condemned by decisions of councils, as the foulest of sins; as the following extracts will shew:

"If any Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, obtain his Dignity by MONEY, let him, and he who ordained him, be deposed, and wholly cut CUT OFF FROM communion, as Simon Magus was by Peter."-Apostolical Canons, No. 22. I am aware of the dispute about the authority of these Canons. I believe them to be of no Apostolical authority. However, it is generally acknowledged that they give us the views and practice of the church, in fact, at a very early age. They were, in the 4th and following centuries, referred to as ecclesiastical authority. They are in great estimation with high churchMr. Johnson, the learned Translator of the Canons, a strong succession advocate, remarks in his Notes on this Canon, "Indeed, in the case of Simony, it may be said, that he who obtained orders by this means, his orders were null ab initio,”—from the beginning. He never had any really.

men.

"If any Bishop ordain for money, and make a market of the unvendible grace; and perform the ordination of a Bishop, Village-Bishop, Priest, Deacon, or of any one listed in the clergy for GAIN, &c., let him that is ordained, be never the better for his ordination."-Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, Can. 2. There were present 600 Bishops.

"That they who are ordained for MONEY, be deposed, and the Bishop who ordained them."-Council of Constantinople, or Trullus A.D. 683, Canon 22.

"Whosoever either SELL or BUY Holy Orders cannot be Priests; hence it is written, Cursed be he that gives and he that receives' How, therefore, if they be accursed, and are not holy, can they consecrate others ? How can he bless, who is accursed himself? There is no power in ordination, where buying and selling prevail."-Canon Law, by Gratian, in the 12th century.

"If any one should be enthroned in Peter's Chair by MONEY, by human favor, by popular or military tumult, without the united and canonical election of the Cardinals, such an one is NOT Apostolical, but is an APOSTATE; and the Cardinals, Clergy, and people of God may anathematize him as a THIEF and a ROBBER, and may, by all human means, drive him from the Apostolical Seat."-Second Council of Lateran, Vid. Platin. in Vita. Nicolai tertii.

"Whatever Holy Orders are obtained by MONEY, either given or promised to be given, we declare that they were NULL from the beginning, and NEVER had any validity."-Council of Placentina, A. D. 1095, Canon 2.

In the 40th Canon of the Church of England, Simony, the buying and selling orders, &c., is declared to be " a detestable sin, and EXECRABLE before God." And every Bishop, Priest, &c, before he is admitted to any

spiritual office, &c., is obliged to take the following oath: "I, N. N., do swear That I have made no simoniacal payment, contract, or promise, directly or indirectly, by myself or by any other, to my knowledge or with my consent, to any person or persons whatsoever, for or concerning the procuring and obtaining of this ecclesiastical office, &c. So help me God, through Jesus Christ."

Here then we have seen what qualifies a person for ordination; and what disqualifies him. Heaven has laid down the LAW. The authority of the church is limited by the authority of GOD. Every person truly ordained, must be ordained according to the word of God; and-must be ordained especially and only for the causes and purposes therein contained. Every ordination which is plainly and knowingly contrary to this rule, is NULL and VOID, from beginning to end. But the ordination of every man who is plainly not a "faithful man" i. e. a true Christian, the ordination of every wicked man, of every HERETIC, and of every SIMONIST, is flatly contrary to the word of God; therefore, the ordination of every wicked man, of every heretic, of every simonist, is null and void from the beginning, it is NO ORDINATION AT ALL.

Let us apply this divine rule to the Popish Ordinations of English Bishops, before and at the Reformation. The Church of Rome, by the the united judgment of the Reformers, was the "Great Whore" mentioned in the Revelations. Can this "Great Whore" have legitimate Children? Common sense, as well as the Scriptures, would declare, No! The church of Rome was an Idolatrous church; can she, as such, have a heavenly commissioned Priesthood? Impossible! The Popes, Bishops of Rome, who ordained the English Bishops, were Monsters in crime, heretics and Simonists of the darkest dye. They could have no commission from a holy God: they were "Sons of Belial," "Antichrist," they, therefore, could give no commission.

The ENGLISH BISHOPS, generally, were true Sons of the "Great Whore." They bought and sold, and trafficked in spiritual things; they were wicked men, Idolaters, and Simonists. Any ordination of such men would be null from the beginning; would be nothing-more, if possible, when they were ordained by those monsters of iniquity, the Popes of Rome. The Conclusion is irresistible-Popish Ordinations of the English Bishops before and at the Reformation were null and void to all intents and purposes!

