Anglicans Against Strict Apostolic Succession
An EXTENSIVE list of Anglican quotes & testimonies
Introduction
Good morning everybody!
If you’re anything like me, you have friends all across the Protestant umbrella and you like having conversations with them about your areas of theological commonality and disagreement. One issue which I perceive to be a barrier in intra-Protestant dialogue is what I would call: Strict Apostolic Succession.
By “Strict Apostolic Succession,” I am referring to the idea that there is no such thing as valid presbyter-to-presbyter ordinations, and that the only way for a church to have valid holy orders and sacraments is if their pastor has been ordained by a bishop who was validly ordained by a bishop who was validly ordained by a bishop and so on and so forth reaching backwards into history until eventually getting to an apostle — as such, (1) The episcopacy is regarded as a mandatory, jure divino apostolic institution, such that (2) This sort of strict succession is seen as an absolutely necessary mark of the true church. These components, when put together, constitute a doctrine that leads its proponents to viewing non-episcopal churches with suspicion and calling their holy orders and sacraments into question (in the most extreme cases, even implying that people within those churches are in danger of not being saved at all).
I think the non-episcopal members of the Protestant umbrella are used to hearing this talking point from Ecclesialists like Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. However, there is another group which is a vociferous proponent of this viewpoint, especially online — and that would be Anglo-Catholics. In fact, I have more than once come across Anglo-Catholics expressing the notion that traditional Anglicanism has always held to this idea and that it is only modern Anglicanism, straying away from its roots, that seeks to recognize the validity of non-episcopal traditions’ holy orders. There’s only one problem with that, though…
It’s just not true.
I have recently come across a myriad of Anglican quotes that undermine this Anglo-Catholic talking point, so I thought it might be useful to make this substack post and document a significant number of them.1 Now keep this in mind: don’t expect these quotes to be a simplistic sort of “the episcopacy shouldn’t exist lol” talking points; after all, why would Anglicans be saying that to begin with? On the contrary, many of these Anglicans were fierce defenders of episcopal polity — whether they believed it to be jure divino, or simply customary, or a proper and opportune development in Church History. These quotes specifically undercut the notion that Strict Apostolic Succession is absolutely necessary for valid ordinations and sacraments.
*Note: Sorry about the length of some of these quotes — I just wanted to make sure we got sufficient context in there.
Quotes & Testimonies
ABP. THOMAS CRANMER (1489-1556)
“A bishop may make a priest by the Scripture, and so may princes and governors also, and that by authority of God committed to them, and the people also by their election: for as we read that bishops have done it, so Christian Emperors and princes usually have done it, and the people, before Christian princes were, commonly did elect their bishops and priests. Whether in the New Testament be required any any consecration of a bishop or priest, or only appointing to the office be sufficient? In the New Testament, he that is appointed to be a bishop or a priest needeth no consecration by the Scripture; for election or appointing thereto is sufficient.” 2
“Whether (if it befortuned a prince christian-learned to conquer certain dominions of infidels, having none but temporal-learned men with him) it be defended by God's law, that he and they should preach and teach the Word of God there, or no? and also make and constitute priests, or no? It is not against God's law, but contrary, they ought indeed to do so; and there be histories that witnesseth, that some christian princes, and other laymen unconsecrate have done the same.”3
BP. JOHN DAVENANT (1572-1641)
“It is, therefore, certain, that the power of ordaining belongs to the office of Bishops only, and does not belong to inferior Presbyters, which is a manifest proof of Episcopal dignity and Presbyterial inferiority. But here, in passing, we have to solve a doubt which was not omitted by the Schoolmen themselves; for it is often questioned. Whether, besides a Bishop, who, by his office, dispenses sacred orders, can one inferior to a Bishop confer the same in case of necessity? To which I answer. Seeing that to confer holy orders is, by Apostolical institution, an act of the Episcopal office, if Presbyters in a well constituted Church do that, their act is not only unlawful, but is null and void. For here obtains the axiom of Hugo, ‘What is performed contrary to the institution is accounted null.’ In a disturbed church, where all the bishops have fallen into heresy or idolatry, where they have refused to ordain orthodox ministers, where they have accounted those alone to be worthy of holy orders who participate in their error and faction, if orthodox presbyters (lest the church perish) be compelled to ordain other presbyters, I could not venture to pronounce ordinations of this kind vain and invalid. For if the danger that threatens a single infant be sufficient to transfer the office of baptizing to any layman, which, by institution, belongs to ministers alone, why is not danger impending over a particular Church sufficient to transfer the office of ordaining to simple priests, which, by institution belongs to Bishops alone? Necessity has been aptly called temporary law: and in such case it defends that to which it compels. It is the opinion of Armachanus, that if all Bishops were dead, inferior priests could ordain. Certainly the consideration is much alike, when all have become sworn enemies to the truth. For as a commonwealth, so a particular church, has a certain extraordinary power for the necessary preservation of itself. If, then, certain Protestant churches, which could not look for ordination from Popish Bishops, have, under this necessity, ordained Presbyters, with the consent of their own Presbyters, they are not to be judged as having injured the episcopal dignity, but to have yielded to the necessity of the Church.”4 [italics added]
ABP. JOHN WHITGIFT (1530-1604)
“The substance and matter of government must indeed be taken out of the word of God, and consisteth in these points, that the word be truly taught, the sacraments rightly administered, virtue furthered, vice repressed, and the church kept in quietness and order. The offices in the church, whereby this government is wrought, be not namely and particularly expressed in the scriptures, but in some points left to the discretion and liberty of the church, to be disposed according to the state of times, places, and persons.”5
BP. HUGH LATIMER (1487-1555)
“But you know full well what Luther holds respecting the Church : and I will not trouble myself to write down what Lyra, in accordance with many others, holds on the sixteenth of Matthew, where that Father remarks that ' the Church consists not of men by virtue of ecclesiastical or secular power and dignity, for many princes and supreme pontiffs and others of inferior dignity, saith he, have been found to apostatise from the faith ; wherefore, he saith, the Church consists of those persons in whom abideth the true knowledge and confession of faith and verity.' Hereunto Chrysostom and Jerome also agree ; for they speak to this effect. I know not whether their language is approved by you, since you are manifestly of those who are more ready to uphold the primacy of Peter, even when there is no occasion, than to re-echo the blessed confession of Peter by kindred fruits of holiness.”6
BP. JOHN JEWEL (1522-1571)
“But M. Harding saith the primates had authority over other inferior bishops. I grant they had so. Howbeit, they had it by agreement and custom ; but neither by Christ, nor by Peter, or Paul, nor by any right of God's Word. St. Jerome saith : ' Let bishops understand that they are above priests rather of custom than of any truth or right of Christ's institution ; and that they ought to rule the Church altogether.' And again : 'Therefore a priest and a bishop are both one thing; and, before that by the inflaming of the devil, parts were taken in religion, and these words were uttered among the people, 'I hold of Paul, I hold of Apollo, I hold of Peter,' the churches were governed by the common advice of the priests.' St. Augustine saith : ' The office of a bishop is above the office of a priest, (not by the authority of the Scriptures, but) after the names of honour, which the custom of the Church hath now obtained.'”7
“But what meant M. Harding here to come in with the difference between priests and bishops? Thinketh he that priests and bishops hold only by tradition? Or is it so horrible an heresy as he maketh it, to say that, by the Scriptures of God, a bishop and a priest are all one? Or knoweth he how far, and unto whom, he reacheth the name of an heretic? 'Verily,' Chrysostom saith, 'between a bishop and a priest, in a manner, there is no difference.' St. Hierome saith somewhat in rougher sort : ' I hear say there is one become so peevish that he setteth deacons before priests, that is to say, before bishops ; whereas the apostle plainly teacheth us that priests and bishops be all one.' St. Augustine saith : ' What is a bishop, but the first priest, that is to say, the highest priest ? ' So saith St. Ambrose : ' There is but one consecration of priest and bishop ; for both of them are priests. But the bishop is the first.' All these, and other more holy Fathers, together with St. Paul the Apostle, for thus saying, by M. Harding's advice, must be holden for heretics.”8
