nion in the christian world, they endeavoured to promote their carnal objects by spiritual pretences; as these were likely to have most weight with the credulous multitude. If, therefore, an apostle, or an evangelist had only visited the city where a bishop afterwards resided; or, if a passable fiction to that effect could be invented, he was reckoned the first bishop of that church; because this would give respectability and authority to the successors of so eminent a servant of God. Thus Peter was made bishop of both Antioch and Rome, James of Jerusalem, Mark of Alexandria, Ananias of Damascus, Barnabas of Milan, Silas of Corinth, Timothy of Ephesus, Titus of Crete, Epaphroditus of Philippi, etc., etc. The bishops of Rome laid claim to Peter as their spiritual father, though it is doubted by many whether he ever saw Rome. The next step was to make him the chief or prince of the apostles, and then to make his successors the princes or lords of the universal church. If this succession could be traced, its history would furnish many amusing anecdotes; but the number of astonishing miracles connected with it, are sufficient to excite the suspicion of the incredulous. Eusebius gives a very diverting account of the election of Fabian.* When the people were assembled to choose a bishop, they observed a dove to settle upon Fabian's head; this was taken for an emblem of the Holy Ghost, and they immediately and unanimously fixed upon him for their pastor. Whether this was a trick of Fabian to obtain a bishopric, or a story framed by priests, to colour over some irregularity in the proceedings, it is difficult to say. Suppose a Methodist were to plead, as a proof of his call to the ministry, that a pigeon, or a goose, had settled upon his head, how would all the regular clergy exclaim against the enthusiasm and fanaticism of the preacher! but when such a prodigy occurs at the election of an orthodox bishop, it is, no doubt, a special divine interposition! * Lib. vi., ch. xxix. But supposing it were proved ever so clearly, that there has been an uninterrupted succession of episcopally ordained ministers in the church, and that our clergy are included in this succession; it is still easy to show that the course of the Spirit has been interrupted, and this renders the outward succession of no value whatever. Suppose the charter of a nation's liberties were deposited in an iron chest, and an order of men appointed to have the custody of it; if the charter by any means were lost, how ridiculous it would appear in these gentlemen, were they still to keep up their order by a ceremonious incorporation of new members to fill up the occurring vacancies, and to stand sentry in their pompous robes of office over the empty box. According to the canons of the ancient church, there are many things which will nullify the ordination of a bishop; such as diabolical possession, simony, heresy, immorality, etc.* An ordination ought not to be annulled, if the Holy Ghost be actually given; because in this case God has approved and confirmed the work of his servants; and no authority on earth has a right to undo what bears the stamp of divine approbation. The business, therefore, of unmaking a bishop, goes upon the supposition, that he did not receive the Holy Ghost at his consecration, in consequence of his not coming up to the canonical character of a candidate for the high and holy office. But the history of the church furnishes innumerable instances of persons who were not canonically qualified, being consecrated; and these, by consecrating others, have perpetuated the succession. No man can impart to another what he does not possess himself; and therefore all the successors of an uncanonical bishop, must be destitute of the Spirit of God. Hence it follows, that an uninterrupted succession of episcopally ordained men, if it could be made out, would avail nothing, since it is a fact that the course of the Spirit has been interrupted many centuries ago, by the ordination of improper persons. * Bingham's Antiquities, book xvii., chap. v. There is no way of getting over this difficulty but by rejecting, as some have done, the authority of the ancient canons, and insisting that the sins of men cannot interrupt the Spirit of God. Those who entertain this sentiment, suppose that the Spirit is given to a bishop, not for his own benefit, but for the good of the church and therefore, though personally his lordship may be as wicked as the devil, yet ministerially he is full of the Holy Ghost. What was the father of the faithful, in comparison of such believers as these! The authority of these canons, however, is acknowledged by the church of England. At the consecration of a bishop we are informed, that "the archbishop, sitting in his chair, shall say to him that is to be consecrated, 'Brother, forasmuch as the holy Scripture, and the ancient canons