Page images
PDF
EPUB

We have shewn the sin of Simony in the Popedom in the last section. The old adage is, "The receiver is as bad as the thief." The English Bishops regularly TRADED with ROME in simoniacal traffick. Evidence enough is found in Bishop Godwin's Lives of the English Prelates. The Court of Rome sold every thing. "Sometimes," says Godwin, "those who had purchased, were, by a fraudulent clause in a subsequent Bull, thrown out of their purchase." It was then sold to a second huxter, and the Pope received double. Page 106. John of Oxford, Bishop of Winchester, paid 6000 marks to the Pope for his consecration, and the same sum to Jordan, the Pope's Chancellor. Godwin, page 222. Greenfield, Archbishop of York was two years before he could obtain his confirmation and consecration from the Pope, and then he paid 9500 marks for the favor. Godwin, page 685.

"These and other enormities, viz. all manner of avarice, usury, simony, and rapine; all kinds of luxury, libidinousness, gluttony, and pride, reign in the Court of Rome,—

Ejus avaritiæ totus non sufficit orbis

Ejus Luxuriæ meretrix non sufficit omnis." (f)

[ocr errors]

When

The incapacity of these Lord Bishops was often ludicrous. Beaumont was made Bishop of Durham, Godwin says, "he was lame of both feet, and so illiterate that he could not read the Documents of his consecration. The word Metropolitice occurring, he hesitated, and being unable to pronounce it, he exclaimed, Let us skip it and go on.' So also when he came to the term ænigmate, sticking in the mud again," says Godwin, "he burst out into these words, By Saint Lewis! he was very uncourteous who wrote that word there.' His next successor but one in the same see, was Thomas Hatfield. When the Pope was reasoned with that Hatfield was a young, trifling fellow, without either knowledge, gravity, or sincerity, he answered, 'If the King of England, (who had requested the Pope to consecrate this Hatfield) had asked me now to make an Ass a BISHOP, I WOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED HIM.' Godwin, page 750.

That ALL BISHOPS were PLEDGED to POPERY before the Reformation, will be evident from the account of the Pall,and the Bishop's OATH of fidelity to the POPE. Fox, the venerable Martyrologist, shall state this matter: "This Pope, (Alex. III.) among many other his acts, had certain Councils, some in France, some at Rome in Lateran, by whom it was decreed, that no Archbishop should receive the Pall, unless he should first swear. Concerning the solemnity of which Pall, for the order and manner of giving and taking the same, with obedience to the Pope, as it is contained in their own words, I thought it good to set forth unto thee, that thou mayest well consider and understand their doings."

(f) Archdeacon Mason's Vindic. Eccles. Anglican, p. 522.

"The form and manner, how and by what words the Pope is wont to give the Pall unto the Archbishop: in English:"

"To the honor of Almighty God, and of Blessed Mary, the Virgin, and of blessed Peter and Paul, AND OF OUR LORD POPE N., and of THE Holy CHURCH OF ROME, and also of the church N. committed to your charge, we give to you the Pall, taken from the body of St. Peter, as a fulness of the office Pontifical, which you may wear within your own church upon certain days, which be expressed in the Priviledges of the said church, granted by the See Apostolick."

"In like manner proceedeth the OATH of every Bishop SWEARING OBEDIENCE TO THE POPE, in like words as followeth: in English:"

"I, N., Bishop of N., from this hour henceforth, will be FAITHFUL and OBEDIENT to blessed St. Peter, and to the holy Apostolick Church of Rome, and to MY LORD N. THE POPE. I shall be in no Council, nor help either with my consent or deed, whereby either of them, or any member of them may be impaired, or whereby they may be taken with any evil taking. The council which they shall commit to me either by themselves, or by messengers, or by their letters, wittingly or willingly I shall utter to none to their hindrance. To the RETAINING and MAINTAINING the PAPACY OF ROME, and the Regalities of St. Peter, I shall be aider (so mine order be saved) against all persons, &c. So GOD HELP ME AND THESE HOLY GOSPELS OF GOD." (g)