“Ye say, ' The priests and deacons waited only upon the bishops, but sentence in council they might give none.' This tale were true, M. Harding, if every your word were a gospel. But St. Luke would have told you far otherwise. For, speaking of the first Christian council holden in the apostles' time, he saith thus: ' The apostles and elders met together to take order touching this matter.' And again, in the conclusion : ' It seemed good to the apostles and elders, together with the whole Church.' Here you see the apostles and elders gave their voices together. Nicephorus saith : ' Athanasius, being (not a bishop, but) one of the chief deacons of Alexandria, was not the least part of the council of Nice.' Tertullian saith : ' The judges in such ecclesiastical assemblies be the best allowed elders, having obtained that honour, not for money, but by the witness of their brethren.' And in the second council of Nice, Petrus, proto-presbyter, and Petrus, presbyter, not being bishops, but only priests, sent thither by Adrianus, the Bishop of Rome, gave their assents, and subscribed their names before all the bishops.”9
RICHARD FIELD (1561-1616)
“For we do not imagine that the Church began at Wittenberg or Geneva, but that in these and sundry other places of the Christian world it pleased God to use the ministry of his worthy servants for the necessary reformation of abuses in some parts of the Catholic Church, which, beginning at Jerusalem, spread itself into all the world, though not at all times nor all places in like degree of purity and sincerity. So that, though the Reformed Churches neither presently be, nor perhaps hereafter shall be, in all or the most part of the world, yet are they catholic, for that they do continuate themselves with that Church which hath been, is, or shall be, in all places of the world.”10
“Let us see whether succession of bishops and pastors may truly be said to be a note of the Church. Absolutely and without limitation, doubtless it is not. For there may be a continued succession of bishops where there is no true Church, as at this day amongst the Grecians, Armenians, and Atthiopians, which yet are not the true Churches of God, in the opinion of them that plead for succession.”11
“As if I, being in France or Germany, meeting with some Christians of whose faith I doubt, should demand of them whether they hold the true catholic religion, and add, for explication of the meaning of my question, whether they hold the profession of the Reformed Churches in England and Scotland, which, at this time, I think to be the true Churches of God.” 12
“But [the Papists] will say, whatsoever may be thought of these places wherein bishops did ordain, yet in many other none but presbyters did impose hands; all which ordinations are clearly void; and so, by consequent, many of the pretended reformed Churches, as, namely, those of France and others, have no ministry at all. The next thing therefore to be examined is, whether the power of ordination be so essentially annexed to the order of bishops, that none but bishops may in any case ordain. For the clearing whereof we must observe, that the whole ecclesiastical power is aptly divided into the power of order and jurisdiction. [...] The power of holy or ecclesiastical order, is nothing else but that power which is specially given to men sanctified and set apart from others, to perform certain sacred supernatural and eminent actions, which others of another rank may not at all, or, not ordinarily, meddle with : as, to preach the word, administer the sacraments, and the like. [...] Now, because the unity and peace of each particular Church of God, and flock of his sheep, dependeth on the unity of the pastor, and yet the necessities of the many duties that are to be performed in Churches of so large extent, require more ecclesiastical ministers than one; therefore, though they be many presbyters, that is, many fatherly guides of one Church, yet there is one amongst the rest, that is specially pastor of the place, who for distinction sake, is _named a bishop; to whom an eminent and peerless power is given', for the avoiding of schisms and factions; and the rest are but assistants and coadjutors, and named by the general name of Presbyters. So that, in the performance of the acts of ecclesiastical ministry, when he is present and will do them himself, they must give place: and, in his absence’, or when being present he needeth assistance, they may do nothing without his consent and liking. Yea, so far for order sake is he preferred before the rest, that some things are specially reserved to him only, as the ordaining of such as should assist him in the work of his ministry; the reconciling of penitents; confirmation of such as were baptized, by imposition of hands; dedication of churches; and such like. These being the divers sorts and kinds of ecclesiastical power, it will easily appear to all them that enter into the due consideration thereof, that the power of ecclesiastical or sacred order, that is, the power and authority to intermeddle with things pertaining to the service of God, and to perform eminent acts of gracious efficacy, tending to the procuring of the eternal good of the sons of men, is equal and the same in all those whom we call presbyters, that is, fatherly guides of God’s Church and people: and that, only for order sake, and the preservation of peace, there is a limitation of the use and exercise of the same. Hereunto agree all the best learned amongst the Romanists themselves, freely confessing that that wherein a bishop excelleth a presbyter, is not a distinct aud higher order, or power of order, but a kind of dignity and office or employment only. Which they prove, because a presbyter ordained per saltum, that never was consecrated or ordained deacon, may, notwithstanding, do all those acts that pertain to the deacon’s order, because the higher order doth always imply in it the lower and inferior, in an eminent and excellent sort: but a bishop ordained per saltum, that never had the ordination of a presbyter, can neither consecrate and administer the sacrament of the Lord’s body ; nor ordain a presbyter, himself being none; nor do any act peculiarly pertaining to presbyters. Whereby it is most evident, that that wherein a bishop excelleth a presbyter, is not a distinct power of order, but an eminence and dignity only, specially yielded to one above all the rest of the same rank, for order sake, and to preserve the unity and peace of the Church. Hence it followeth, that many things which in some cases presbyters may lawfully do are peculiarly reserved unto bishops, as Hierome noteth: ‘Potius ad honorem sacerdotii, quam ad legis necessitatem!;’ ‘Rather for the honour of their ministry, than the necessity of any law.’ And therefore we read?, that presbyters in some places, and at some times, did impose hands, and confirm such as were baptized: which when Gregory, Bishop of Rome, would wholly have forbidden, there was so great exception taken to him for it, that he left it free again. And who knoweth not, that all presbyters in cases of necessity may absolve and reconcile penitents; a thing in ordinary course appropriated unto bishops? And why not, by the same reason, ordain presbyters and deacons in cases of like necessity? For, seeing the cause why they are forbidden to do these acts is, because to bishops ordinarily the care of all Churches is committed, and to them, in all reason, the ordination of such as must serve in the Church pertaineth, that have the chief care of the Church, and have Churches wherein to employ them ; which only bishops have, as long as they retain their standing, and not presbyters, being but assistants to bishops in their Churches. If they become enemies to God and true religion, in case of such necessity as the 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. For if the power of order and authority to intermeddle in things pertaining to God’s service be the same in all presbyters, and that they be limited in the execution of it only for order sake, so that in case of necessity every of them may baptize and confirm them whom they have baptized, absolve and reconcile penitents, and do all those other acts which regularly are appropriated unto the bishop alone; there is no reason to be given, but that in case 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, might do this also. 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?”13
“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? Surely the best learned in the Church of Rome in former times durst not pronounce all ordinations of this nature to be void. For, not only Armachanus, a very learned and worthy bishop, but, as it appeareth by Alexander of Hales, many learned men in his time and before, were of opinion, that, in some cases and in some times, presbyters may give orders, and that their ordinations are of force, though to do so, not being urged by extreme necessity, cannot be excused from over great boldness and presumption. Neither should it seem so strange to our adversaries, that the power of ordination should at some times be yielded unto presbyters, seeing their chorepiscopi, suffragans, or titular bishops, that live in the diocese and Churches of other bishops, and are no bishops according to the old course of discipline, do daily, in the Romish Church, both confirm children and give orders. All that may be alleged out of the fathers, for proof of the contrary, may be reduced to two heads. For first, whereas they make all such ordinations void as are made by presbyters, it is to be understood according to the strictness of the canons in use in their time, and not absolutely in the nature of the thing; which appears, in that they likewise make all ordinations sine titulo to be void; all ordinations of bishops! ordained by fewer than three bishops with the metropolitan ; all ordinations of presbyters by bishops out of their own Churches, without special leave: whereas I am well assured, the Romanists will not pronounce any of these to be void, though the parties so doing are not excusable from all fault. Secondly, their sayings are to be understood regularly ; not without exception of some special cases that may fall out. Thus, then, we see that objection which our adversaries took to be unanswerable, is abundantly answered out of the grounds of their own schoolmen, the opinion of many singularly learned amongst them, and their own daily practice in that chorepiscopi or suffragans, as they call them, being not bishops, but only presbyters, whatsoever they pretend, and forbidden by all old canons to meddle in ordination, yet do daily, with good allowance of the Roman Church, ordain presbyters and deacons; confirm (with imposition of hands) those that are baptized; and do all other episcopal acts; while their great bishops lord it like princes, in all temporal ease and worldly bravery.”14