This was the general opinion of the Protestant Churches at the Reformation; and even before that time the same opinion was maintained by the Waldenses. In the Treatise of Antichrist, by the old Waldenses, written A.D. 1200, having described Antichrist, they go on," That iniquity that is after this manner, with all the Ministers thereof, great and small, with all those that follow them with a wicked heart, and hoodwinked eyes;

this Congregation, thus taken all together, is called Antichrist, or Babylon, or the Fourth Beast, or the Whore, or the Man of Sin, or the Son of Perdition. His MINISTERS are called False Prophets, Lying Teachers, the Ministers of Darkness, &c. Antichrist covers his Iniquity by the length or Succession of time,-by the spiritual authority of the Apostles; -by the writings of the Antients, and by Councils. These and many

other things are, as it were, a cloak and a garment, wherewith Antichrist doth cover his lying wickedness, that he may not be rejected as a Pagan (or Infidel), and under which he can go on to act his villanies like a whore. Now it is evident, as well in the Old as in the New Testament, that a Christian stands bound, by express command given, to SEPARATE HIMSELF from Antichrist." Then a great many passages of Scripture are quoted to prove this duty of separating from Antichrist. On this ground it was also that they re-baptized those who had been baptized by the Popish Bishops and Priests, accounting them Sacrilegious and Antichristian Ministers, and INCAPABLE of administering any Sacraments. Schlossers, note to his Latin version of Wall on Infant Baptism (i).

See

Calvin was consulted to know what should be done when any Bishop, Curate, &c. from amongst the Papists should desire to join himself to the Reformed Church? He remarks, "first, That if he should be found not to have sufficient ability and qualification for the office of a Minister, he should shew the sincerity of his conversion by retiring into the station of a private member of the Church. But if he should be found able to continue in the Ministry, he was to give in a Confession of his Faith, and of his sincere and sacred adherence to the Reformed Religion. Then he was to acknowledge that his VOCATION or call to the Ministry had been a MERE ABUSE; he was to request a new approbation; he was expressly and by name to profess that his FORMER INSTITUTION by the authority of the Pope had been of no validity; and at the same time he was to renounce it as being conferred by means EVERY WAY UNLAWFUL and opposed to the ORDER which the Lord Jesus Christ established in the Church. After this he was to join himself to the company of the other Reformed Ministers, and be subject to the same Discipline and Government which are established in that place where they are.-It is certain and clear that none can be accounted CHRISTIAN MINISTERS, except they first RENOUNCE the PRIESTHOOD of POPERY, to which they had been promoted to make and offer Christ as a sacrifice in the Mass, which is a kind of blasphemy to be detested by all possible means. These things being done, it will be the duty of such Bishops to give diligence that all the churches that pertain to their Diocese be purged from errors, idolatry, &c." (j)

Here this Great Reformer, whose views were generally received almost

(i) Vol. 2, p. 166, 4to. Hamburgi, 1753.

(j) Calvini Epistol. p. 339, fol. ed. Genev. 1575.

like laws in a large portion of the Reformed Church, throws Popish Ordinations to the winds. How abundantly this letter proves the misrepresentations of such men as Dr. Hook, who would fain persuade us that where Episcopacy was not retained, "The Reformers pleaded not principle but NECESSITY!" Even Bishop Taylor grants the contrary. "M Du Plessis," says he, "a man of honor, and great learning, does attest, that at the first Reformation there were many Arch-Bishops and Cardinals in Germany, England, France, and Italy, that joined in the Reformation, whom they," the Reformed Churches, "might, but did not, employ in their ordinations. And what necessity can be pretended in this case, I would fain learn that I might make their defence. But, which is of more and deeper consideration; for this might have been done by inconsideration, and irresolution, as often happens in the beginning of great changes, but it is their constant, and resolved practice, at least in France, that if any returns to them they will REORDAIN him by their PRESBYTERY, though he had before EPISCOPAL ORDINATION, as both their friends and their enemies bear witnesses." He refers to Danæus, Isagog. part 2, Lib. 2, c. 22, Perron repli. fol. 92, impress. 1605. Here then is evidence from that illustrious champion of Protestantism, Du Plessis, and from the French church in general, that it was the constant and resolved practice to reject POPISH ORDINATIONS as NULL and VOID.