"Both the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he of York, from the time of Austin and Paulinus, down to the reign of Henry VIII (saving that eight of this Province (York) had it not, viz. those between Paulinus and Egbert) received a PALL from Rome, for which they paid an unreasonable sum. This Pall was a supernumeral Robe of Lamb's wool, curiously adorned, and worn by the Archbishop when he celebrated: it is STILL the ARMS or Device of the ARCHBISHOPRICK OF CANTERBURY. 'Twas pretended to be an Ensign of Archiepiscopal Authority, but was in REALITY a BADGE of SLAVERY to the SEE of Rome."(h) And will the Metropolitan of all England continue to bear, in the most distinguished place and manner, in REALITY a BADGE of SLAVERY to the SEE of Rome ?" Let the church of England put such things away. They are discreditable and injurious to the cause of Protestantism in general.

(g) Fox's Acts and Monuments, p, 259, vol. 1. fol. edit. Lond. 1684.
(h) Johnson's Clergyman's Vade Mecum, vol. 1. p. 41. 4th edition, 1745.

S

SECTION XIII.

wwww

NULLITY OF POPISH ORDINATIONS OF ENGLISH BISHOPS CONCLUDED.

Our way is now clear for the more immediate discussion of Popish Ordinations. We will briefly shew what Ordination is,—what are the scriptural regulations—and then TRY Popish ordinations by these rules.

Ordination is that act of the church by which persons are solemnly set apart to the Ministry of the gospel. Every true Minister is first called of God. This is distinctly acknowledged in the ordination service of the Church of England. Before any man is ordained a Minister of the Word, he professes to "be moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon him that office." This is right. Every Minister, in the settled state of the church, should have the call of the Church also, as subordinate and subsequent to the call of God. This call of the church, in a complete sense, however performed, is ordination. It is usually performed by laying on the hands of the Ministers. Apostolical usage countenances this form; but no particular form was ever made NECESSARY. The priests under the law had no imposition of hands; the Apostles had no imposition of hands; it is never commanded. It is decent and proper, but not ESSENTIAL, not necessary to ordination.

The Scriptural regulations as to Ordination, regard the ordainers, and the ordained:

The ordainers must be "Faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." 2 Tim. ii. 2.

First, they are to be true Christians, true believers, for less than this they cannot be, to answer the divine requisition—" FAITHFUL MEN." Then they must be faithful to the truth and trust of the gospel. The Minister, who is himself not a converted character, is a moral monster. The Shepherd that has not himself come into the sheepfold by Christ as the door, is a wolf, a thief, and a robber. The whole of the 2nd and 3rd Chapters of the above Epistle of Paul to Timothy, will substantiate all I say.

The persons to be ordained :—The QUALIFICATIONS of these persons are laid down by divine authority: 1 Tim. iii. 1—7. Titus iv. 5—9., and other places. Here PERSONAL PIETY; an UNBLAMEABLE life; knowledge of the GOSPEL; ABILITY to teach, &c., are strictly required. God never called any man who had not these Qualifications; and for any human authority knowingly to put such an one into the Ministry, is to break God's ordinances, to introduce wolves instead of shepherds into the fold of Christ; and to increase the condemnation of the man so obtruded upon the church. He

who ordains a wicked man to the ministry, is a traitor to God and the church. Such is the view we derive from this supreme authority. If men speak according to these oracles let us hear them; but, if otherwise, they are of no authority. Let God be true, though every man be a liar.

