of Christ themselves… . To this we answer that there may be sometimes very just and

. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 199

sufficient reason to allow ordination made without a bisHop. The whole Church visible being the true original subject of all power, it hath not ordinarily allowed any other than bishops alone to ordain ; howbeit, as the ordinary course is ordinarily in all things to be observed, so it may be in some cases not imnecessary that w^e decline from those ordinary ways. Men may be extraordinarily, yet allowably, two ways admitted xmto spiritual functions in the Church. One is, when God himself doth of himself raise up any, whose labour he useth without requiring that men should authorise them. • . • An- other extraordinary kind of vocation is, when the exigence of necessity doth constrain to leave the usual ways of the Church, which otherwise we would willingly keep : where the Church must needs have some ordained, and neither hath, nor can have possibly, a bishop to ordain : in case of such necessity the ordinary institution of God hath given oilentimes, and may give, place. And, therefore, we are not simply without exception, to urge a lineal descent of powei^ from the apostles by continued succession of bishops in every effectual ordina- tion.* The reader who examines this passage in the original will see that it iippears to contemplate and defend the case of Beza, ordained by Calvin.

We have already referred (imder Art. XIX.) to Field, * Of the Church,’ and his discussion of successicm as one of Bellar-^ mine’s * Notes of the Church.’ * The subject is further treated * by him in tlie following important passage : ’ There is no reason to be given, but that in cas<^ of necessity, wherein all bishops were extinguished by death, or, being fallen into heresy, should refuse to ordain any to serve God in his true worship, but that presbyters, as they may do all other acts, whatsoever special challenge bishops in ordinary course make upon them, may do this also (i.e. may ordain). Who, then, dare condemn all those worthy ministers of God that were ordained by presbyters, in sundry churches of the world, at such times as bishops, in those parts where they lived, opposed themselves against the truth of God, and persecuted such as professed it 7 ’ Again, ’ If the bishops become enemies to God

Book IL c. 6. » Book liL c 39.

200 AETICLES XXin. AND XXXVI.

and true religion; in case of such necessity, as tlie care and government of the Church is devolved to the presbyters remaining Catholic and being of a better spirit, so the duty of ordaining such as are to assist or succeed them in the work of the ministry pertains to them likewise.’

There can be no question that this was the tone of the leading English divines in the reigns of Elizabeth and James I. They did not meet their violent Puritan opponents, who claimed the divine right of Presby terianism, with an absolute counter-claim of the indefeasible divine right of Episcopacy. They were content to prove it lawful in its usie, and primitive in its origin. It is well known, however, that in the time of Charles I. the increasing bitterness of controversy induced the episcopal divines to make larger claims on behalf of their Church polity. Still they stopped short of rejecting the vali- dity of other modes of ordination, and denying that the foreign Protestant communities were churches of Christ. Perhaps, among the Stuart divines of this class, no more ty- pical names could be alleged than those of Archbishop Laud and Bishop Cosin. The Archbishop, in his * Conference with Fisher the Jesuit,’ * denies the necessity of * continued visible succession,’ or the existence of any promise that it should be uninterruptedly continued in any Church. He proceeds to say, * for succession in the general I shall say this ; it is a great happiness where it may be had visible and continued, and a great conquest over the mutability of this present world. But I do not find anyone of the ancient Fathers that makes local, personal, visible, and continued suc- cession a necessary mark or sign of tlie true Church in any one place.’

Bishop Cosin, in a letter quoted by Dean Goode,^ severely censures the Protestant churches of France and Geneva for their. * defect of episcopacy,’ but says, * I dare not take upon me to condemn or determine a nullity of their own ordinations against them.’ He further acknowledges that in the face of certain passages in St. Jerome, some schoolmen, Jewel, Field,

• Section 39, vii.

. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 201

Hooker, and othei*s, he cannot say * that the ministers of the reformed French Churches, for want of episcopal ordination, have no order at all.’ He recommends his correspondent to communicate, if need be, with the French Protestants, rather than with the Roman Church. For a further copious treat- ment of this subject, reference may be made to Dean Goode.^

It has been the unhappy lot of our own days to see the ground taken by the great writers of our Church abandoned, and the definitions of our Articles and of our recognised di- vines forsaken for the * Notes of the Church,’ maintained by Bellarmine or other Eoman controversialists.

III. Having so far attempted to give the student informa- tion on the views of Succession which have been held by various members of our Church, we may now add some notice of the varying opinions as to the precise status of the bishop as distinguished from the presbyter.

Omitting minor variations, there have been two principal classes of opinion. First, that of those who hold that the office of a bishop is in itself, and always has been, absolutely distinct from that of the presbyter, and can only be given by the laying on of hands by other bishops, themselves lawiully consecrated. It need scarcely be added that very various con- sequences are deduced from this opinion by men of different schools, some holding very strong notions of indefectible episcopal grace, and connecting absolutely with such a suc- cession the grace of the sacraments and the transmission of the powers of the Christian ministry ; others being content to view this as the ordinary organisation of the Church, apos- tolical in its origin, but like all positive institutions, yielding either to necessity, or the higher claims of the moral obligation.