The English Reformers viewed the matter in the same light. They continued to ordain as Christian Ministers, but NOT on the GROUND of their PAPAL ORDINATIONS; else why so solemn a discussion by the Bishops and Divines in that day on such questions as this:

"Question 13. Whether (if it fortuned a Christian Prince Learned, to conquer certain Dominions of Infidels, having none but temporal learned men with him), if it be defended by God's Law, that he and they should preach and teach the Word of God there, or no? And ALSO MAKE and CONSTITUTE Priests, or no?"

"Agreement. In the thirteenth; Concerning the first part, whether Laymen may preach and teach God's Word ? They DO ALL AGREE, in such a case, * That not only they may, but they ought to teach.' But in the second part, touching the constituting of Priests of (by) LAYMEN, my Lord of York, and Doctor Edgworth, doth not agree with the other; they say, that Laymen in no wise can make Priests, or have such authority; the BISHOPS of Duresme, St. Davids, Westminster, Drs. Tresham, Cox, Leighton, Crawford, Symmons, Redmayn, Robertson, say, that Laymen, in such case, have authority to minister the Sacraments, and to MAKE PRIESTS. My Lords of London, Carlisle, and Hereford, and Dr. Coxen, think that, God, in such a case, would give the Prince authority, call him inwardly, and illuminate him or some of his, as he did St. Paul." (k) (k) Burnet's Coll. of Records, Part 1, Book 3, No. 21.

So the great Protestant Champions against Popery, Whitaker and Fulke, in the time of Queen Elizabeth. Speaking to the Papists, "I would not have you think (says Whitaker) that we make such reckoning of your Orders, as to hold our own vocation unlawful without them." And says Fulke, “You are highly deceived, if you think we esteem your offices of BISHOPS, PRIESTS, and Deacons, better than LAYMEN." (And in his Retentive :) "WITH ALL OUR HEARTS, WE DEFY, ABHOR, DETEST-your ANTICHRISTIAN ORDERS." (1)

Bishop Burnet, in his Exposition of the twenty third article, says, "I come, in the next place, to consider the Second Part of this Article, which is the Definition here given of those that are LAWFULLY CALLED, and SENT: This is put in very general words, far from that Magisterial stiffness in which some have taken upon them to dictate in this matter. The Article does not resolve this into any particular constitution, but leaves the matter open and at large, for such ACCIDENTS as had happened, and such as might still happen. They who drew it, had the state of several Churches before their Eyes that had been differently reformed, and although their own had been less forced to go out of the beaten path than any other, yet they knew that ALL THINGS among themselves had NOT gone according to those rules that ought to be sacred in REGULAR TIMES. Necessity has no Law, and is a Law to itself.-If a company of Christians find the publick Worship where they live to be so defiled, that they cannot with a good conscience join in it, and if they do not know of any place to which they can conveniently go, where they may worship God purely, and in a regular way : if, I say, such a Body find some that have been Ordained, though to the lower functions, should SUBMIT itself entirely to their conduct; or find NONE of those, should by a coмMON CONSENT, desire some of their own Number to Minister to them in Holy things, and should, upon that beginning, GROW up to a REGULATED CONSTITUTION, though we are very sure that this is quite out of all Rule, and could not be done without a very great sin, unless the NECESSITY were great and apparent; yet if the Necessity is real and not feigned, this is NOT CONDEMNED nor annulled by the Article; for when this grows to a Constitution, and when it was begun by the CONSENT of a BODY, who are supposed to have an AUTHORITY in such an extraordinary case, whatever some hotter spirits have thought of this since that time; yet we are very sure, that not only those who Penned the Articles, but the BODY of this Church for above half an Age after, did, notwithstanding those Irregularities, acknowledge the FOREIGN CHURCHES so Constituted, to be true Churches, as to all the Essentials of a Church, though they had been at FIRST irregularly formed, and continue to be in an imperfect state. And therefore the general words in which this part of

(1) See Ward's England's Reformation, vol. 2, p. 121, where he refers to Whitaker Contra Dureum, p. 221, and Fulke's Answer to a Counterfeit Catholick.

T