BP. GILBERT BURNET (1643-1715)
“If a Company of Christians find the publick Worship where they live to be so defiled that they cannot with a good Conscience join in it, and if they do not know of any place to which they can conveniently go, where they may Worship God purely, and in a regular way; if, I say, such a Body finding some that have been Ordained, though to the lower Functions, should submit it self intirely to their Conduct, or finding none of those, should by a common Consent, desire some of their own Number to Minister to them in Holy things, and should upon that beginning grow up to a Regulated Constitution, though we are very sure that this is quite out of all Rule, and could not be done without a very great Sin, unless the necessity were great and apparent; yet if the Necessity is real and not feigned, this is not Condemned nor Annulled by the Article; for when this grows to a Constitution, and when it was begun by the Consent of a Body, who are supposed to have an Authority in such an extraordinary case, whatever some hotter Spirits have thought of this since that time; yet we are very sure, that not only those who Penned the Articles, but the Body of this Church for above half an Age after, did notwithstanding those Irregularities, acknowledge the Foreign Churches so Constituted, to be true Churches as to all the Essentials of a Church, though they had been at first irregularly formed, and continued still to be in an imperfect state. And therefore the general words in which this part of the Article is framed, seem to have been designed on purpose not to exclude them. Here it is to be considered, that the High Priest among the Iews was the chief Person in that Dispensation; not only the chief in Rule, but he that was by the Divine Appointment to Officiate in the chief act of their Religion, the yearly Expiation for the Sins of the whole Nation; which was a solemn renewing their Covenant with God, and by which Atonement was made for the Sins of that People. Here it may be very reasonably suggested, that since none besides the High Priest might make this Atonement, then no Atonement was made, if any other besides the High Priest should so Officiate. To this it is to be added, that God had by an express Law fixed the High Priesthood in the Eldest of Aaron's Family; and that therefore, though that being a Theocracy, any Prophet empowered of God might have transferred this Office from one Person, or branch of that Family to another; yet without such an Authority, no other Person might make any such change. But after all this, not to mention the Maccabees, and all their Successors of the Asmonean Family, as Herod had begun to change the High Priesthood at pleasure, so the Romans not only continued to do this, but in a most mercenary manner, they set this sacred Function to sale. Here were as great Nullities in the High Priests that were in our Saviour's time, as can be well imagined to be. For the Iews keeping their Genealogies so exactly as they did, it could not but be well known in whom the Right to this Office rested; and they all knew, that he who had it, purchased it, yet these were in Fact High Priests; and since the People could have no other, the Atonement was still performed by their Ministry. Our Saviour owned Caiaphas the Sacrilegious and Usurping High Priest, and as such he Prophesied: This shews that where the necessity was real and unavoidable, the Iews were bound to think that God did, in consideration of that, dispense with his own Precept. This may be a just inducement for us to believe, That whensoever God by his Providence brings Christians under a visible necessity, of being either without all Order and joint Worship, or of joining in an unlawful and defiled Worship, or finally, of breaking through Rules and Methods, in order to the being United in Worship and Government; that of these Three, of which one must be chosen, the last is the least Evil, and has the fewest Inconveniences hanging upon it, and that therefore it may be chosen.”15
JOHN BRADFORD (1510–1555)
“But be it so, that Peter had as much given to him as they do affirm who yet will grant that Peter had a patrimony given for his heirs ? 'He hath left,' say the papists, ' to his successors the self-same right which he received.' O Lord God! then must his successor be a satan ; for he received that title of Christ Himself. I would gladly have the papists to show me one place of succession, mentioned in the Scriptures.”16
“ 'Well, go to,' said I, 'what then?'
'It hath also,' quoth he, ' succession of bishops.'
And here he made much ado to prove that this was an essential point.
'You say as you would have it,' quoth I, 'for if this point fail you, all the Church you go about to set forth will fall down. You shall not find it in all the Scripture, this your essential point of succession of bishops,' quoth I. 'In Christ's Church antichrist will sit. And Peter telleth us as it went in the old Church afore Christ's coming so it will be in the new Church sithen Christ's coming ; that is, as there were false prophets, and such as bare rule were adversaries to the true prophets, so shall there be, sithen Christ's coming, false teachers, even of such as be bishops, and bear rule amongst the people.'
'You always go out of the matter,' quoth he ; 'but I will prove,' saith he, ' the succession of bishops.'
Do so,' quoth I.
'Tell me,' quoth he, ' were not the apostles bishops?'
'No,' quoth I, ' except you will make a new definition of bishops ; that is, give him no certain place.'
'Indeed,' saith he, 'the apostles' office was more than bishops', for it was universal ; but yet Christ instituted bishops in His Church, as Paul saith, " He hath given pastors, prophets : " so that I trow it be proved by the Scriptures, the succession of bishops to be anessential point.'
To this I answered that ' the ministry of God's Word and ministers is an essential point; but to translate this to bishops and their succession,' quoth I, 'is a plain subtlety ; and therefore,' quoth I, ' that it may be plain, I will ask you a question. Tell me whether the Scripture know any difference between bishops and ministers, which you call priests.'
'No,' saith he.
'Well then, go on forwards,' quoth I, 'and let us see what you shall get now by the succession of bishops, that is, of ministers ; which cannot be understood of such bishops, as minister not, but lord it.'”17
BP. JAMES PILKINGTON (1520–1576)
“Yet remains one doubt unanswered in these few words when he says that ' the government of the Church was committed to bishops,' as though they had received a larger and higher commission from God of doctrine and discipline than other lower priests or ministers have, and thereby might challenge a greater prerogative. But this is to be understood that the privileges and superiorities which bishops have above other ministers are rather granted by man for maintaining of better order and quietness in commonwealths than commanded by God in His word. Ministers have better knowledge and utterance some than other, but their ministry is of equal dignity. God's commission and commandment is like and indifferent to all, priest, bishop, archbishop, prelate, by what name soever he be called, ' Go and teach baptising in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ;' and again, ' Whose sins soever ye forgive, they are forgiven ; and whatsoever ye loose on earth, it is loosed in heaven, &c.' Likewise the Lord's Supper, by whomsoever, being lawfully called, it be ministered, it is of like strength, power, and holiness. St. Paul calls the elders of Ephesus together, and says, ' The Holy Ghost made them bishops to rule the Church of God ; ' he writes also to the bishops of Thilippos, meaning the ministers, for neither Ephesus nor Philippos were so great towns, but one little bishopric is a greater compass of ground ; then they needed not many bishops. Therefore this diversity of absolving sins, invented by idle brains, that a simple priest may absolve some small ones, other greater belong to the bishop ; the archbishop claims another higher sort ; the rest and foulest sort pertain to popes and cardinals, as the fathers and maintamers of them ; these, I say, are so foolish and childish to believe that I think it is not needful to speak of them ; they are not grounded on God's Word, and therefore must needs be untrue, and not to be credited, because our faith hangs only on the Holy Scripture. Greedy covetousness to enrich themselves has invented these, as also the rest of their superstition, which they term religion. St. Jerome, in his commentary on the first chapter ad Tit., says that 'a bishop and a priest is all one ', and in his epistle ad Evagrium, he says that 'the bishop, wheresoever he be, he is of the same power and priesthood.' Rome makes him not better, nor England makes him worse.”18
“Such popish bishops I am sure no man is able to prove to have been in every see of this realm continually, since the apostles' time, nor elsewhere: when he has proved it, I will say as he does. Does the see make the bishop and his doctrine good or bad? Does the place make him good or bad? If his saying be true, that they have such a succession, the man must needs be good because he is bishop of such a place or such (for he means to have a continual succession of good bishops everywhere without interruption); but whether they succeed in agreement of one true doctrine, as they do of one see or place, he cares not. If succeeding in place be sufficient to prove them good bishops then the Jews and Turks have their good bishops and religion still at Jerusalem, Constantinople, and elsewhere; for there they dwell where the apostles did, and have their synagogues, Levites, priests, and bishops, after their sort. We do esteem and reverence the continual succession of good bishops in any place if they can be found; if they cannot, we run not from God, but rather stick fast to His Word Succession of good bishops is a great blessing of God; but because God and His truth hangs not on man nor place, we rather hang on the undeceivable truth of God's Word in all doubts than on any bishops, place, or man ; for 'all men are liars,' and may be deceived ; only God and His Word is true, and neither deceives nor is deceived.”19
REV. THOMAS BECON (1512-1567) - CHAPLAIN TO THOMAS CRANMER
“Father. — What difference is there between a bishop and a spiritual minister ?
