We must therefore wait for a return of the age of miracles and infpiration, or have recourfe to the usual method of the laying on of hands, for authorizing men to execute the functions of the facred miniftry. "The laying on of hands, and fucceffion!" Nay, fays Dr. Mitchell, this method will never do; for the epifcopal fucceflion has repeatedly failed; and he inftances the reign of Arnold, King of the Northumbrians, as a period when it fo completely failed in England,. that the fovereign was obliged to have recourfe to Scottish prefbyters, (p. 211), by whom it was reftored! If the reader be defirous to have the origin of this curious tale, he must apply to the minifter of Kemnay himself; for his Prefbyterian Letters furnish no authority for it, and it is contradicted by all the hiftorians of that period, with whofe writings we are acquainted. During the reign of Ofwald's immediate predeceffor, every bifhop in the kingdom of Northumbria was indeed either killed or driven from that kingdom; but so far was epifcopacy from being exterminated through all England, that Paulinus, Archbishop of York, took refuge from the ftorm with Honorius, Archbishop of Canterbury, by whose influence he was appointed to the fee of Rochester, which happened then to be vacant. It was not therefore through neceffity, but from choice, that Ofwald had recourfe to Scotland for the restoration of epifcopacy to his kingdom; for when banished from his own country in his youth, he had taken fhelter in Scotland, where he had contracted friendfhips, and thefe drew his attention thither rather than to the kingdom of Kent or of Weffex.

But was not epifcopacy restored in the Northumbrian kingdom by Scottish prefbyters? No. Collier and Turner, who both give a full account of this tranfaction, agree in reprefenting Aidanus, the Scotch Miffionary, as having been confecrated a bishop before he left Scotland, and as having fixed his fee in Holy Ifle *. Even Bede, in the very words. quoted by our author, declares that he was a bifhop; and in the age of Bede we believe it will not be found that the words epifcopus and prefbyter were ever ufed indifferently to denote the fame office, though the word agonia was then of the fame import with diocefe now. The venerable author's words are: "Monachus ipfe Epifcopus Aidanus, utpote ab infula quæ vo

* See Collier's Ecclefiaftical Hiftory of Great Britain, vol. 1. p. 86, &c.; and Turner's Hiftory of the Anglo-Saxons, vol. 1. book 2. § 6 and 7, with the various works quoted by those learned antiquaries.

catur

catur Hy deftinatus. Cujus monafterium in cunctis fere feptembrionalium (feptentrionalium) Scotorum, et omnium Piftorum monafteriis non parvo tempore arcem tenebat, regendifque eorum populis præerat." But Aidanus was confecrated at Hy, now called Icolmkill or Jona! He was fo; and what follows? Why, fays this author, that he was confecrated by a prefbyter-abbot. But who told him that the abbet was a prefbyter, or that either a prefbyter or the abbot confecrated Aidanus? Not Bede furely; for according to him there were at that time in Hy more bifhops than one, and if so, the abbot may have been one of the number. At any rate, we know from the annals of Ulfter, examined by Archbishop Ufher, that Columbe, who founded the monaftery in Hy, though he lived and died a prefbyter himself, took care that there fhould be at least one bishop always refident in his monaftery, which probably gave occafion to its acquiring that power of which this author fo childishly boasts. But whatever became of the confecration of Aidanus, which indeed can affect the orders of no bifhop of the present age, he has an argument to prove that the epifcopal fucceffion in England failed at the Reformation; for, fays he,

"Henry VIII. compelled all the Bishops within his realm, to take commiffions from him, by which they acknowledged, that all jurisdiction, civil and ecclefiaftical, flowed from the King, and that they exercifed it only at the King's courtesy; and that, as they had it of his bounty, fo they would be ready to deliver it up at his pleasure; and therefore the King did empower them to ordain, give institution, and do all the other parts of the epifcopal function." P. 274.

This paffage is given as a quotation from Burnet's History of the Reformation of the Church of England; but what will the reader think, when we affure him that there is no fuch paffage in that work? Burnet's words are

*

"To fhew how far their (the popish party's) compliance would go, BONNER took a ftrange commiffion from the King, on the 12th of November, this year (1539). It has been certainly enrolled; but it is not there now, fo that I judge it was razed in that fuppreffion of records, which was in Queen Mary's time. But as men are commonly more careless at home, BONNER has left it on record in his own regifter. Whether the other bifbops took fuch commiffions from this King, I know not. But I

* Vol. I. p. 257.

8133

am certain there is none fuch in Cranmer's register: and it is not likely, if any fuch had been taken out by him, that ever it would

have been razed. The commiffion itself will be found in the collection of papers at the end (of the volume). The fubftance of it is,-That fince all jurifdiction, both ecclefiaftical and civil, Mowed from the King as fupreme head, and he was the foundation of all power; it became thofe who exercifed it only (precario) at the King's courtefie, gratefully to acknowledge, that they had it only of his bounty; and to declare that they would deliver it up again, when it should please him to call for it, &c."