The class of opinions which we have placed second has been held by many divines, including (it is asserted) early Fathers and schoolmen, as well as Anglican bishops. This class of opinion regards the primitive bishop as little more than a kind of president among the presbyters, but not of a different order, strictly speaking. It will be seen xmder Article XXV.

» ’ Divine Rule of Faith,’ vol. ii. pp. 247-348, 2nd ed.

202 ARTICLES XXnr. AND XXXVI.

that among the seven orders reckoned by the Church of Kome as sacraments, the priesthood is the highest, and episcopacy is not named. And it is natural that those who exalt the powers of the priesthood as the official instrument of accomplishing a corporal presence of our Lord in, with, or under, the elements in the Eucharist and, as the depositary of the sacramental power of remitting sin in absolution, may be slow to acknow- ledge an episcopal virtue and efficacy yet greater than this, saving for the general purposes of government. It is equally natural, on the other hand, that this identification of the episcopal status with that of a presbyter, so far as regards the essential powers of the Christian ministry, should be used by persons desirous of establishing new Christian communities. Accordingly, Wesley, in his later years, maintained this view, and in accordance with it gave organisation to the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, and ordination to the Wesleyan ministers in England.

This theory of Church government must not be confused with Presbyterianism. It holds that the Church is governed monarchically by a presbyter set apart for that purpose, and usually and properly (but not necessarily) consecrated by other bishops ; though the designation and appointment of an ordained presbyter to that office, by the Church, will suffice to constitute him bishop. Presbyterianism, on the other hand, treats all presbyters on the same level, and governs the Church in a republican manner by representative bodies of presbyters and lay deputies. For further information on this view of the rightful position of a bishop, together with a copious discussion of authorities, reference may be made to Dean Goode’s ’ Divine Rule of Faith,’ » also to Field « Of the Church.’ * A dissertation by Professor Lightfoot in his recent commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians discusses a branch of the same subject.

A final caution may be added. The distinction is very im- portant between what is irregular and what is invalid. An act may be irregular, and yet may be valid if done. Nay, in

» * Divine Rule of Faith/ vol. ii. p. 259, 2nd ed. * Book III. c. 39, and Book V. c. 27.

some cases of necessily, it may be an absolute duty to act ir- r^ularly. Lay baptism is undoubtedly irregular, and yet it is acknowledged to be valid if duly administered as to essentials.

The Thbee Orders op the Ministry Traced in the

New Testament,

Acts I.-V. — The History of the Church is confined to Jeru- salem, and the Apostles are the only order of ministers named.

Acts VI. — * The Seven ’ are ordained to a distinct office, bearing no name in Scripture, but subsequently identified with the Diaconate.

Acts XIV. 23. — Presbyters are everywhere ordained by Paul and Barnabas.

Acts XV. 6, 22. — Presbyters are spoken of as existing in the Church at Jerusalem, and meeting in coxmcil with the apostles.

Acts XX. 17. — There were presbyters (plural) in the Church of Ephesus; the same men are called in v. 28 iTriffKowoi.

AcTsXXI.18. — The presbyters of Jerusalem, Mrilih St. James, receive St. Paul.

There were therefore, in the Church at Jerusalem, apostles, presbyters, and deacons. And towards the close of the history of the Acts of the Apostles (i.e. about a.d. 58) there was a president, St. James (probably not an apostle, see dissertation in Professor Lightfoot on the Galatians), presbyters, and (we presmne) still deacons.

Philippians I. 1. — There were £iriricoiroi and deacons at Philippi. Some hold that Epaphroditus, then at Eome, (n. 25) and styled the airotrroXoi of the Philippians, was (in modem language) their bishop. 1 Tim. ni 1. — The due qualifications of an ciriVicoiroc 1 TiH III. 8.— The qualifications of a deacon. 1 Tni. V. 19. — Timothy may judge the presbyters. 1 Tim. V. 22. — Timothy has the power of ordination.

1 Tim. I. 3. — Timothy is to be watchful over the doctrine of the teachers.

Titus I. 5. — Titus is to ordain presbyters, who are called also kiriaKOirm in v. 7.

Titus III. 10. — Titus is to reject heretics after due ad- monition.

It is maintained that the two epistles last named contain the three orders, viz. that of Timothy and Titus correspond- ing to what has been since named a bishop, presbyters or eirlffKoiroif and deacons.

Rev. II. 1, &c. — St. John is directed to write to the ‘Angels’ of the Seven Churches of Asia. These have been very generally interpreted as the presiding ministers of the Churches, and that not only by Episcopal divines, but by many others, as Beza, BuUinger, Grotius, &c.

Of speaking in the Congrega- De loquendo in Ecclesia tion in such a tongue as the lingua quampopulus intelligit.

Notes

• • Divine Rule of Faith/ vol. ii. p. 293, 2nd ed.