The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1876-12-13
The legality of Non.EpisoOpaI Orders. "


leDge. contained in bis article published O,tober
26,h,) and rejected by that paper.
Mr. Editor, In Rev. Mr.. Greaves article under
the above heading-in the Southern Churchman
Of October % h-he does not attempt an answer
to Col Pattous previous article, but says: will
COL Patton or any who think with him, show us
any aorttea lao or ordinance Of the church by which
non-episcopa clergy conld be admitted to 4 cure Of
souls" 10 reply it may be answered:
lst Such law not only can be shown, bat it
'ods shown in COL Patton original argument. He
showed the highest aw Of the CbuTch-it' cOnsti-
tutional law-viz, the X-IIH Article, which re-
cognizes the validity Of the ministry of all those
who are chosen and called to the work by men
who have public authority given unto them in the
congregation, to call and send ministers into the
Lords vineyard. lie showed, by the highest
authority by whom this constitutional law has been
discUssed-to wit. Bitrnet on the thirty nine artl
ciss, that it was so drawn by the Church authOri
ties as to shoe the design to include within it's pro
visions Presbyterially ordained ministers, and that
this law, SO designed, had been executed In the
same sense. from the Reformation down to the In
reference of the State with the Church, by the
| passage of the act Of uniformity. Thus was pre-
sented the strongest possible casa lew designed
to express certain thing, aud that thing carried
out under the law IN practice till forbidden By 3
higher power for its own purposes; and even then
a retention by the Church OF the law and its prin,
ciple until this day.
And yet calmly ignoring all this-not even Civ
ing it any notice or attempt to reply to it-Mr
Gresves gravely calls for Law OF the Church TO be
produced just as if it had not been already done
Pad Ia this point Of view it is of very little im
portance how long the practice continued. COL
Patton said it was mot for a century and half as
Mr. Greayes states, but) for nearly century and
half estimating it from the reputation Of the
! Pope and the assumption of the chief control Of
the Church by Henry VIII iu 1927, to the act Of
uniformity But leave out the reign OF Henry
VIII. as Mr. Greaves desires if you please, it
would still be for largely upwards Of a century, for
be died January 2Ssh, l547, aud the act Of mi
formity received the royal assent on May 9 1862.
Mr.. Greaves asks too much when he wishes TO re-
luce the tiwe still further by the five years OF
bloody MsTy'S reign, and the eleven years of the
commonwealth. He can scarcely suppose that
within these periods the practice of the Church
cou have been different had she been free to act
and 6e well knows that the law Of the Church-to
wit, the NNIII AFtele-uadeTweu no change in
these intervals But to accommodate Mr. Greayes,
| let MS strike out the time OF bloody Mary and of
the com monwealth, there would still remain cen.
tury of admission of Presbyterially ordained min
listers to Il glioh benefces.
1t is to be observed that the practice it. elf is OF
no Importance, except as Illustrating tee true m
depreciation Of the laac: and in this point of view
it is conclusive if it prevailed during the whole
period of the Church's Independence, however
brief Ard it is also conclusive, even though it
prevailed for Uery short time, provided contra
ry practice can be shown, and such contrary prao
tice Mr.. Greayee does not even pretend to show,
except by insisting without any proof, on what is
OF no importance, even if true viz, that the prac
tice applied not to natces of England, but to for.
eigners,
3rd. Let US consider this point
We cannot of course be expected to produce
individual instances of native Prosbyteral ministers
who have had cure of souls in England more than
two centuries ago-because we have no access to
the records of the Church of that day. IF they
exist, tsey have never been published. We there
fore accept the evidence of contemporaries who
did have access to those records, and who were
witnesses of the practice Of the Church in their
times They seem to have considered that Pres
Jyterial orders, were Resbyteriol orders, however
held Hence we usually fad these orders referred
to, not with reference to the nationality of the
parties, but as the orders of the F)reign Re-
formed Churches, even though they might be
held by native. Carrying this with US, let us
look at the evidence.
With other evidence, KeeJle's admission was ad
duced in the original argument Of Col. Patton who
testifes most unwillingly that such were the num-
bers Of Presbyterialy ordained ministers, admitted
to the ministry of the English Church, as to en-
danger the succession" itself. We now produce
further authorities.
Stripe the historian, remarks on the act of 18Th
Elizabeth, 1.-THE very act cited vaguely by Mr.
Greaves for his purpose) By this the ordinations
of the Foreign Reformed churches were made valid,
and those that had no other orders were made the
same capacity with others to enjoy any place ,0itha
England merely on their subscribing the articles,
Works vol. ,, p. 5l4) Not word about natives
and foreigners. In answer to Mr.. Gresves chal-
lenge we give above written law or ordinance
of the Church, admitting Presbyterians to cure
Of souls; and now we give him more than he asked
q law Of the State besides.
Bishop Hall Works VOL TO- p. S4l,) writes,
1.-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
,oithOh any other hands laid on then" This seems
to refer to natives who had gone abroad for orders,
and returning were impeded 10 getting bene6ces,
probably, as in Trayers ease, from considerations
Of loyalty. Travers was also charged with false
doctrine which was the motive chiefly ovO,oed in
the proceedings against him.
Bishop Buaet. (Yindicstion p. 81 says No
Bishop in Scotland during my stay in that XIX gdOm
did so much as desire any of the Presbyterisns to
be ordained though these were natives.
Hallam. constitutional History, p, 224, says,
ut had not been unusual from the very beginning
of the Reformation to admit ministers ordained in
Foreign churches to beuef3es in England. More
ordination had ever been practced with respect to
those who had received the imposition of hands in
a regular Church and hence it appears that the
Church of England, whatever tenet might latterb
have been preached in controversy, did not con-
slider the ordination of PresJyters iaUohd"
Mt word about Mr. Greaves distinction be-
t,,aa, not;oao md F,ro;o,or,
Aaoaulay, (HiatOry, vol. /, p 1872 says, "Epis-
copaI ordination was now (l662) for the first time