« PreviousContinue »
the primary source, and obtain new title-deeds. In plain terms, our prelatic neighbours must go forth on a pilgrimage to Rome for a new supply of the sacred deposit,' which, we presume, is always kept fresh in the Vatican, as the cow-pock pus is preserved in our vaccinating institutions. If it did not spoil the pleasure of their journey, we should tell them that, when they return, we shall be happy to demonstrate, even to their own satisfaction, that their trip was as fruitless as the Colchian expedition. But seriously,for it is a serious matter, and we are serious,-if these prelatists have actually convinced themselves that they do possess an unbroken canonical succession, then we must be permitted to tell them that we think as meanly of their literary acquirements, as we indignantly denounce their hypocrisy, bigotry, and uncharitableness, if, as must be the case with the better informed of them, * without any valid proof in favour of their possessing an apostolical succession, and manifold objections against it, they presume to unchurch and denounce to the uncovenanted mercies of God better men and purer churches than their own.
We have now done with Mr David Aitchison and his tract, and have spent far more time upon that production than it either deserves, or he will probably thank us for. Nor, indeed, should we bave taken the slightest notice of him or his pamphlet, which car. ries more than its own antidote along with it, if it had not supplied us with an opportunity of establishing the following points, with a summary of which we shall close this branch of the subject. We have, then, established the following points :-1st, The Church of Rome is not the mother church of our British churches; 2d, The primitive churches of this country, planted by apostles or apostolic men, were presbyterian in their form of church government; 3d, The attempt of Augustine to introduce diocesan prelacy, fail. ed in his own person, inasmuch as, being a schismatic, he had no canonical authority to confer orders in this country, and being unassisted by other prelates, he could not administer prelatical consecration ; 4th, The primitive presbyterian bishops of Scotland and
• Are we supposed uncharitable in making tbis insinuation? Then take the fol. lowing festimony of one who, while a Fellow of Oriel College, was perfectly acquainted with the private opinions of Pusey, Newman, and Keble, who were also Fellows of the same college;" In some instances," says Archbishop Whatley, (Essays on some of the Dangers to Christian Faith, &c., 1839, p. 183,) denouncing some of the opinions of the Tract leaders,—“ In some instances, to my own knowledge, and probably in many others, such notions as I allude to have been more or less countenanced by persons who are aware, or at least were (his own italics,) at first aware of their unsoundness from their supposed tendency to promote piety and morality." The Tract leaders were at the time often cbarged with the dissimulation and hypocrisy contained in this extract, but they thought it better to suffer sentence to go against them, by not appearing, rather than to appear in court, and be cast with costs and damages.
Ireland, who re-converted England and ordained its clergy, laid the substratum upon which the succeeding popish orders were reared, which orders must necessarily have partaken of the character of their basis, and which, according to the canons, were not prelatic, nor, on prelatic principles, valid ; 5th, There was in all succeeding ages, down to a century ago, a strong infusion of the presbyterian element into the Church of England and among the Scottish prelatic sectarians, by the frequent admission within their pale of ministers only presbyterially ordained, who, by the sacraments they administered, by assisting at the ordination of others, even if they did not rise to the bench themselves, must, on prelatic principles, have contaminated the whole ecclesiastical body ; and, 6th, Flaws innumerable, and of the most fatal sort, have existed in all ages from the very first, in the canonical succession of the Church of England and of the Scottish prelatic sect. These conclusions, which have been established upon an immoveable basis, demonstrate that the apostolical succession is lost among the prelatists of both ends of the island, as well as in Ireland and America, which have received their prelatic orders from Scotland and England.
And now, for the remainder of this article, let us direct our at. tention to the completion of the plan sketched out in our former paper, viz., to demonstrate, from the facts furnished by its own history, tested by the canons and principles of the ancient church, that Scottish prelacy has lost the apostolical succession.
. It is no part of our object in this paper to disprove the validity of Anglican or. ders, although, we confess, we have often been tempted to do so. Should we, indeed, continue much longer to hear the vauntings of high churcbmen on the subject, and their unchristian excommunication of other churches, we may feel it our duty (by God's grace) to show that Anglicans have as little pretensions to canonical orders, judged upon high prelatic principles, as we demonstrate of their Scottish bretbren.
Since, however, we bave mooted the subject at all, we may be permitted just to point attention to an irremediable flaw in Anglican orders. We select the case of Archbishop Tillotson, primate of all England. Our notice must be very brief; and therefore we merely refer to the proofs, which our readers can apply for them. selves.
First, There is no valid evidence that Tillotson was ever baptized, while there is very strong presumption that he never received that sacrament.
