he fays,

66

66

"all fuch loofe ordinations, of bishops at large without a diocefe, are declared, I fay not irregular or uncanonical, but abfolutely null :" And to give the more weight to this canon, he adds the decision of Leo, a contemporary pope, or bishop of Rome, who, he fays, "on account of his writings, is confidered as a doctor of the church, and "affirms positively in one of his letters, that the "ordination is to be counted vain, or of no effect, "which is neither founded in place, nor fortified

by authority." The first of these claufes our Doctor explains fo as to make it fuit his own purpose, but takes no farther notice of the fecond, which requires authority in the ordainer, to give validity to the ordination, in whatever place the perfon ordained may be called to exercise his ministry.

In his next Lecture we find our Profeffor endeavouring to procure ftill farther fanction to the authority of the council of Chalcedon, by putting us in mind of the opinion of Pope Gregory the Great, who is faid to have held the four first general councils in equal veneration with the four gofpels. And how comes all this to afford any peculiar force of argument against the Scotch Epifcopal church, which if it esteems these two bishops of Rome, the first and best of their names, as doctors of the church, and holds in all due veneration the four firft general councils, is yet entirely of the opinion of the Church of England, as expreffed in her XX Ift article, that "general councils may err, and fometimes

3 B

"times have erred, even in things pertaining unto "God?" With refpect however to the present point in queftion, we do not fee, that it is at all concerned with the regard which is due to the authority of general councils, and which must always be regulated by the confideration of the particular objects which their feveral canons had in view, according to the circumftances of the church at the different periods, when thefe ecclefiaftical fynods were held. The council of Chalcedon was called for the exprefs purpose of repreffing the Eutychian herefy; and its fixth canon has been generally thought to point at the danger of increafing that herefy, by fuch irregular ordinations as might tend to give it additional fupport, and were therefore prohibited; which prohibition was enforced by an imperial edict, evidently founded on the fame reason, and published for the fame purpose. Dr. Campbell has omitted to quote the introductory part of the canon, in which the prohibition is particularly levelled at "the loose ordination of prefbyters and deacons,' as most likely to continue the mifchief which had arifen from the herefy that was now condemned : and he has alfo kept out of fight the conclufion of the canon, which feems to prohibit the perfons fo ordained from performing the functions of their miniftry, left they fhould do it to the reproach or injury of the person who had ordained them.*

We

* The whole canon runs thus in the original. Μηδένα δε απολελυμένος χειροτονεις θαι, μήτε ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΝ, μήτε ΔΙΑΚΟΝΟΝ, μητε όλως τινα των

We could produce many refpectable authorities in confirmation of the opinion which has now been given of the meaning and defign of this Chalcedonian canon. The author of that celebrated work, called "Ecclefiaftical Polity," and who is generally diftinguished by the title of the "judicious "Hooker," argues very strongly against the error of thofe, who, becaufe the names of all church"officers are words of relation; because a fhepherd "must have his flock, a teacher his fchoiars, a mi"nifter his company which he miniftereth unto, "therefore suppose that no man should be ordain"ed a minifter but for fome particular congrega"tion, and unlefs he be tied to fome certain pa"rifh. Perceive they not," fays he," how by "this means they make it unlawful for the church employ men at all in converting nations? For • if

3 B2

εν εκκλησιαςικω ταγματι σε μη ἰδικῶς εν εκκλησία πόλεως χώρης, n μαρτυριών μοναστηρίων χειροτονημενο επικηρυλοιτο. Τις δε απολύτως χειροτονημένος ἔφισιν ἡ ἁγια συνοδος ακυρον έχειν την τοιαυτην χειροθεσίαν, ο μηδαμη δυνασθαι υπαρχον ΕΦ ΥΒΡΕΙ ΤΟΥ ΧΕΙΡΟΤΟΝΗΣΑΝΤΟΣ. -- It is thus tranfated by a German writer, of Lutheran principles.- "Neminem abfolute ordinari 'prefbyterum vel diaconum, vel quemlibet in ecclefiaftica ordinatione "conftitutum, nifi manifefte in ecclefia civitatis, five poffeffionis, aut in martyrio, aut in monafterio, qui ordinatur, mereatur ordinationis publicatæ vocabulum. Eorum vero qui abfolute ordinantur, decrevit fancta fynodus vacuam haberi manus impofitionem, et nullum ejus tale factum "valere, ad injuriam ipfius qui cum ordinavit."-To which he adds this remark, "Recte prohibet hic canon, ne quis, nifi in publico loco (qualia

"

crant templa, oratoria, et ædificia martyribus confecrata) ad minifterium "ecclefiafticum ordinetur. Et apud nos hodie in ducatu Wurtenbergico, "ordinationes fiunt in cætu ecclefiæ." Vide Epitome Hiftoriæ EcclefiaftiA Lucas Ofiander, D. D. 4to. Tubinga, 1597. p. 356.

(2.

"if fo be the church may not lawfully admit to an "ecclefiaftical function, unless it tie the party ad"mitted unto fome particular parish, then surely a "thankless labour it is, whereby men feek the con. "version of infidels, who know not Chrift, and "therefore cannot be as yet divided into their fpe"cial congregations and flocks." For the avoiding therefore of all confufion in treating of this matter, he thinks there is nothing more material, than first -to feparate" exactly the nature of the miniftry "from the ufe and exercife thereof. Secondly, to "know, that the only true and proper act of ordi"nation is to invest men with that power, which "doth make them minifters, by confecrating their "perfons to God, and his fervice, in holy things, "during term of life, whether they exercise that 66 power or no. Thirdly, that to give them a title 64 or charge, where to use their miniftry, concern"eth not the making, but the placing of God's mi"nifters; therefore the laws, which concern only "their election or admiffion to that place of charge,

66

are not applicable to infringe, in any way, their "ordination: And, fourthly, that as oft as any an"cient conftitution, law or canon is alleged concern

'

66

ing either ordinations or elections, we forget not

to examine, whether the prefent cafe be the fame, "which the ancient was, or else do contain some just reason, for which it cannot admit altogether "the fame rules, which former affairs of the church, "now altered, did then require."

Having laid down these premises, and fhewn the neceffity of attending properly to them, in all queftions relating to the ordination and appointment of the Christian miniftry, this learned writer draws fuch a conclufion from them, as affords a fufficient defence of the Scotch Epifcopal ordinations against any mifapplication of that canon of the council of Chalcedon, which is now under our confideration; "Abfolutely therefore," fays he, "it is not true, "that any ancient canon of the church, which is,

or ought to be with us in force, doth make or"dinations at large unlawful; and as the state of "the church doth ftand, they are most neceffary. "If there be any confcience in men, touching that "which they write or speak, let them confider as "well what the prefent condition of all things doth "now fuffer, as what the ordinances of former ages "did appoint; as well the weight of those causes, "for which our affairs have altered, as the reasons, "in regard whereof, our fathers and predeceffors "did fometime ftrictly and feverely keep that "which for us to obferve now, is neither meet, "nor always poffiole."*

To the fame purpofe, we find another no lefs venerable author, the pious Bifhop Jeremy Taylor, when mentioning this very decree of the council of Chalcedon, making a diftinction between thofe ordinations, which for particular reafons of prudence

or

• See Hooker's Ecclefiaflical Polity, Book V. p. 330, 332, 333.