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.
I appreciate the thoughtful engagement! As I stated in the introduction to the article, most (if not all) of the Anglicans listed here were fierce defenders of the episcopacy – whether they believed it to be jure divino or simply a proper and opportune development in Church History. I also provided a definition of what I meant by “Strict Apostolic Succession,” which includes more than just the idea that the episcopacy is jure divino. Here is that definition from the intro:
“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, the episcopacy is regarded as a mandatory, jure divino apostolic institution, and this sort of strict succession is seen as an absolutely necessary mark of the true church.”
One can believe that the episcopacy as church polity is jure divino, without also then denying the validity of presbyteral ordination – there is simply no inherent contradiction in the belief that ordination is a power which both presbyter and bishop hold alike, while it is most proper for bishops to solely exercise it. A jure divino proponent can simply say that presbyteral ordination, while valid, is also not in good order in the same way that one can accept a layperson’s baptism of another layperson as valid, while also believing it to be outside of good order, since it is most proper for the administration of baptism to be exclusively reserved for the pastor of a given congregation.
Thank you for the added context you provided for John Davenant’s quote – I will make sure to add it to the quote listed on the article, along with a bit more text than you mentioned here as well. However, I do not see that added context as meaningfully changing the meaning of the quote I had already included; it is clear that Davenant is speaking about a crisis situation in the original quote as I provided it.
Regarding your point about the Bilson quote: I will gladly remove it from the article if you can please point me to a longer work by him that I can read wherein he expresses the strict apostolic succession view. This is one of the quotes which I found quoted by someone else, so I would certainly not want to use it if Bilson believed otherwise than is stated – if that’s the case, thank you for pointing that out.
Lastly, I would also like to point one final fact: these are just two of the quotes from a collection of 40+ quotes from Anglican divines & other important Anglican theologians. Not all of these quotes address the totality nor the exact same components of strict apostolic succession as I defined it in exactly the same way, but I stand by the fact that they do pertain to the topic at hand, and are far more nuanced than many Anglo-Catholics today would like them to be. In fact, I think many of these quotes outright reject several key components of the view.
Thank you for responding, I appreciate your charity. Also, I didn't mean to insinuate that you dishonestly quote mined, it may have came off that way tho, which is my bad. I will admit that the strict Apostolic succession view was not unanimous in the divines, and didn't gain popularity until at least post-restoration or later, though jure divino episcopacy was the norm as Stillingfleet himself admitted.
My overall point is that context is key. Why did these divines believe what they did, and would their reasons (namely exceptional circumstance) hold up in our current situation. My answer is no. If you are looking merely whether they accepted presbyterial ordination as valid in extreme circumstances, most of them did, particularly pre-restoration. But the more important question is why. This is why I quoted the context from Davenant, his argument is that in a "well-constituted church" where there are bishops available to ordain, a rejection of episcopal ordination and instead embracing a presbyterian ordination renders it "null and void." This is more than just a valid-licit distinction, he explicitly says that in normal circumstances, presbyterian ordination is invalid, whereas you can't say the same with lay-baptism. He also uses the example of Aerius being stripped of his status and being referred to as a layman, due to his presbyterial ordination. I think this is important. Would the modern presbyterian or non-episcopal Lutheran tick off the "exceptional circumstance" that the divines held to? I think not, as they have had 500 years to receive an episcopal ordination but still haven't, and with modern transportation technology there is honestly no excuse.