His father was an anabaptist, who, of course, would not suffer his son to be baptized in infancy. In subsequent life, we know he was not baptized. During his primacy, the charge was often brought against him by the non-jurors, and never disproved; nay, we think we could prove that be admits, by implication himself, that he had never received this essential sacrament. Therefore, according to the first canon laid down in our former paper, Tillotson was incapable of receiving orders. But, secondly, There is no evidence that he ever was in deacon's orders, and strong presumption that he was not; and, consequently, by the 10th canon of the General Council of Sardica, one of the councils whose canons are recognised as perpetually binding by prelatic churches, be never could be promoted to the higher grades of the priesthood. More. over, in the third place-and let our readers notice our words--He was ordained
We closed our former paper by showing, that the collegiate scheme of prelacy, resorted to by our Scottish prelatists at the re
priest (by whom?) by our old acquaintance, poor old Sydserf of Galloway! (See Birch's Life of Tillotson, p. 18, n.; Keith's Catalogue of Scottish Bishops, Russel's edition, p. 572, who refers to Todd's Account of the Deans of Canterbury.) Now, that his priest's orders were invalid, is clear to demonstration. For (1.) Sydserf had no canonical orders himself, as we have abundantly shown in our former paper, (pp. 166, 170, 172,) and, consequently, could not communicate to another what be had not bimself. (2.) Sydserf imposed bands upon Tillotson in England, where he could have no canonical authority, although he had been the most renowned Scottish prelate that ever breathed,—and, consequently, both of them would bave been stripped of their orders if they had had them by the 27th canon apostolical, which forbids a bishop to do anything except such as “concerns his own parish and the county subject to it,"_and also by the 28th, which punishes with deposition both the prelate wbo presumes to “ ordain in places not subject to him," and those who submit to be ordained by him. But (3.) Sydserf's whole course of conduct while in England, during the confusion of the Commonwealth and the civil war, was in the very highest degree schismatical, simoniacal, uncanonical, and criminal. We are told by Birch (ut supra) that he “ ordained all those of the English clergy who came to him, without demanding either oaths” (of canonical obedience) " or subscriptions" (to any articles) “ of tbem," and that he “ did this merely for a subsistence, from the fees for the letters of orders granted by him,—for he was poor;” (!!) just as bis successors, till this day, eke out the miserable pittance, on which their would-be aristocratic audiences, to their disgrace, leave them to starve, by the fees exacted for bastard baptisms, to the grievous injury of our discipline and the morals of the na. tion. In the ancient church, of the purity of wbich we hear so many romancical accounts, simony was a common crime. Many stringent laws were passed for its suppression; and (for example) by the 22d canon apostolical, and the 2d of the Council of Chalcedon, both parties, the giver and receiver of orders for money-and, consequently, Sydserf and Tillotson-were peremptorily deposed. But it would be endless to enumerate the flaws in the priest's orders of Tillotson ; let us therefore proceed, in the fourth place, to his consecration. And (1.) our readers know that Sancroft, who was archbishop of Canterbury during the reign of James II., was deprived of bis see by William and Mary at the Revolution, because he would not take the oaths to government. But, canonically considered, the civil magistrate has no power to depose the humblest priest, much less the lord primate. The see of Canterbury was, consequently, full, and Tillotson therefore could not be consecrated to it, by canon 8th of the Council of Nice. (2.) Of all the sins of which an eccle. siastic could be guilty, the most heinous and unpardonable, from the days of Ignatius downwards, was schism, or setting up altar against altar, and bishop against bi. shop. It would exceedingly strengthen our proof, could we afford room for the hyperbolical rhodomontades of Ignatius, or even the soberer nonsense of Cyprian or Augustine (of Hippo, not of Canterbury) upon this subject ; or if we could give a sketch of the famous contest for the see of Rome, between Cornelius and Novatus, (see Eusebius Eccl. Hist., lib. 6, c. 43, with the notes of Valesius,) or the almost equally famous controversy between the Catholics" and the Donatists in Africa, (see Augustine, Optatus, or, in fact, any of the great writers of the period,-or a series of very able, although, of course, sophistical papers, now extending to six numbers, by the popish Dr Wiseman, written partly for the Dublin Review, and all of them reprinted in a cheap form by the Catholic Institute of Great Britain,”and a reply, with the title, the Apostolical Jurisdiction and Succession of Episcopary in the British Churches Vindicated, &c., by the Rev. William Palmer, M. A. of Worcester College, Oxford.) The only adequate punishment that could be awarded to so vile and heinous a criminal as a schismatic, was instant and summary deposition and deprivation of orders, with excommunication from the church, and excision from the hopes of salvation. Those very acute and learned high church
volution, was not only uncanonical in itself, but, being so, necessarily invalidated all the orders that are derived through it. It may not, however, be amiss to make an observation or two more upon that notorious innovation.
