are found, besides a knot of conjurors, and poisoners, a crew of devilish rebels, abusing religion to varnish their damnable designs." Maximilian, (A. D. 1510,) the emperor, was wont to say, "O eternal God, if thou shouldest not watch over us, how ill would it go with the world which we govern? I, a miserable hunter, and that drunkard and wicked [pope] Julius."*

Such are the men, "the monsters," who, according to the principles of Popery, are "the rock" upon which the church of Christ is built, and against it, as so built, the gates of hell are never to prevail;-such are the men, "the monsters," who are believed to be the successors of St. Peter, and the VICARS of Christ, to which monsters Popery says, Christ has given supreme power over the whole church upon earth;-such are the men, "the monsters," through whom our high Churchmen trace their spiritual descent! Their glory is their shame.

SECTION XII.

POPISH ORDINATIONS OF ENGLISH BISHOPS BEFORE THE REFORMATION.

THE reader will keep in mind that the particular point now before us is, the NULLITY of Popish ordinations of English bishops before the Reformation. In the last section was exhibited a brief view of the monstrous wickedness, heresy, and simony of the popes themselves. The popes were the head and origin of episcopacy in those times. The master of the house at that time was, indeed, Beelzebub; what then was his household, the bishops under him, and derived from him? In this section we shall show that the episcopal ordinations in the English Church came through this "series of monsters," the popes of Rome. Sometimes this is denied; and an attempt is made to claim a better line of succession through the ancient British bishops. We shall briefly state the matter of the British bishops, and then pass on to the proof of the point proposed in this section.

* Page 143.

The first planting of Christianity in Great Britain is involved in impenetrable obscurity. The earliest authentic mention of bishops in Great Britain is A. D. 359. The Saxons came over about A. D. 450. They were enemies to Christianity, and established idolatry on its ruins in a great part of the island. Gildas (who wrote about A. D. 564) gives a shocking account of the wickedness of all ranks, and of the misery of the country in his days. He speaks of "bishops or presbyters," several times. It is somewhat remarkable, that he never, I believe, uses the conjunction copulative, and; but always, I think, the disjunctive, or "bishops or presbyters," as though at that time, in England, one was understood to imply the other. The English reformers, in their account of the divine institution of bishops and priests, frequently do the same; and expressly declare, individually, that they believe them to be one and the same office. Whatever they were in Gildas's time, none need covet succession from them. Gildas expressly calls them—the whole priesthood—“ children of the devil, who had merely the name of priests, but whose office, vilely bought, never could benefit any; whose blessing was a curse; and whose basely-bought ordination was a devilish delusion."* But these are not the British bishops alluded to. The bishops intended in this question derived their ordination from Columba and his coadjutors. The most authentic history, and indeed almost the only authentic history, of these bishops, is found in Bede's Church History of those times. Bede was an Englishman, and wrote about A. D. 731. The following is the statement he gives us about Columba and his coadjutors :"Columba was the first preacher of Christ's faith to the Pictes, dwelling beyonde the greate mountaines northward, and the first founder of a monastery in the Ile Hu, which was had in great reverence and estimation a long time, both of the Scottes [that is, Irish] and of the Pictes."† "Columban came to Britannie when the most puissaunt King Bride, Meilocheus's sonne, reigned over the Redshanks [Picts] in the ninth yere of his raigne, and did by

* Gildas de Excidio Brit., pp. 72, &c. Lond., 1838.

+ Bede's Church History, b. v, chap. 10, Dr. Stapleton's translation, printed at St. Omers, 1622, 12mo. For proofs that the term Scots meant the Irish, see Bishops Usher and Lloyd.

his learning and example of life conuert that nation to the faith of Christ, in consideration whereof the aforesaide Ile was geuen him in possession to make a monasterie; for the Ile is not greate, but as though it were fiue families by estimation. His successours kepe it until this day, where also he lieth buried, dying at the age of 77 yeres, about thirty-two yeres after that he came into Britanny to preach. But before that he travailed to Britannie, he made a famous monasterie in Ireland, which for the great store of okes, is in the Scottish [Irish] tong called Dearmach; that is to say, a filde of okes: of both which monasteries very many more religious houses were afterward erected by his scholars, both in Britannie, and also in Ireland, of all which, the same abbey that is in the Ile where in his bodie lieth buried, is the head house. This Ile is alwayes wont to haue an abbot that is a priest [presbyter] to be the RULER: to whom both the wholle countrey, and also the bishops themselves, ought, after a strange and unaccustomed order, to be subiect, according to the example of the first teacher, who was No bishop, but a priest [presbyter] and monke."* "The report is, that when King Oswald desired first to haue a PRELATE out of Scotland," (the province of the Scots or Irish,) "who might preach the faith to him and his people, an other man of a more austere stomacke was first sent: who, when after a litell while preaching to the English nacion, he did nothing prevaile, nor yet was willingly heard of the people, he returned into his countrey, and in the assembly of the ELDERS he made relacion, how that in his teaching he could do the people no good to whom he was sent, for as much as they were folks that could not be reclaymed, of a hard capacitie, and fierce of nature. Then the ELDERS (as they say) began in cousaile to treate at large what were best to be done, being no lesse desyrous that the people should attayne the saluation which they sought for, then sory that the preacher whom they sent was not receiued. When Aidan (for HE also was present at the counsaile) replyed against the PRIEST of whom I spake, saying, 'Me thinkes, brother, that you haue bene more rigorous then reason would with that unlearned audience, and that you haue not, according to the apostle's instruction, first giuen them milke of milde doc* Book iii, chap. 4.