Regarding Bilson, I recommend you read chapters 9-14 of 'The Perpetual Government of Christ's Church' (ideally read the whole thing, but it's very long and tedious so it's a bit unrealistic). Some quotes I can think of from these chapters regarding succession are:
“To create ministers by imposing hands, is to give them, not only power and leave to preach the word and dispense the sacraments, but also the grace of the Holy Ghost to make them able to execute both parts of their function. This can none give, but they that first received the same. They must have this power and grace themselves, that will bestow it on others. Laymen which have it not, can by no means give it; and consequently not impose hands, which is the sign and seal of both.” (chap. 9)
"Again, it cannot be doubted, but the moderation of the keys and imposition of hands were at first settled in the apostles, and exercised by them, as I have already made proof by the scriptures, and neither the people nor lay-elders succeed the apostles, but only the pastors and ministers of the word and sacraments. They can have no part of the apostolic commission, that have no show of apostolic succession. They must look not only what they challenge, but also from whom they derive it; if from the apostles, then are they their successors; if from Christ, as colleagues joined with the apostles, we must find that consociation in the gospel, before we clear them from intrusion." (chap. 9)
"Indeed, if succession of episcopal power came from the apostles to them, and so to their successors, we shall soon conclude that bishops came from the apostles, and therefore you [puritan opponent] do wisely to resist it: but by your patience you must endure it, the best stories and writers of the primitive church do make them bishops, and likewise Paul's precepts to them, the very patterns of episcopal charge and duty." (chap. 12)
"The things proper to bishops, which might not be common to presbyters, were singularity in succeeding and superiority in ordaining. These two, the scriptures and fathers reserve only to bishops; they never communicate them unto presbyters. In every church and city there might be many presbyters; there could be but one chief to govern the rest: the presbyters for need might impose hands on penitents and infants; but by no means might they ordain bishops or ministers of the word and sacraments." (chap. 13)
I think the real debate is whether Stillingfleet's view is valid in the Anglican tradition. Personally I disagree with him, and think there is tension between his view and the view of the formularies, though I wouldn't rule him out entirely. I think he's probably the best divine to read to support the validity of presbyterial ordination.
Thank you for your response. I appreciate you taking the time to pull up these additional Bilson citations for me; I will look into the portions of Bilson’s work that you cited and update my usage of his quote accordingly.
Regarding your point about presbyterial ordination only being allowed in instances of chaos in the church – that is a position which is held and expressed by some, but not all, of the theologians I have listed in this article. That being said, even that position severely undermines the strict apostolic succession view as I defined it in my introduction to the article (whose wording I have just updated to help clear away any confusion). The strict apostolic succession view functions as a self-perpetuating closed loop wherein an individual cannot enter the loop unless access be granted to it by another individual already within the loop. Such a system cannot have exceptions; otherwise, it ceases to be the strict, closed loop that it is purported to be. Especially when those exceptions include individuals who are not within the closed loop letting other individuals into the closed loop which they themselves have no access to – since presbyters are not part of the “loop” that can give succession in the first place. In other words, someone can't give what they don't intrinsically have, even in the case of emergencies – and that's the issue with this “law of emergency” reasoning.
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.
I appreciate the thoughtful engagement! As I stated in the introduction to the article, most (if not all) of the Anglicans listed here were fierce defenders of the episcopacy – whether they believed it to be jure divino or simply a proper and opportune development in Church History. I also provided a definition of what I meant by “Strict Apostolic Succession,” which includes more than just the idea that the episcopacy is jure divino. Here is that definition from the intro:
“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, the episcopacy is regarded as a mandatory, jure divino apostolic institution, and this sort of strict succession is seen as an absolutely necessary mark of the true church.”
One can believe that the episcopacy as church polity is jure divino, without also then denying the validity of presbyteral ordination – there is simply no inherent contradiction in the belief that ordination is a power which both presbyter and bishop hold alike, while it is most proper for bishops to solely exercise it. A jure divino proponent can simply say that presbyteral ordination, while valid, is also not in good order in the same way that one can accept a layperson’s baptism of another layperson as valid, while also believing it to be outside of good order, since it is most proper for the administration of baptism to be exclusively reserved for the pastor of a given congregation.
Thank you for the added context you provided for John Davenant’s quote – I will make sure to add it to the quote listed on the article, along with a bit more text than you mentioned here as well. However, I do not see that added context as meaningfully changing the meaning of the quote I had already included; it is clear that Davenant is speaking about a crisis situation in the original quote as I provided it.
Regarding your point about the Bilson quote: I will gladly remove it from the article if you can please point me to a longer work by him that I can read wherein he expresses the strict apostolic succession view. This is one of the quotes which I found quoted by someone else, so I would certainly not want to use it if Bilson believed otherwise than is stated – if that’s the case, thank you for pointing that out.
Lastly, I would also like to point one final fact: these are just two of the quotes from a collection of 40+ quotes from Anglican divines & other important Anglican theologians. Not all of these quotes address the totality nor the exact same components of strict apostolic succession as I defined it in exactly the same way, but I stand by the fact that they do pertain to the topic at hand, and are far more nuanced than many Anglo-Catholics today would like them to be. In fact, I think many of these quotes outright reject several key components of the view.
Thank you again for reading and for your comment!
Thank you for responding, I appreciate your charity. Also, I didn't mean to insinuate that you dishonestly quote mined, it may have came off that way tho, which is my bad. I will admit that the strict Apostolic succession view was not unanimous in the divines, and didn't gain popularity until at least post-restoration or later, though jure divino episcopacy was the norm as Stillingfleet himself admitted.