Son. — None at all ; their office is one, their authority and power is one. And therefore St. Paul calleth the spiritual ministers sometime bishops, sometime elders, sometime pastors, sometime teachers, &o.
Father. — What is 'bishop ' in English?
Son. — An overseer or superintendent, as St. Paul said to the elders or bishops of Ephesus ; 'Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over whom the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, overseers or superintendents, to rule, or feed the congregation of God, which He hath purchased with His blood.'”20
BP. JOHN HOOPER (1495-1555)
“As concerning the ministers of the Church, I believe that the Church is bound to no sort of people, or any ordinary succession of bishops, cardinals, or such like, but unto the only Word of God ; and none of them should be believed but when they speak the Word of God. Although there be diversity of gifts and knowledge among men, some know more, and some know less : and if he that knoweth least, teach Christ after the Holy Scriptures, he is to be accepted ; and he that knoweth most, and teacheth Christ contrary, or any other ways than the Holy Scriptures teach, is to be refused. I am sorry, therefore, with all my heart, to see the Church of Christ degenerated into a civil policy ; for even as the kings of the world naturally by descent from their parents must follow in civil regiment, rule, and law, as by right they ought, even so must such as succeed in the place of bishops and priests that die possess all gift and learning of the Holy Ghost, to rule the Church of Christ, as his godly predecessor had ; so that the Holy Ghost must be captive and bondman to bishops' sees and palaces. And because the Holy Ghost was in St. Peter at Rome, and in many other godly men that have occupied bishoprics and dioceses, therefore the same gifts, they say, must needs follow in their successors, although, indeed, they be no more like of zeal nor diligence than Peter and Judas, Balaam and Jeremy, Annas and Caiaphas to John and James.”21
“God hath bound His Church, and all men that be of the Church, to be obedient unto the Word of God. It is bound unto no title or name of men, nor to any ordinary succession of bishops or priests : longer than they teach the doctrine contained in the Scripture, no man should give hearing unto them, but follow the rule of Paul, 'He that teacheth any other gospel than Christ's, it must be accursed.'”22
ABP. JOHN WHITGIFT (1530-1604)
“But to be short, I confess that in a church collected together in one place, and at liberty, government is necessary in the second kind of necessity; but that any one kind of government is so necessary that without it the Church cannot be saved, or that it may not be altered into some other kind, thought to be more expedient, I utterly deny ; and the reasons that move me so to do be these : the first is, because I find no one certain and perfect kind of government prescribed or commanded in the Scriptures to the Church of Christ; which, no doubt, should have been done if it had been a matter necessary unto the salvation of the Church. 2. Secondly, because the essential notes of the Church be these only ; the true preaching of the Word of God, and the right administration of the sacraments : for, as Master Calvin saith in his book against the anabaptists, ' This honour is meet to be given to the Word of God and to His sacraments, that, wheresoever we see the Word of God truly preached, and God according to the same truly worshipped, and the sacraments without superstition administered, there we may, without all controversy, conclude the Church of God to be ; ' and a little after, 'So much we must esteem the Word of God and His sacraments that, wheresoever 'we find them to be, there we may certainly know the Church of God to be, although in the common life of man many faults and errors be found.' The same is the opinion of other godly and learned writers, and the judgment of the Reformed Churches, as appeareth by their confessions. So that, notwithstanding government, or some kind of government, may be a part of the Church, touching the outward form and perfection of it, yet is it not such a part of the essence and being but that it may be the Church of Christ without this or that kind of government ; and therefore the ' kind of government ' of the Church is not ' necessary unto salvation.'”23
“I 'condemn' no 'churches' that have appointed any order for the electing of their pastors which they think to be agreeable to their state, and most profitable for them; for, therefore, I say that no certain manner or form of electing ministers is prescribed in the Scripture, because every church may do therein as it shall seem to be most expe dient for the same. That may be profitable for ' the Churches of Geneva and France, &c.,' which would be most hurtful to this Church of England. And therefore I say that, howsoever this popular kind of electing was convenient or profitable in the apostles' time, yet in this state of the Church of England it would be 'pernicious and hurtful.'”24
“I know that in the primitive Church they had in every church certain seniors to whom the government of the congregation was committed ; but that was before there was any Christian prince or magistrate that openly professed the Gospel, and before there was any Church by public authority established, or under civil government. I told you before that the diversity of time and state of the Church requireth diversity of government in the same.”25
“That there is no one certain kind of government in the Church which must of necessity be perpetually observed. We see manifestly that in sundry points the government of the Church used in the apostles' time is, and hath been of necessity, altered, and that it neither may nor can be revoked; whereby it is plain that any one certain form or kind of external government perpetually to be observed is nowhere in the Scripture prescribed to the Church.”26
BP. JOSEPH HALL (1574-1656)
“Blessed be God, there is no difference in any essential matter betwixt the Church of England and her sisters of the Reformation. We accord in every point of Christian doctrine without the least variation ; their public confessions and ours are sufficient convictions to the world of our full and absolute agreement. The only difference is in the form of outward administration ; wherein also we are so far agreed as that we all profess this form not to be essential to the being of a Church, though much importing the well or better being of it, according to our several apprehensions thereof, and that we do all retain a reverence and loving opinion of each other in our own several ways, not seeing any reason why so poor a diversity should work any alienation of affection in us one towards another.”27
“The imputation pretended to be cast by this tenet [the Divine right of Episcopacy] upon all the Reformed Churches which want this government, I endeavoured so to satisfy that I might justly decline the envy which is intended to be thereby raised against us ; for which cause I professed that we do ' love and honour those our sister-Churches, as the dear spouse of Christ,' and give zealous testimonies of my wellwishing to them. Your uncharitableness offers to choke me with those scandalous censures and disgraceful terms which some of ours have let fall upon those Churches and their eminent professors, which, I confess, it is more easy to be sorry for than, on some hands, to excuse. The error of a few may not be imputed to all. My just defence is that no such consequent can be drawn from our opinion; forasmuch as the Divine or Apostolical right which we hold goes not so high as if there were an express command, that, upon an absolute necessity, there must be either episcopacy or no Church ; but so far only that it both may and ought to be. How fain would you here find me in a contradiction! While I, onewhere, reckon episcopacy amongst matters essential to the Church, anotherwhere deny it to be of the essence thereof! Wherein you willingly hide your eyes, that you may not see the distinction that I make expressly betwixt the being and the well-being of a church ; affirming that 'those churches to whom this power and faculty is denied lose nothing of the true essence of a church, though they miss something of their glory and perfection.' No, brethren, it is enough for some of your friends to hold their discipline altogether essential to the very being of a church, we dare not be so zealous.”28
ABP. JOHN BRAMHALL (1594-1663)
“But let him set his heart at rest. I will remove this scruple out of his mind that he may sleep securely upon both ears. Episcopal divines do not deny those churches to be true churches wherein salvation may be had. We advise them, as it is our duty, to be circumspect of themselves and not to put it to more question whether they have ordination or not, or desert the general practice of the Universal Church for nothing, when they may clear it if they pleased. Their case is not the same with those who labour under invincible necessity. [...] Episcopal divines will readily subscribe to the determination of the learned bishop of Winchester ( Andrewes) in his answer to the second epistle of Molineus. 'Nevertheless, if our form (of episcopacy) be of Divine right, it doth not follow from thence that there is not salvation without it, or that a Church cannot stand without it; he is hard-hearted who denyeth them salvation. We are none of those hard-hearted persons, we put a great difference between these things. There may be something absent in the exterior regiment, which is of Divine right, and yet salvation to be had.' This mistake proceedeth from not distinguishing between the true nature and essence of a Church, which we do readily grant them, and the integrity or perfection of a Church, which we cannot grant them without swerving from the judgment of the Catholic Church.”29