When James II., as we have seen, pusillanimously forsook, and was ignominiously driven from the throne of these realms, our Scottish prelatists, who have always been the friends of arbitrary power, and the sworn foes of civil and religious liberty, refused to recognise the government of William and Mary, and adhered to the cause of the dethroned popish fugitive. James and his counsellors clearly saw what valuable tools these prelates and priests would prove
in the hands of the leaders of the Jacobite faction. He therefore patronised them. It could not possibly be from love to Protestantism in any form that the popish tyrant and bigot, who sacrificed a sceptre for his superstition, and persecuted Protestantism to the whole extent of his power, became the patron of Scottish prclacy; but because he saw well that its ministers would be the most efficient tools to restore him to power, and his best auxiliaries afterwards in establishing popery and despotism upon the ruins of our rights and privileges in church and state. The prelatists, on the other hand, could not but know, that with the return of James, popery
would be restored to its lost domination; but this was an
men, the non-jurors, have established to demonstration that 'Tillotson and the others who were intruded into the sees of the deprived five non-juring bishops, were schis. matics of the vilest stamp. These five, consequently, who, with the primate at their head, were thus intruded by the civil power into full sees, were therefore no canonical bishops, and whatever depends upon them is utterly uncanonical. mischief, carried out into all its ramified consequences, could easily be shown to have invalidated whatever of canonical orders may be supposed to have been possessed at that time by the Church of England. What now, then, must the members of that church do,-so many of them, at least, as deem prelatical succession essential to orders or to the being of a church? We candidly confess we see no course whatever open to them but popery or infidelity. And fearful though the contemplation be, it is best to look it steadily in the face, for it is inevitable. Dr Wiseman will prove to demonstration, that the Anglican church, on canonical principles, has lost the apostolical succession. All those who deem that succession necessary to the validity of orders and sacraments, whether priest or people, as they value their salvation, must renounce all communion with the Church of England. But where shall they go ? To Rome? Why, Rome may for a season afford them a resting-place; but when they investigate a little deeper, they will discover that Rome has lost the apostolical succession as clearly as England. What is the next step? We see none but what an intelligent Romanist said to us once, when we were attempting to prove that popery was not the true religion,—“Cease,” said he, “ for if you could succeed, I should become, not a Protestant, but an infidel.” We shudder to contemplate the precipice on wbose brink we bave been driven. Let our readers not accuse us of timidity or fanaticism, if we assure them that England is on the brink of the most devastating revolution. Popery and infidelity are the alternatives. We may return to this subject at a future period. Its importance is our only apology for digressing to it at present. But-and let our readers mark our words—as assuredly as the claim to infallibility shall be the death of the Church of Rome, so assuredly shall the claim to apostolical succession be the destruction of the Church of England,
event upon which they could not look with very great abhorrence, for their own system was popery in essentials, and, at all events, they would then, as now, prefer, without one moment's hesitation, to conform to popery than to presbyterianism. And, on their own principles, they were right,-of the two evils, presbyterianism, if not, which may be maintained, Protestantism itself, must ever appear the grosser, if, indeed, to a genuine prelatist, popery can ever appear an evil at all.
In consequence of this state of matters, the college of prelates became a conclave of conspirators and a club of traitors. Every project of rebellion was either hatched in their coterie, or cast off its slough and recruited its venom in their secret cabals. When a man was to be promoted to the mitre, the requisite personal qualifications were not those prescribed in the word of God. The prime requisite was, that he was a staunch Jacobite or rebel that he had a head that could devise, a heart that could dare, and a band that could execute any deed that should subvert the laws and government of the realm, fan the embers of civil war, and stablish the throne of tyranny and Romanism on the ruins of our religion, our constitution, and our laws.
And yet, so oblivious of past transactions, so lost to all sense of decorum, so dead to every feeling of consistency can some men become, that the very parties who are loudest in their praises of these rebels, are the most furious in their denunciations of the defensive resistance which the Church of Scotland now offers to the arbitrary and unconstitutional aggressions of peers, patrons, judges, and sheriffs. We own it is with difficulty we can sometimes restrain our indignation at so flagrant an outrage upon our feelings of propriety and consistency. And the matter assumes a still more outrageous aspect, when it is borne in mind, that to the Church of Scotland principally are these men indebted for the repeal of those penal laws, which, in self-defence, the state was compelled to pass against them;* and now, like the resuscitated adder, they sting the bosom that warmed them into life. And, to give its climax to this gradation of outtages, let it be borne in mind,
that the act of Queen Anne, to which we owe all our sufferings, was passed in disregard of the faith of treaties, in subversion of the laws of nations, in violation of a monarch's oath, and of an empire's honour, by that very Jacobite faction whose successors would make that very infamous act a reason why our church should for ever remain a slave.
But our prelatic friends are honourable men, and wise in their generation; and withal they really mean us well. Erastianism has
• See Skinner's Annals of Scottish Episcopacy, pp. 91–94, 112, 176, 184– 187.