In

Our English Reformers have some fine remarks on this subject. the Declaration made of the Functions and Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests by the Convocation, as noticed above, they say, "This office, &c. is subject, determined, and restrained unto those certain limits and ends for the which the same was appointed by GOD'S ORDINANCE; which, as was said before, is only to administer and distribute unto the members of Christ's mystical body, spiritual and everlasting things; that is to say, the pure and heavenly doctrine of Christ's Gospel, and the graces conferred in his sacraments. And therefore this said power and administration is called in some places of Scripture, donum et gratia, a gift and grace; in some places it is called claves sive potestas Clavium, that is to say, the Keys, or the Power of the Keys; whereby is signified a certain limited office, restrained unto the execution of a special Function or Ministration, according to the saying of St. Paul in his first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, and in the fourth chapter of his first Epistle to Timothy, and also in the fourth chapter of his Epistle to the Ephesians." After a lengthened comment on the last reference, they conclude thus: " By which words it appeareth evidently, not only that St. Paul accounted and numbered this said Power and Office of the Pastors and Doctors among the PROPER and SPECIAL GIFTS of the HOLY GHOST, but also it appeareth that the same was a LIMITED POWER and office: ordained especially and ONLY for the causes and PURPOSES before rehearsed." These are golden sentences. Let these rules be observed, and a universal Reformation must be the consequence; but if the traditions of men are preferred to the commandments of God, men so sent will preach in vain: GOD NEVER SENT THEM. He will not forsake his faithful people: but such men shall not profit them. This is substantially the meaning of Art. 26 in the Church of England. It gives too much authority to such men; but its principal design is to shew that the effect of Christ's Ordinance is NOT taken away by their wickedness" from such as by faith and rightly do receive the sacraments," i. e. that the true Shepherd will not forsake his flock because wolves happen to be over them. Very true. But this will not prove that a wolf is either a sheep or a shepherd. Woe to the men, who on such a principle, place wolves over the flock of Christ!

The desire to maintain an external unity led to an early corruption in this matter. For the honor of the church, and to prevent divisions, as the Fathers state, ordination was very generally given up into the hands of the Bishops. Many of them became tyrannical, proud, and worldly. And what made the case worse still, was, that during the fourth century the

greatest part of them became ARIANS, denying the true Godhead of Christ, and the Personality and Divinity of the Holy Ghost. Now what was to be done, when those who maintained the orthodox faith began again to prevail ? They must either deny that heretics, as the Arians were, could give true orders, and consequently altogether reject the Arian Bishops, and their ordinations, or they must receive their orders as valid and Christian. Well, to PATCH up the matter, and save the HONOR of the BISHOPS, they generally received the ordinations of the Arians. And it is probable that nearly all the episcopal ordinations in the world have come from Arians. A glorious succession! Then followed the attempt to find reasons, and make decrees, to justify such UNSCRIPTURAL and ABSURD proceedings. For what can be more unscriptural and absurd than to pretend that a man, who REFUSES to RECEIVE JESUS CHRIST, by refusing to "honor the Son even as he honors the Father?" (John v. 23.)—That such a man, I say, can have a commission from Christ, to ORDAIN others TO DENY HIM also? To pretend to salve this by saying, that if he uses the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and does this by the AUTHORITY of the CHURCH, his acts are valid, is a sophism. The authority of the church is LIMITED by the Scriptures,by the authority of God: the church, therefore, can give no authority contrary to the Scriptures; but the Scriptures "reject all heretics :-all that "deny the Lord that bought them," 2 Pet. ii. 1-therefore the church can give such heretics no authority. See Section 4th. The words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are either used according to Scripture truth, or they are not. If an Arian should use them, according to Scripture, (an impossible supposition) he comes to God with a LIE in his mouth, i. e. he pronounces as true, what HE BELIEVES TO BE FALSE, and this he does with the intention of deceiving both God and man. To suppose Christ would set his seal to this lie, would be blasphemy. An Arian, therefore, cannot use them in a true sense. Suppose, then, that he uses them in a perverted sense; did Christ ever give him a commission to pervert his truth, and to appoint others to pervert it? This again is blasphemous and absurd. An Arian, therefore, has no commission: HE CAN GIVE NONE. All he does is null and void to all intents and purposes. A righteous division is better than a sinful unity. The orthodox should have acted on this principle. However, too much wickedness in life had at that time spread over those parts which held the orthodox view of the Trinity, so that there was not moral courage enough to resist and counteract these abominations. Heresy is destructive; and faith, without works, is dead. Nothing but a living fruitful faith can conquer the world.

SIMONY is a point to be well considered here. Though this was an early evil, yet as it never could be embraced by any part of the church as a mark of a sect or division in the church, so no perverse attempts to defend it were laboured out by perverted ingenuity. It has always been

« PreviousContinue »