WILLIAM WHITAKER (1548-1595)
“And if to condemn prayers for the dead, and make equal a priest with a bishop, be heretical, what shall be catholic ? Jerome was altogether of jErius his mind about equality of priests : for he determines them to be equal with bishops by God's law.”30
“However, I answer, in the first place, that the succession even of that Church (of Rome) is not entire and uninterrupted, as is plain from Platina and others. For Platina and other historians testify that that see hath been vacant ten, yea, twenty times over, not merely for a day, or a week, or a month, but for one, two, or three years ; furthermore, that there were frequent schisms, and sometimes two or three popes in existence together. Nay, in one council, three popes were deposed, and a fourth new one elected, upon which matters we shall have to speak elsewhere. Secondly, though we should concede the succession of that Church to have been unbroken and entire, yet that succession would be a matter of no weight, because we regard not the external succession of places or persons, but the internal one of faith and doctrine.”31
“For as at first one presbyter was set over the rest of the presbyters, and made a bishop, so afterwards one bishop was set over the rest of the bishops ; and thus the custom hatched the pope with his monarchy, and by degrees brought him into the Church.”32
“We most fully agree with your Churches, and with the Confession (Helvetic) you have lately set forth, and we do not regret our resolution ; for in the meantime, the Lord giving the increase, our Churches are enlarged and established, which, under other circumstances, would have become a prey to the Ecebolians, Lutherans, and semi-papists. But these unseasonable contentions about things which, as far as I am able to judge, are matters of indifference are so far from edifying that they disunite the Churches, and sow discord among the brethren. But enough of our affairs. Things in Scotland are not so well established as we could wish. The Churches, indeed, still retain the pure confession of the Gospel ; but the Queen of Scotland seems to be doing all in her power to extirpate it.”33
BP. EDWARD REYNOLDS (1599-1676)
“Though Epiphanius says that AErius' assertion is full of folly, he does not disprove his reasons from Scripture ; nay, his arguments are so weak, that even Bellarmine confesses they are not agreeable to the text. As for the general consent of the Church, which, the Doctor says, condemned iErius' opinion for heresy, what proof does he bring for it? It appears (he says) in Epiphanius; but I say it does not; and the contrary appears by St. Jerome, and sundry others who lived about the same time. I grant that St. Augustine, in his book of heresies, ascribes this to AErius for one : that he said there ought to be no difference between a priest and a bishop, because this was to condemn the churches' order, and to make a schism therein. But it is quite a different thing to say that by the Word of God there is a difference between them, and to say that it is by the order and custom of the Church ; which is all that St. Augustine maintains. When Harding the papist alleged these very witnesses, to prove the opinion of bishops and priests being of the same order to be heresy, our learned bishop, Jewel, cited, to the contrary, Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine himself, and concluded his answer with these words : ' All these, and other more holy Fathers, together with the Apostle Paul, for thus saying, by Harding's advice, must be held for heretics.' Michael Medina, a man of great account in the Council of Trent, adds to the forementioned testimonies Theodorus, Primacius, Sedulius, Theophylact, with whom agree (Ecumenius, the Greek Scholiast, Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, Gregory, and Gratian ; and after them, how many? It being once enrolled in the Canon Law for Catholic doctrine, and thereupon taught by learned men. 4. Besides, all that have laboured in reforming the Church for five hundred years have taught that all pastors, be they entitled bishops or priests may not ; whereas St. Jerome says, 'What does a bishop, except ordination, which a priest does not ?' meaning, that in his time bishops had only that power above priests ; which Chrysostom also witnesses in Hom. xi. on 1 Tim. Nor had they this privilege alone in all places, for in the Council of Carthage it is said that the priests laid their hands, together with the bishops', on those who were ordained. And St. Jerome, having proved by Scripture, that in the apostles' time bishops and priests were all one, yet granted that afterwards bishops had that peculiar to themselves somewhere but nothing else ; so that St. Jerome does not say, concerning the superiority in question, that bishops have had it ever since St. Mark's time.”34
RICHARD HOOKER (1554-1600)
“Touching the ministry of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the whole body of the Church being divided into laity and clergy, the clergy are either presbyters or deacons.”35
“For preservation of Christianity, there is not anything more needful than that such as are of the visible Church have mutual fellowship and society one with another. In which consideration, as the main body of the sea being one, yet within divers precincts hath divers names, so the Catholic Church is in like sort divided into a number of distinct societies, every of which is termed a church within itself. But we must note that he which affirmeth speech to be necessary amongst all men throughout the world doth not thereby import that all men must necessarily speak one kind of language ; even so the necessity of polity and regiment in all churches may be held without holding any one certain form to be necessary in them all.”36
“We teach that, whatsoever is unto salvation termed necessary by way of excellency ; whatsoever it standeth all men upon to know or do that they may be saved ; whatsoever there is whereof it may truly be said, this not to believe is eternal death and damnation ; or this, every soul that will live must duly observe : of which sort the articles of Christian faith, and the sacraments of the Church of Christ are : all such things, if Scripture did not comprehend, the Church of God should not be able to measure out the length and the breadth of that way wherein for ever she is to walk : heretics and schismatics, never ceasing, some to abridge, some to enlarge, all to pervert and obscure the same. But as for those things that are accessory hereunto, those things that so belong to the way of salvation as to alter them, is no otherwise to change that way than a path is changed by altering only the uppermost face thereof; which, be it laid with gra\el, or set with grass, or paved with stones, remaineth still the same path ; in such things, because discretion may teach the Church what is convenient, we hold not the Church further tied herein unto Scripture than that against Scripture nothing be admitted in the Church, lest that path, which ought always to be kept even, do thereby come to be overgrown with brambles and thorns. If this be unsound, wherein doth the point of unsoundness lie? Is it not that we make some things necessary, some things accessory and appendant only ? For our Lord and Saviour Himself doth make that difference, by terming judgment, and mercy, and fidelity, with other things of like nature, the greater and weightier matters of the law. Is it then in that we account ceremonies (wherein we do not comprise sacraments, or any other the like substantial duties in the exercise of religion, but only such external rites as are usually annexed unto Church actions), is it an oversight that we reckon these things, and matters of government, in the number of things accessory, not things necessary in such sort as hath been declared ? Let them which therefore think us blameable, consider well their own words.”37
“I therefore conclude that neither God's being Author of laws for government of His Church nor His committing them unto Scripture is any reason sufficient wherefore all churches should for ever be bound to keep them without change. The very best way for us, and the strongest against them, were to hold, even as they do, that in Scripture there must needs be found some particular form of church polity which God hath instituted, and which, for that very cause, belongeth to all churches, to all times”38