Thus has our author, with the genuine fpirit of a liberal Chriftian of the modern fchool, quoted Burnet, probably at fecond hand, as writing the very reverse of what he actually wrote; as laying to the charge of all the bishops in England, that with which he really charges Bonner alone! This, had we furnished no other specimens of the fame kind, is alone fufficient to evince how little confidence can be placed in the fidelity of Dr. Mitchell's quotations; and it is for this purpose only that we have taken the trouble to detect him on the prefent occafion; for it is a fact, though unknown to Burnet, that Cranmer and many other bishops did take out from Henry the Eighth, commiffions in all refpects fimilar to that which was taken out by Bonner *. This has been completely proved by Collier, who, being a Nonjuror and High-Churchman, is an author with whofe works Dr. Mitchell is probably unacquainted. From him, therefore, we might have concealed this fact; but truth is our object, and we leave it to the advocates for error to fupprefs or mutilate what operates against them. Whether Dr. M. has done any thing of this kind, in the account which he gives of the fupremacy over the church, assumed by Edward the Sixth, let the reader judge for himself.

"In what regards church fupremacy, Edward trode exactly in the footsteps of his father. He required ALL, the hiftorian of the Reformation informs us, (ALL) who held offices civil or ecclefaftical, to take out commiffions from him in the first year of his reign. But this happens not to be exactly what the hiftorian of the Reformation informs us. His information † is, that "the bishops were required to take out new commiffions of the fame form with thofe that they had taken out in King Henry's time. Two of these commiffions are yet extant, one taken out by Cranmer, and the other taken out by Bonner. But this was only done by

* Vol. II. p. 170.

+ Vol. II. p. 6.

reafon

reafon of the prefent juncture, because the bishops being generally addicted to the former fuperftition, it was thought neceffary to keep them under fo arbitrary a power as that subjected them to; for they hereby held their bishoprics only during the King's plea fure, and were to exercise them as his delegates in his name, and by his authority. Cranmer fet an example to the reft, and took out his commiffion, which is in the collection (at the end of the volume). But this was afterwards judged too heavy a yoke, and therefore the new bishops that were made by this King, weri not put under it (and fo Ridley, when made bishop of London in Bonner's room, was not required to take out any such commiffion); but they were to hold their bishoprics during life."

Is it not evident from all this, that the purport of these new commiffions-extravagant as they were, is, not that the bishops derived from the King, authority to minifter the word and ordinances of Chrift; but only that they held of him their bishoprics as fiefs, and derived from him authority to exercise their functions publicly, as bishops of the church, ftablished by law? The commiflions themselves are both published by Burnet; and contain each the following grant to the bishop to whom it is addreffed-" cæteraque omnia et fingula in præmiffis feu aliquo præmiffarum, aut circa ea neceffaria feu quomodolibet opportuna, ac alia quæcumque autoritatem et jurisdictionem epifcopalem quovis modo refpiciend. et concernend. præter, et ultra ea que tibi ex facris literis divinitus commiffa effe dignofcuntur, vice, nomine, et autoritate noftris exequendum!" Is it not evident from this that even Henry (for it is his commiffion to Bonner that we quote) acknowledged, on the evidence of facred fcripture, an epifcopal authority committed, even to that unworthy prelate, by God himself, and therefore independent of the temporal fovereign? If there can be any doubt about the meaning of words fo very plain, let Henry himself interpret them. In his altercations refpecting the fupremacy with the Archbishop of York, who feems not to have fo readily come into all his measures as Cranmer, he says

"Your next bufinefs is to prove that preaching and admi. niftering the facraments (among which be it remembered that he reckoned holy orders)" belong to the facerdotal function; and that our Saviour gave the Hierarchy a commiffion for this purpose. We know nobody (that) denies you this; but then spirituals are commonly taken in too extenfive a fenfe, and the priest's authority ftrained beyond the warrant of the text. Our Saviour himself had a facerdotal character, and yet fubmitted to Pilate's jurif diction. And St. Paul, though a prieft of apoftolical distinction,

makes

makes no fcruple to fay, I fund at Cæfar's judgment-feat, where I ought to be judged "

"Here then," to use the language of our modeft author, "we fix our foot, and let the unrivalled champion of low church remove it if he can." It will not, we affure him, be removed by buffoonery, empty declamation, fcurrility, or even by logical inference from facts alledged without founda tion, and affertions proved to be falfe. Our unbroken line of fucceffion, as he calls it with a fncer, was not, as we have feen, fnapped afunder by Henry the Eighth's or Edward the Sixth's Eraftian commiffions; and therefore as the English and Scotch bifhops of the prefent day do not derive their authority to ordain and perform the other functions of the epifcopal office divinitus iis commiffa, as Henry fays, from the imperial crown of this or any other realm, they have had no fecular maker, and therefore, by no fecular power can they be unmade; unless that power, acting on the principles of this liberal-minded Divine, put them all to death! By fuch a method of proceeding any temporal power, whether legitimate or ufurped, would indeed effectually deprive them of their epifcopal character, and all the privileges annexed to it; but nothing fhort of this could render them incapable of ordaining others and performing all the epifcopal offices, which were performed in the church before the converfion of the emperor Conftantine.

Mr. Daubeny therefore is under no mistake

"In thinking that the paftoral character or spiritual commiffion of the Clergy, who, at the revolution in 1688, were deprived for not transferring their allegiance from James II. to William III. was not taken away by their deprivation. It was not from the fecular power, as we have fhewn, that they received it; and to the fecular power they could not be compelled to refign it."

Indeed the fecular power never attempted fuch a compulfion; and if the author will give himself the trouble to read Primate Boulter's Letters, he will find that orders conferred by the deprived bifhops-or rather by their fucceffors-were, in 1738, deemed perfectly good by both the fecular and ecclefiaftical powers. Nay, we may appeal to the act of parliament by which the Epifcopal Church in Scotland is tolerated, for a proof that orders conferred by the Scotch bishops.

Collier, Vol. II. p. 64.

are