command, that we should not be hasty in laying on hands, and admitting any person to government in the church of Christ, etc.'" Let us inquire into the reason of these canonical nullities. Diabolical possession, according to the canons, is sufficient to annul the ordination of a bishop. This goes upon the supposition, that the Holy Ghost will not enter a heart which he finds pre-occupied by the devil. This is modest. If the canon be wrong, we must suppose, either that the Holy Spirit and Beelzebub agree to live together, which is contrary to the apostle, who asks, "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" or else, that the old serpent slinks away as the Holy Ghost enters. But if this latter be the fact, how shall we account for the vices of some of the holy order, who have not come behind the very chief of sinners? If a pope, who is full of the Holy Ghost, can be as wicked as a layman, who is full of the devil; what would his holiness be, if left to himself? As to simony, or the purchasing a bishopric with money, which takes its name from Simon Magus, who wanted to strike a bargain for the divine Spirit with the apostle Peter, nothing can be more clear than that the canons which annul the ordination of a bishop guilty of this sin, are supported by sacred Scripture. "And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostle's hands, the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God." (Acts viii. 18-21.) If this passage does not teach that the Holy Ghost cannot, like worldly commodities, be purchased with money, there can be no meaning in language. We have then the best warrant in the world for saying, that the divine Spirit never entered into the head or heart of a simonist. "In the eleventh century," says Dr. Jortin, simony was universally practised, particularly in Italy. St. Romualdus exerted himself, and preached against it with vehemence. But, says Damianus, the writer of his life, (who was a bishop,) I much question whether he ever reformed one man: for this poisonous heresy is the most stubborn and difficult of all to be cured, especially amongst the clergy of higher rank. They promise amendment, and they defer it from day to day; so that it is easier even to convert a Jew than a bishop.' Let the advocates for the succession tell us where the Spirit was when the bishops were universally guilty of simony, and not one of them could be reformed! If it were granted that a wicked bishop in the church is filled with the Spirit, yet it will not be maintained that he carries the Spirit out of it, when he either leaves it voluntarily, or is cut off from it. The sin of schism is of such a nature, that, according to the unanimous testimony of both papists and protestants, the party guilty of it is cut off from Christ. But there have been schisms in all ages of the church, and many of the schismatical bishops have perpetuated the sucHear the author of the Case of the Regale, cession. * Rem. on Ecclesiastical History, vol. iii., p. 120. a stanch asserter of the divine right of episcopacy: "It would be hard,” says he, "to find a bishop against whom some of these objections (relating to the succession) do not lie. For example: all the bishops of the reformation, as well in England as elsewhere, are struck off at one blow; for they were all derived from those whom they now account to be, and then to have been, heretics. And the ordinations of the church of Rome must go off too, especially since the council of Constance, that turned out all the popes that were then in the world,* which were three anti-popes contending one with another. And they cannot say of any of their ordinations at this day, that they are not derived from some of the anti-popes. Nay, all the churches, as far as the Arian heresy reached, may come under this objection; for many of their ordinations were derived from some or other who were Arians, Semi-Arians, etc."† Bellarmine acknowledges, "That for above eighty years together, the church, for want of a lawful pope, had no other head than what was in heaven." And Baronius complains, "How deformed was the Roman church, when whores, no less powerful than vile, bore the chief sway at Rome, and at their pleasure, changed sees, and appointed bishops; and which is horrible to mention, did thrust into St. Peter's see their own gallants, false popes! Christ was then, it seems, in a very deep sleep; and, which was worse, when the Lord was thus asleep, there were no disciples to awaken him, being themselves all fast asleep. What kind of cardinals can we think were chosen by these monsters?" + Such is the account given by these two famous popish historians! Who can look this in the face and still plead for the succession? To come to the church of England; she is either guilty of schism, in leaving the church of Rome, or The sin was not in turning them out, but in letting them in again. |