“Albeit, therefore, we do not find any cause why of right there should be necessarily an immutable form set down in Holy Scripture ; nevertheless, if indeed there have been at any time a church polity so set down, the change whereof the sacred Scripture doth forbid, surely for men to alter those laws, which God for perpetuity hath established, were presumption most intolerable. That Christ did not mean to set down particular positive laws for all things in such sort as Moses did, the very different manner of delivering the laws of Moses and the laws of Christ doth plainly show. Moses had commandment to gather the ordinances of God together distinctly, and orderly to set them down, according unto the several kinds for each public duty and office, the laws that belong thereto, as appeareth in the books themselves written of purpose for that end. Contrariwise, the laws of Christ, we find rather mentioned by occasion in the writings of the apostles than any solemn thing directly written to comprehend them in legal sort. These, on the contrary side, as being of a far other nature and quality, not so strictly nor everlastingly commanded in Scripture ; but that unto the complete form of Church polity much may be requisite which the Scripture teacheth not, and much which it hath taught becomes unrequisite, sometime because we need not use it, sometime also because we cannot. In which respect, for my own part, although I see that certain Reformed Churches, the Scottish especially and French, have not that which best agreeth with the sacred Scripture ; I mean the government that is by bishops, inasmuch as both those Churches are fallen under a different kind of regiment ; which to remedy it is for the one altogether too late, and too soon for the other during their present affliction and trouble ; this their defect and imperfection I had rather lament in such a case than exagitate. When the question is whether God have delivered in Scripture (as they affirm He hath) a complete particular immutable form of Church polity. Religion being therefore a matter partly of contemplation, partly of action, we must define the Church, which is a religious society, by such differences as do properly explain the essence of such things, that is to say, by the object or matter whereabout the contemplations and actions of the Church are properly conversant. For so all knowledges and all virtues are defined. Whereupon, because the only object which separateth ours from other religions is Jesus Christ, in whom none but the Church doth believe, and whom none but the Church doth worship, we find that accordingly the apostles do everywhere distinguish hereby the Church from infidels and from Jews, accounting them which call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to be his Church. If we go lower, we shall but add unto this certain casual and variable accidents which are not properly of the being, but make only for the happier and better being of the Church of God, either indeed, or in men's opinions and conceits.”39
“On the other side, bishops, albeit they may avouch, with conformity of truth, that their authority had thus descended even from the very apostles themselves, yet the absolute and everlasting continuance of it they cannot say that any commandment of the Lord doth enjoin ; and therefore must acknowledge that the Church hath power by universal consent upon urgent cause to take it away, if thereunto she be constrained through the proud, tyrannical, and unreformable dealings of her bishops, whose regiment she hath thus long delighted in, because she hath found it good and requisite to be so governed. Wherefore lest bishops forget themselves, as if none on earth had authority to touch their states, let them continually bear in mind that it is rather the force of custom whereby the Church, having so long found it good to continue under the regiment of her virtuous bishops, doth still uphold, maintain, and honour them in that respect than that any such true and heavenly law can be showed, by the evidence whereof it may of a truth appear that the Lord Himself hath appointed presbyters for ever to be under the regiment of bishops, in what sort soever they behave themselves. Let this consideration be a bridle unto them, let it teach them not to disdain the advice of their presbyters, but to use their authority with so much the greater humility and moderation, as a sword which the Church hath power to take from them.”40
“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 ; in which respect it was demanded of Beza, at Poissie, by what authority he could administer the holy sacraments, being not thereunto ordained by any other than Calvin, or by such as to whom the power of ordination did not belong, according to the ancient order and customs of the Church ; sith Calvin, and they who joined with him in that action, were no bishops. [...] To this we answer that there may be sometimes very just and 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.”41
ABP. WILLIAM WAKE (1657-1737)
“The Reformed Churches, though in some things differing from our English Church, I willingly embrace. I could have wished, indeed, that the episcopal form of church government had been retained by all of them. In the meanwhile be it far from me to be so iron-hearted that on account of a defect of this kind (such I may be permitted without offence to call it) I should believe that some of them are to be broken off from our communion, or, with certain insane writers among us should assert, that they have no true and valid sacraments.”42
“I bless God that I was born and have been bred in an episcopal church, which I am convinced has been the government established in the Christian Church from the very time of the apostles. But I should be unwilling to affirm that, where the ministry is not episcopal, there is no church, nor any true administration of the sacraments. And very many there are among us who are zealous for episcopacy, yet dare not go so far as to annul the ordinances of God performed by any other ministry.”43
ABP. JAMES SHARP (1618-1679)
“In the debate on Occasional Conformity, in 1702, Dr. Sharp, Archbishop of York, stated that, 'if he were abroad, he would willingly communicate with the Protestant Churches where he should happen to be.'”44
BP. THOMAS BILSON (1547-1616)
“It will happily be granted the apostles had their prerogative and preeminence above others in the Church of Christ ; but that limited to their persons and during their lives, and, therefore, no reason can be made for their superiority, to force the like to be received and established in the Church of Christ for all ages and places; since their office and function are long since ceased, and no like power reserved to their successors after them.”45 *
FRANCIS MASON (1566-1621)
“The bishop, in his consecration, receiveth a sacred office, an eminency, a jurisdiction, a dignity, a degree of ecclesiastical preeminence. [...] He hath no higher degree in respect of intention or extension of the character ; but he hath a higher degree, that is, a more excellent place in respect of authority and jurisdiction in spiritual regiment. Wherefore, seeing a presbyter is equal to a bishop in the power of order, he hath equally intrinsical power to give orders. [...] First, if you [Romanist] mean by jure divino that which is according to the Scripture then the preeminence of bishops is jure divino ; for it hath been already proved to be according to Scripture. Secondly, if by jure divino you mean the ordinance of God, in this sense also it may be said to be jure divino. For it is an ordinance of the apostles, whereunto they were directed by God's Spirit, even by the spirit of prophecy, and consequently the ordinance of God. But if by jure divino you understand a law and commandment of God, binding all Christian Churches, universally, perpetually, unchangeably, and with such absolute necessity that no other form of regiment may in any case be admitted, in this sense neither may we grant it nor yet can you prove it to be jure divino.”46
ABP. WILLIAM LAUD (1573-1645)
“I do not find any one of the ancient Fathers that makes local, personal, visible, and continued succession a necessary sign or mark of the true Church in any one place. And where Vincentius Lirinensis calls for antiquity, universality, and consent, as great notes of truth, he hath not one word of succession. And once more, before I leave this point. Most evident it is that the succession which the Fathers meant is not tied to place or person, but 'tis tied to the verity of doctrine. For so Tertullian expressly. Beside the order of bishops running down (in succession) from the beginning, there is required consanguinitas doctrince, that the doctrine be allied in blood to that of Christ and His apostles. So that, if the doctrine be no kin to Christ, all the succession become strangers, what nearness soever they pretend. And Irenaeus speaks plainer than he, 'We are to obey those presbyters which, together with the succession of their bishoprics, have received charisma veritatis, the gift of truth.'”47
EDWARD STILLINGFLEET (1635-1699)
“It is acknowledged by the stoutest champions for episcopacy, before these late unhappy divisions, that ordination performed by presbyters in cases of necessity is valid ; which I have already showed doth evidently prove that episcopal government is not founded upon any unalterable Divine right ; for which purpose many evidences are produced from Dean Field of the Church, lib. iii. cap. xxxix. ; B. Downham, lib. iii. cap. iv. ; B. Jewel, p. ii. p. 131 ; Saravia, cap. ii. pp. 10, 11; B. Alley, prselect. iii. and vi. ; B. Pilkington, B. Bridges, B. Bilson, D. Nowell, B. Davenant, B. Prideaux, B. Andrewes, and others, &c. &c. 13. So much may suffice to show that both those who hold an equality among ministers to be the apostolical form and those that do hold episcopacy to have been it do yet both of them agree at last in this, that no one form is settled by an unalterable law of Christ, nor consequently founded upon Divine right. For the former, notwithstanding their opinion of the primitive form, do hold episcopacy lawful, and the latter, who hold episcopacy to have been the primitive form, do not hold it perpetually and immutably necessary, but that presbyters (where bishops cannot be had) may lawfully discharge the offices belonging to bishops ; both which concessions do necessarily destroy the perpetual Divine right of that form of government they assert, which is the thing I have been so long in proving, and I hope made it evident to any unprejudicated mind.”48