My overall point is that context is key. Why did these divines believe what they did, and would their reasons (namely exceptional circumstance) hold up in our current situation. My answer is no. If you are looking merely whether they accepted presbyterial ordination as valid in extreme circumstances, most of them did, particularly pre-restoration. But the more important question is why. This is why I quoted the context from Davenant, his argument is that in a "well-constituted church" where there are bishops available to ordain, a rejection of episcopal ordination and instead embracing a presbyterian ordination renders it "null and void." This is more than just a valid-licit distinction, he explicitly says that in normal circumstances, presbyterian ordination is invalid, whereas you can't say the same with lay-baptism. He also uses the example of Aerius being stripped of his status and being referred to as a layman, due to his presbyterial ordination. I think this is important. Would the modern presbyterian or non-episcopal Lutheran tick off the "exceptional circumstance" that the divines held to? I think not, as they have had 500 years to receive an episcopal ordination but still haven't, and with modern transportation technology there is honestly no excuse.
Regarding Bilson, I recommend you read chapters 9-14 of 'The Perpetual Government of Christ's Church' (ideally read the whole thing, but it's very long and tedious so it's a bit unrealistic). Some quotes I can think of from these chapters regarding succession are:
“To create ministers by imposing hands, is to give them, not only power and leave to preach the word and dispense the sacraments, but also the grace of the Holy Ghost to make them able to execute both parts of their function. This can none give, but they that first received the same. They must have this power and grace themselves, that will bestow it on others. Laymen which have it not, can by no means give it; and consequently not impose hands, which is the sign and seal of both.” (chap. 9)
"Again, it cannot be doubted, but the moderation of the keys and imposition of hands were at first settled in the apostles, and exercised by them, as I have already made proof by the scriptures, and neither the people nor lay-elders succeed the apostles, but only the pastors and ministers of the word and sacraments. They can have no part of the apostolic commission, that have no show of apostolic succession. They must look not only what they challenge, but also from whom they derive it; if from the apostles, then are they their successors; if from Christ, as colleagues joined with the apostles, we must find that consociation in the gospel, before we clear them from intrusion." (chap. 9)
"Indeed, if succession of episcopal power came from the apostles to them, and so to their successors, we shall soon conclude that bishops came from the apostles, and therefore you [puritan opponent] do wisely to resist it: but by your patience you must endure it, the best stories and writers of the primitive church do make them bishops, and likewise Paul's precepts to them, the very patterns of episcopal charge and duty." (chap. 12)
"The things proper to bishops, which might not be common to presbyters, were singularity in succeeding and superiority in ordaining. These two, the scriptures and fathers reserve only to bishops; they never communicate them unto presbyters. In every church and city there might be many presbyters; there could be but one chief to govern the rest: the presbyters for need might impose hands on penitents and infants; but by no means might they ordain bishops or ministers of the word and sacraments." (chap. 13)
I think the real debate is whether Stillingfleet's view is valid in the Anglican tradition. Personally I disagree with him, and think there is tension between his view and the view of the formularies, though I wouldn't rule him out entirely. I think he's probably the best divine to read to support the validity of presbyterial ordination.
Thank you for your response. I appreciate you taking the time to pull up these additional Bilson citations for me; I will look into the portions of Bilson’s work that you cited and update my usage of his quote accordingly.
Regarding your point about presbyterial ordination only being allowed in instances of chaos in the church – that is a position which is held and expressed by some, but not all, of the theologians I have listed in this article. That being said, even that position severely undermines the strict apostolic succession view as I defined it in my introduction to the article (whose wording I have just updated to help clear away any confusion). The strict apostolic succession view functions as a self-perpetuating closed loop wherein an individual cannot enter the loop unless access be granted to it by another individual already within the loop. Such a system cannot have exceptions; otherwise, it ceases to be the strict, closed loop that it is purported to be. Especially when those exceptions include individuals who are not within the closed loop letting other individuals into the closed loop which they themselves have no access to – since presbyters are not part of the “loop” that can give succession in the first place. In other words, someone can't give what they don't intrinsically have, even in the case of emergencies – and that's the issue with this “law of emergency” reasoning.
I appreciate your charity in this discussion.
Also I'm not accusing you of being deceptive, but that Bilson quotemine is probably the worst I've ever seen.