trine, vntill being by litle and litle nourished and weaned with the worde of God, they were able to vnderstand the more perfect misteries, and fulfill the greater commandements of God.' This being sayed, al that were at the assembly, looking vpon Aidan, pondered diligentlie his saying, and concluded that he aboue the rest was worthie of that charge and bishopricke, and that he should be sent to instruct those vnlearned paynims: for he was founde to be chiefely adorned with the grace of discretion, the mother of all vertues. THUS making him bishop, THEY sent him forth to preach―sic que illum ordinantes ad dicandum miserunt."*

præ

Such is the account in Bede. From this the reader will observe, that the abbot in Columban's time was a presbyter, and no bishop; that this presbyter was the RULER of the monastery; that to this presbyter "the whole country, and also the bishops themselves, ought, after a strange and unaccustomed order, to be subject." Again, he will remark, that, in Aidan's being made bishop, the thing is done by a company of SENIORS, elders, or PRESBYTERS. This company sent another person as a PRELATE before Aidan, who had little or no success. He returned into the convent. His conduct becomes the subject of deliberation and debate; and Aidan, one of the counsel, BEFORE he himself was bishop, reads him a lecture on his mismanagement—a proof that he considered himself at least his equal in authority and jurisdiction. He addresses him also as a mere "priest" or presbyter-his office of bishop having expired, it seems, on his failing in the mission for which they had given it him. The other part of the elders, pleased with the piety and discretion of Aidan, immediately determine that he should be sent forth on this mission instead of the former, to instruct the ignorant and unlearned, "and THUS ordaining him, THEY SENT him forth to preachSIC que illum ordinantes ad prædicandum miserunt.” Now the inquiry is, who ordained and sent forth Aidan to preach? "Who!" the unbiased reader will reply-" well, the company of seniors, elders, or presbyters, to be sure! for they are the persons, and they only, of whom Bede speaks in the passage." So we think the reply must ever be made by every unprejudiced reader of Bede. There is Book iri, chap. 5.

*

not a syllable about any bishop or bishops being required, with some authority and power superlatively above these seniors, and without which it would have been sacrilege to ordain Aidan bishop. There is nothing in the history of these monasteries, abbots, and bishops, that supports such a supposition. The "council of seniors," with the abbot, who was a presbyter, made and sent forth these bishops. The abbot, "a presbyter and no bishop," ruled all these bishops when they were made. It is clear, then,

that these bishops were all ordained and sent forth in their origin by presbyters. The stream cannot rise above its fountain; their own orders were presbyterian; all the orders others derived from them must, therefore, be presbyterian also. All these British bishops, then, were presbyterian, and all orders derived from them were presbyterian orders. There is one fact mentioned by Bede which strengthens this conclusion. At the consecration of a bishop, named Chadda, Bishop Wini was assisted by two British bishops. Bede says,* that, "besides this Wini, there was not any true bishop and rightly consecrated— -canonicè ordinatus-in all Britanny." This was about A.D. 666. Theodore was made archbishop of Canterbury about 668. This Theodore was very learned in canonical matters. In his visitations, the matter of Chadda's consecration came under his notice, and he "reproved Chadda for that he was not rightly consecrated—and he did himself supplie and render complete his consecration after the right and due catholic manner-ordinationem ejus denuò catholica ratione consummavit"-he ordained him over again. Now why was this reordination, but because he considered there was something in the case of the two British bishops that, according to the canons, rendered their ordinations irregular? And what was this, but their deriving their ordination from presbyters? And, canonically speaking, this was irregular. High Churchmen are welcome to this admission. But, then, the fact of these British bishops having, in their origin, presbyterian ordination, seems undeniable. Bishop Lloyd ineffectually endeavoured to disprove this.

These men of God had laboured twenty years, and with great success, before ever the monk Austin set foot in Britain. It is a mysterious providence that that ambitious, *Book iii, chap. 28.