“On the other side, those who hold ordinations by presbyters lawful do not therefore hold them necessary ; but it being a matter of liberty, and not of necessity (Christ having nowhere said that none but presbyters shall ordain), this power then may be restrained by those who have the care of the churches' peace, and matters of liberty, being restrained, ought to be submitted to, in order to the churches' peace. And, therefore, some have well observed the difference between the opinions of Jerome and iErius. For as to the matter itself, I believe, upon the strictest enquiry, Medina's judgment will prove true, that Jerome, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primacius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact were all of AErius. his judgment as to the identity of both name and order of bishops and presbyters in the primitive Church ; but here lay the difference: AErius from hence proceeded to separation from bishops and their churches, because they were bishops. And Blondel well observes that the main ground why AErius was condemned was for unnecessary separation from the Church of Sebastia, and those bishops too who agreed with him in other things, as Eustathius the bishop did. [...] Nay, what evidence have we what course Peter took in the churches of the circumcision? Whether he left them to their synagogue way or altered it, and how and wherein ? These things should be made appear, to give men a certainty of the way and course the apostles did observe in the settling churches by them planted. But instead of this, we have a general silence in antiquity, and nothing but the forgeries of latter ages to supply the vacuity whereby they filled up empty places, as Plutarch expresseth it, as geographers do maps, with some fabulous creatures of their own invention. Here is a work now for a Nicephorus Callisthus, a Simeon Metaphrastes, the very Jacobus de Voraigne of the Greek Church (as one well calls him), those historical tinkers, that think to mend a hole where they find it, and make three instead of it. This is the first defect in antiquity as to places. The second is as observable as to times ; and, what is most considerable, antiquity is most defective where it is most useful, viz. in the time immediately after the apostles, which must have been most helpful to us in this enquiry. For who dare with confidence believe the conjectures of Eusebius at three hundred years' distance from the apostolical times, when he hath no other testimony to vouch but the hypotyposes of an uncertain Clement (certainly not he of Alexandria, if Joseph Scaligtr may be credited), and the commentaries of Hegesippus, whose relations and authority are as questionable as many of the reports of Eusebius himself are in reference to those elder times; for which I need no other testimony but Eusebius in a place enough of itself to blast the whole credit of antiquity as to the matter now in debate. For speaking of Paul and Peter, and the churches by them planted, and coming to enquire after their successors, he makes this very ingenuous confession : ' Is it so hard a matter to find out who succeeded the apostles in the churches planted by them, unless it be those mentioned in the writings of Paul ' — Hist. Eccl. b. iii. c. iv. 4. What becomes then of our unquestionable line of succession of the bishops of several churches, and the large diagrams made of the apostolical churches, with everyone's name set down in his order, as if the writer had been Clarenceux to the apostles themselves ? Is it come to this at last that we have nothing certain but what we have in Scriptures? And must then the tradition of the Church be our rule to interpret Scriptures by? An excellent way to find out the truth, doubtless, to bend the rule to the crooked stick ; to make the judge stand to the opinion of his lackey, what sentence he shall pass upon the cause in question ; to make Scripture stand cap in hand to tradition, to know whether it may have leave to speak or no. Are all the great outcries of apostolical tradition, of personal sucession of unquestionable records, resolved at last into the Scripture itself by him from whom all these long pedigrees are fetched ? Then let succession know its place, and learn to vail bonnet to the Scriptures. And withal let men take heed of overreaching themselves when they would bring down so large a catalogue of single bishops from the first and purest times of the Church; for it will be hard for ethers to believe them when Eusebius professeth it is so hard to find them.”49
“At Antioch some, as Origen and Eusebius, make Ignatius to succeed Peter. Jerome makes him the third bishop, and placeth Evodius before him. Others, therefore, to solve that, make them contemporary bishops, the one of the Church of the Jews, the other of the Gentiles; with what congruity to their hypothesis of a single bishop and deacons placed in every city, I know not ; but that salvo hath been discussed before. Come we therefore to Rome, and here the succession is as muddy as the Tiber itself; for here Tertullian, Ruffinus and several others place Clement next to Peter. Irenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus before him; Epiphanius and Optatus both Anacletus and Cletus ; Augustine and Damasus, with others, make Anacletus, Cletus, and Linus all to precede him. What way shall we find to extricate ourselves out of this labyrinth, so as to reconcile it with the certainty of the form of government in the apostles' times ? Certainly, if the line of succession fail us here, when we most need it, we have little cause to pin our faith upon it as to the certainty of any particular form of church government settled in the apostles' times, which can be drawn from the help of the records of the primitive Church, which must be first cleared of all defectiveness, ambiguity, partiality, and confusion, before the thing we enquire for can be extracted out of them.”50
BONUS: PIERRE FRANÇOIS LE COURAYER (1681–1776)
*NOTE: Courayer was a Roman Catholic, but one who defended the validity of Anglican Holy Orders and was appealed to favorably by lots of Anglican Tractarians.
“The question, then, has been only of the validity of the sacraments; and the position reduced to these terms labours under no difficulty ; the facts and the reasons concur alike to prove that the changes which are made in the forms of the sacraments cannot render them null, at least when the substance is not altered ; and that there is no essential alteration in those wherein there is still retained what is determined by Scripture, or by a certain and uniform tradition, whatever alterations are made in the rites which have been added. This is clear by the conduct observed with regard to the baptism administered by the English, or by the pure Calvinists. The whole form has been altered therein, excepting the invocation of the Holy Trinity : the prayers, the unctions, the exorcisms, everything has been either changed or suppressed : their baptism is nevertheless received. And why these different weights and measures as to their ordination?”51
Conclusion
I hope these quotes are helpful, even as a jump-off point for further study. This issue of strict apostolic succession is one which I hope to do a lot more reading on in the near future, myself, so y’all may have another video or article on this topic coming down the pike at a later date!
I hope to keep updating this list as I come across more quotes.
Until then,
May the Lord bless you and keep you all in His good graces.
Ephesians 4:11-13 KJV "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:"
*Updates/edits: Some updates have been made to a couple of existing quotes (namely Davenant’s and Bilson’s) and the order that a few of the quotes is listed in has also been changed. Additionally, the wording of the introduction to the article was updated so as to clear up some confusion alluded to by a commenter. Typos are also being corrected where found.
I sourced most of the quotes in this article from the following two works: 1. “Whose Are the Fathers?” by John Harrison (link: https://a.co/d/7CsAOov), and 2. “ANGLICAN ORDERS OF MINISTRY PART I” by Drew Keane (link: https://northamanglican.com/anglican-orders-of-ministry-part-i/). NOTE: There are WAY MORE quotes that I could’ve included from the John Harrison work, but I didn’t do so due to their length; feel free to check the work out and you’ll see what I mean!
Thomas Cranmer, Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, "Questions and Answers Concerning the Sacraments," Pg. 117, Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=dcQUAAAAQAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Thomas+Cranmer%22&hl=en&source=gb_mobile_entity#v=onepage&q&f=false
Thomas Cranmer, Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, "Questions and Answers Concerning the Sacraments," Pg. 117, Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=dcQUAAAAQAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Thomas+Cranmer%22&hl=en&source=gb_mobile_entity#v=onepage&q&f=false
Bp. John Davenant, An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, Pg. lvii-lix, Link: http://www.classicchristianlibrary.com/library/davenant_john/Davenant-Col-pt1.pdf
John Whitgift, Works, Vol. I, pg. 6, Link: https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781725224803_A40374229/preview-9781725224803_A40374229.pdf
Hugh Latimer, An Answer to a Letter from Dr. Sherwood, p. 313.
John Jewel, An Answer to a Certain Book Lately Set forth by M. Harding, and entitled 'A Confutation of the Apology of Church of England ,' Chap. iii, division v, P. 294
John Jewel, An Answer to a Certain Book Lately Set forth by M. Harding, and entitled 'A Confutation of the Apology of Church of England ,' Chap. ix, division i, P. 439.
John Jewel, An Answer to a Certain Book Lately Set forth by M. Harding, and entitled 'A Confutation of the Apology of Church of England ,' Chap. iii. division iii. vol. iv. p. 912. 28.
