Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

you possibly reconcile the citations, which have been made from some of the principal Fathers, with your declaration, "that it has been the faith of the universal church, without exception, until the period of the reformation, that to the order of bishops alone belongs the power of ordaining ministers?"

To many it is thought not a little strange, that the English church should set up so high claims to a divinely protected succession, and at the same time exhibit such unequivocal manifestations of abhorrence and contempt, of the venerable mother church, from which it is descended. Nothing can exceed the abuse, which it has poured out on the church of Rome, ever since the separation. Scarcely a theological work appeared in the English language, for the two first centuries after this period, which did not contain more or less about the horrors and pollutions of popery. The Homilies themselves, which were appointed, and are still required by the articles, to be read at stated times in the churches, are very full and direct on this subject. The whole three sermons against the peril of idolatry, are aimed at the depravity of the Romish church. How can they, who have such an opinion of the church of Rome, suppose it to be the true church of the Lord Jesus? What do they find in the ministry of this church, which, according to their own account, can convince them, that it has been from its

* According to one of the homilies, "She (the idolatrous church of Rome) is not only a harlot, as the scripture calleth her, but a foul, filthy, old, withered harlot the foulest and filthiest harlot, that ever was seen the great strumpet of all strumpets." There is a full page of this kind of language. Homilies, Fol. 1713, p. 162. Sermon against the Peril of Idolatry, Third Part.

[ocr errors]

origin under a divine influence? Most persons would think it to be a mark of wisdom, to say as little as possible about a succession which they acknowledge has come through such a channel, as they describe in the church of Rome.

Another thing is somewhat puzzling. How can the English clergy claim their authority from the apostles, when it is one of the fundamental doctrines of the church, that it is derived from the king? By an act of parliament at the very commencement of the English reformation, it was decreed, that "the king's majesty justly and rightfully is, and ought to be, the supreme head of the church of England;"* and according to the thirty-sixth canon, every person, before he enters the ministry, must acknowledge the "king's majesty, under God, to be the only supreme governor of the realm-as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal." Has not the king power to suspend bishops, and prohibit them from exercising the functions of their office?

Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, and one of the most learned of the catholics, has written largely on the English reformation, and made it appear, in the most conclusive manner, that this church can make no claims to any ecclesiastical authority, derived from the catholic church. He has taken his historical facts entirely from Burnet, whom no one can accuse of partiality for the catholic religion, and whom no one will deny to have been an able advocate of the reformation, "a distinct narrative of which," he says, "makes its apology, as well as its history." Yet from the

* See Records and Instruments, No. 2. attached to Courayer's Defence.

faithful history of Burnet, nothing is more clear, than that the English church, instead of being a stately pillar in the Romish episcopacy, was raised out of its ruins.

In the very outset of the reformation, in the time of Henry VIII. it was laid down as a maxim, “that the king was pope in England.". Edward VI. retained the same authority, and the bishops took out new commissions from him, which were to be "revoked at the king's pleasure." The bishops held only a precarious power, which was to be resigned at the will of the king. They had power to ordain and dismiss ministers, but they were required to do it “in his name and under his authority." In short, it was decreed in parliament, that "no one could have any jurisdiction, either temporal, or spiritual, which was not derived from the king, as its source.”*

Had the reformers believed in the divine right of episcopal jurisdiction is it possible, that they would thus have taken every vestige of power from the bishops, and given it into the hands of kings? But whatever may have been their opinions on this subject, it is certain they did not derive, nor profess to derive, their authority from any ecclesiastical source.

* Oeuvres de Bossuet, Tom. xix. et xx. Historie des Variations des Eglises Protestantes, liv. vii. Burnet's History of the Reformation, Part ii.

In his concluding remarks on the control of the king, and of the civil authority, over the power of the bishops, Bossuet observes, "Nul acte ecclésiastique, pas même ceux qui regardent la prédication, les censures, la liturgie, les sacremens, et la foi même, n'a de force en Angleterre qu'autant qu'il est approuvé et validé par les rois; ce qui au fond donne aux rois plus que la parole, et plus que l'administration des sacremens, puisqu'il les rend souverains arbitres de l'un et de l'autre." Hist. des Var. Liv. 10.

[ocr errors]

If the bishops were descended from the apostles, then it must have been by virtue of this descent, and this alone, that they possessed spiritual authority. It was not an authority of which kings or parliaments could deprive them, and it showed a deplorable defection of principle, or a pitiable weakness, to bow at the shrine of human greatness, if they were conscious of being bound by the laws of a divine authority. These men either did not believe in the divine succession, or their conduct is inexcusable. If their authority was divine, it was permanent; and yet they suffered their commissions to be revoked at the pleasure of the king, were ordained by rules prescribed by him, and ventured to publish no articles of religion, which had not received his sanction. All spiritual authority was effectually subordinate to the temporal; and how it can be argued, that these bishops were acting as the descendants of the apostles, while the existence of their authority, and the extent of their power, depended solely on the will of the king, is a question, which I must leave unanswered.

Let us go back still farther. Has not the pope power to excommunicate whom he pleases, and annul their ordinations? If so, what security is there under his authority for episcopal succession, or what is its value? If the power, which it communicates, may be destroyed by human authority, why may it not be granted by the same authority? A power, which the pope. can destoy, is in the fullest sense derived from him. There is a memorable example of this in the catholic see of Utrecht. All the bishops of this see have been regularly consecrated; but because Dominick Varlet, who a hundred years ago consecrated the first bishop,

was at that time under the censure of the pope, the whole see has ever since been declared schismatical, and each successive prelate has regularly received a renewed condemnation from the sovereign Pontiff.* A similar example is recorded by Calvin, in the case of Eugenius and Amadeus. When by the decree of the council of Basil, Eugenius was deposed, degraded, and pronounced guilty of schism, together with all the bishops and cardinals, who had united with him in opposing the council, Calvin says, the succession of the ministry was at this time virtually broken, for, "from the bosom of these heretics and rebels, have proceeded all the popes, cardinals, bishops, abbots, and priests ever since." Be this as it may, how can that ministry be said to have a divine origin, and be kept up in a divine succession, which can be suspended or annulled at the pleasure of a king, pope, or council?

I have thus gone through with a patient examination of the evidence, on which the episcopal church advances its singular pretensions to a divine origin and succession. In the scriptures I have found nothing, either in the commands of our Saviour, or of the apostles, which can justify any class of men in assuming to themselves the claim of being the only true church.

A similar result has followed from the testimony of the Fathers, and the history of the English reformation. First, it can be indisputably proved from the

* See the Pastoral Letter of archbishop Marechal, to the Congregation of Norfolk, Virginia, 1819, second edition, Appendix, p. 84.

+ Institutes; Dedication to the King, p. 25.

« PredošláPokračovať »