Note 608 — HISTORY OF LYNN. PART III. (continued 5)

But its absurdity seems of an opposite cast to that of one our late parliaments, which undertook to establish the popish doctrine of the indelibility of the priestly, or clerical character, than which neither the above process, nor even transubstantiation itself, can be more absurd or ridiculous. That such a doctrine should really be recognised, adopted, and established by the British Senate, now in the 19th century, might have occasioned no small astonishment, had not the same august body, within the same period, done so many other things equally strange, marvellous, and disreputable. Should we become inquisitive, and presume to ask, What is this invisible, mysterious, indelible something, called character; the episcopal, priestly, or clerical character? some will tell us, that it is a spiritual power, others a habit or disposition, others a spiritual figure, others a sensible metaphorical quality, others a real relation, others a fabric of the mind: by all which, little more, perhaps, can be made out, or comprehended, than that the advocates or supporters of the doctrine are much at variance about this character. But however they may differ in their ideas and definitions of the character itself, they are, it seems, in perfect agreement as to its indelibility; being all firmly persuaded, that though a bishop, priest, or deacon, turn heretic; or schismatic, deist or atheist, he still retains the character; and though not a christian man, he is still a christian bishop, priest, or deacon: though he be degraded and excommunicated, he is in respect to the character still the same. Though he be cut off from the church, he is still a minister in the church. In such a situation, to perform any of the sacred functions would be in him a deadly sin, but these would be equally valid as before. Thus he may not be within the pale of the church himself, and yet be in the church as a minister of Jesus Christ. He may openly and solemnly blaspheme God, and abjure the faith of Christ; he may apostatize to Judaism, to Mahometism, to Paganism, he still retains the character. He may even become a priest of Jupiter, or a priest of Baal, and still continue a priest of Jesus Christ. The character say the Schoolmen, is not cancelled even in the damned, but remains with the wicked to their disgrace and greater confusion; so that in hell they are the ministers of Jesus Christ, and messengers of the new covenant!! [see the late Dr. Campbell’s Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, for a more full and striking view of this subject.] That our legislature, in sanctioning the said doctrine, did really mean to go the whole length the Schoolmen did, or adopt all their ideas concerning it, may, perhaps, admit of some doubt: but after agreeing with them in the main point, it might be thought hardly worth their while to hesitate about the smaller matters. Be this as it may, the convocation over which archbishop Arundel presided, in the process against Sawtre, seem to have been entirely of a different opinion, both from she Schoolmen and our said late parliament, on this notable question of clerical indelibility.