Richard Field, Of the Church, Of Universality, chap. viii. b. ii. vol. i. p. 88
Richard Field, Of the Church, Book II, pg. 83
Richard Field, Of the Church, Of Unity, §c. ch. xli. b. iii. vol. i. p. 336
Richard Field, Of the Church, Book III, Pg. 318-323, Link: https://archive.org/details/ofchurchfivebook01fiel/page/317/mode/1up
Richard Field, Of the Church, Book III, Pg. 323-, Link: https://archive.org/details/ofchurchfivebook01fiel/page/317/mode/1up
Gilbert Burnet, An Exposition of the Thirty-nine articles of the Church of England, ARTICLE XXIII, Link: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A30349.0001.001/1:7.24?rgn=div2;view=fulltext
John Bradford, Letter to Lady Vane, vol. ii, p.143.
John Bradford, Talk Between Dr. Harpsfield, Archdeacon, and Master Bradford, vol. i. pp. 505-506
James Pilkington, The Burning of St. Paul's Church : A Confutation of an Addition, &c. I. — Committing the rule, &c. pp. 493-494.
James Pilkington, The Burning of St. Paul's Church : A Confutation of an Addition, &c., XI. — If Christ's Church has ever been a succession of Bishops, pp. 597 - 600.
Thomas Becon, The Sixth part of the Catechism, Of the Offices of all degrees, The Minister of God's Word, Vol. ii. p. 319.
John Hooper, A Godly Confession and Protestation of the Christian Faith, ch. xx. vol. ii. p. 90. 7.
John Hooper, Answer to the Bishop of Winchester's Book, vol. i. p. 138. 6.
Abp. John Whitgift, The Defence of the Answer to the Admonition against the Reply to T. C., Tract ii. chap. i. second division, vol. i. pp. 184, 185.
Abp. John Whitgift, The Defence of the Answer to the Admonition against the Reply to T. C., Tract iii. chap. iv. the eighth division, p. 369. 4.
Abp. John Whitgift, The Defence of the Answer to the Admonition against the Reply to T. C., Tract xvii. chap. ii. the seventh division, vol. iii. pp. 175, 176.
Abp. John Whitgift, The Defence of the Answer to the Admonition against the Reply to T. C., Tract xvii, Chap. iv. the twenty-ninth division, pp. 214, 215.
Bp. Joseph Hall, The Peacemaker, sect. vi.
Bp. Joseph Hall, Defence of Humble Remonstrance.
Abp. John Bramhall, Catena Patrum on Apostolical Succession., No. 74. — Tracts for the Times, pp. 15-16.
William Whitaker, The Answer to the Tenth Reason, &c. p. 317.
William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture against the Papists, Question the Sixth, chap.iv., p. 510.
William Whitaker, The Origin of the Papacy. Quasi, de Pontif. Rom. i. cap. iii. 26.
Abp. Edmund Grindal, Letter to Henry Bullinger, August 27th, 1566. Zurich Letters, vol. i. p. 169.
Edward Reynolds, Letter to Sir Francis Knollys. Neal's History of the Puritans, vol.i, chap.vii, pp.495-498.
Richard Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, Book v, Sect. lxxvii, p. 347.
Richard Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, Book iii, sects. i. and ii., p. 130, fol. ed. 1705.
Richard Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, Book iii, Sect. iii. p. 132.
Richard Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, Book iii, Sect. x, p. 145
Richard Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, Book iii, Sect. xi. pp. 146, 147, 152, 154
Richard Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, Book vii, Sect. v, p. 380-381.
Richard Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, Book vii, Sect. xiv, p. 402-403
Abp. William Wake, Extract of a Letter from Archbishop Wake to Mr. Le Clerc, April, 1719. — Mosheim Appen. iii. No. xix.
^Alternate citation also found in J. T. Tomlinson's “The Attitude of the Church of England Towards the Ministry of Non-Episcopal Churches.”
Abp. William Wake, Letter to Father Courayer, dated from Croydon House, July 9, 1724. — Mosheim Cent, xviii. ch. xxiii.
Life of Abp. Sharp, vol. i. p. 377.
Bp. Thomas Bilson, Catena Patrum on Apostolical Succession. No. 74, p. 3, Tracts for the Times. *NOTE: This quote is under revision as a commenter challenged its use as unrepresentative of Bilson’s wider thought — it might later be deleted.
Francis Mason, Tract, p. 160, 161, 163.
Abp. William Laud, Conference with Fisher, sect. xxxix. pp. 249-250
Edward Stillingfleet, Great Probability They Observed No One Certain Form of Government in Settling Churches, sect. vii, p. 413.
Edward Stillingfleet, Great Probability They Observed No One Certain Form of Government in Settling Churches, Sects. xiii. xvi., ch. vi. Irenicum, pp. 276, 296, 297.
Edward Stillingfleet, Great Probability They Observed No One Certain Form of Government in Settling Churches, sect. xviii, pp. 321-322
Pierre François Le Courayer, A Dissertation on the Validity of the Ordinations of the English, ch. x., pp. 183-184.
I appreciate this post, as it aims to go back to the classic divines. I will just add this, pretty much all the bishops quoted, apart from Stillingfleet, believed in jure divino episcopacy. The quote from Francis Mason is from a spurious work. And I'm sorry to say, but that quote from Bilson is grossly out of context, and looks ignorant at best, or dishonest at worst. Bilson's entire work was to defend the divine right of episcopacy, and it's perpetuity and necessity throughout all generations, as well as the necessity of episcopal ordination, hence why it's called, 'The Perpetual Government of Christ's Church.' If you finish that quote, you will see Bilson is referring to the extraordinary privileges ceasing with the Apostles, i.e. miracles etc. He goes on to say, "The Scriptures, once written, suffice all ages for instruction; the miracles then done, are for ever a most evident confirmation of their doctrine; the authority of their [the Apostles] first calling liveth yet in their succession; and time and travel, joined with GOD'S graces, bring pastors at this present to perfection; yet the Apostles' charge to teach, baptize, and administer the LORD'S Supper, to bind and loose sinners in heaven and in earth, to impose hands for the ordaining of pastors and elders, these parts of the Apostolic function and charge are not decayed, and cannot be wanted in the Church of GOD. There must either be no Church, or else these must remain; for without these no Church can continue." I can provide a plethora of quotes from Bilson that would support the Tractarian position, and honestly he, out of all from the Elizabethan church, is probably the strongest voice that would support it. The paragraph before the quote from Davenant would invalidate modern non-episcopal orders. Davenant says, "It is therefore certain that the power of ordaining belongs to the office of Bishops only, and does not belong to inferior Presbyters, which is a manifest proof of Episcopal dignity and Presbyterial inferiority. But here in passing we have to solve a doubt which was not omitted by the schoolmen themselves; for it is often questioned, whether, besides a Bishop, who by his office dispenses sacred orders, can one inferior to a Bishop confer the same in case of necessity? To which I answer, seeing that to confer holy orders is by apostolical institution an act of the Episcopal office, if Presbyters in a well constituted Church do that, their act is not only unlawful but null and void. For here obtains the axiom of Hugo, What is performed contrary to the institution is accounted null. But in a disturbed Church &c." The view of the divines is that episcopacy is jure divino, but in the case where there aren't any bishops to ordain, a presbyterial ordination may be valid. The non-episcopal prots have had 500 years to receive episcopal ordination but have still rejected it, therefore nullifying their orders. The point is, is the divines only allowed for valid presbyterial orders as an exception, normatively they are still invalid, as Davenant clearly states. Also there is a consistent stream in the late 17th century and 18th century divines who don't allow for an exception case, such as Jeremy Taylor. Our divines classically were charitable to the reformed churches (I say "reformed" but I include Lutherans), and assumed that they wanted episcopacy, but couldn't get it. This is clear in Bp. Carleton's (one of the delegates to Dort) words to the reformed churches, i.e. there was a firm belief in the Apostolic, even divine origin of the episcopacy, but due to the circumstances of the day, God still could work through the presbyterial ordinations. Overall, my point is that I don't think it's entirely fair to use the argument of the divines for exceptional circumstances to prove that episcopacy isn't necessary, or that the non-episcopal reformed churches of the current day 500 years after the reformation have valid orders.