llllllljljjllll iiiiitiiiitmiii III I'll m " HiJ'"!' ' ill' '! -ililh^ ' ill • 'I lltlll,! !' l' I ll 1 ifHHjH CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Cornell University Library BV665 .P88 1842 olln 3 1924 029 331 968 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tile Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029331968 AN ESSAY ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION; BEING A DEFENCE OF A GENUINE PROTESTANT MINISTRY, AGAINST THE EXCLUSIVE AND INTOLERANT SCHEMES OF PAPISTS AND HIGH CHURCHMEN ; AMD SUPPLYINe A GENERAL ANTIDOTE TO POPERY : ALSO, A CRITIQUE ON THE APOLOGY FOR APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, BY THE HON. AND REV. A. P. PERCEVAL, B. C. L., Chaplain in ordinary to the Queen ; AND A REVIEW OF DR. W. F. HOOK'S SERMON ON "HEAR THE CHURCH," PREACHED BEFORE THE QUEEN, JUNE 17, 1838: BY THOMAS POWELL, WESLEYAK MINISTER. NEW- YORK:/ PUBLISHED BY G. LANE & P. P. SANDPORD, QFBIOE, FOB THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL OIinKOH, AT THE CONFERENCE OFFJIOE; 200 MULBEEEY-BTKEET. , ■" ' /. Coliordf Printer. 1849. " THEY ARE EQUALLY MAD WHO MAINTAIN THAT BISHOPS ARE SO JURE DIYINO THAT THEY MUST BE CONTINUED : AND THEY WHO SAY THEY ARE SO UNCHRISTIAN, THAT THEY MUST BE PUT AWAY."— Selden. " MEN CANNOT CARRY ON A RESOLUTE STRUGGLE AGAINST SOPHISTRY WITH THE SAME SMOOTHNESS AND SIMPLICITY WITH WHICH THEY ENUNCIATE TRUISMS."— QwABTEBLY Review, Jan., 1840. CONTENTS. Page Preface to the first edition , 5 Preface to the second edition 7 Introduction 9 SECTION I. Statements of this doctrine of apostolical succession by its advocates , 13 SECTION II. The state of the general question 21 SECTION III. No positive proof from the Scriptures of these high Church claims — The commission of Jesus Christ to the apostles — The claim of apostleship for bishops — High priesthood of bishops — The case of Timothy and Titus — -The angels of the seven churches j 25 SECTION IV. The' general spirit and scope of tho gospel qpppsed to this high Church scheme 64 SECTION V. Scriptural evidence against these claims, continued — Bishops and presbyters the same, proved from the New Testament 80 SECTION VI. The same argument continued — Presbyters and bishops the same, proved from the purest Christian antiquity 89 Appendix to section vi 141 SECTION VII. The Church of England at the Reformation against these claims 144 SECTION VIII. Bishops and presbyters the same order, shown by the testimony of all the Christian churches in the world 169 CONTENTS. SECTION IX. Presbyters and bishops shown to be the same order, by the testimony of the greatest divines of all ages 201 SECTION X. No sufficient historic evidence of a personal succession of valid episcopal ordinations -- 212 SECTION XI. Nullity of the Popish ordinations — Character of the Popish Church, and Popish bishops, before and at the Reformation 224 SECTION XII. Popish ordinations of English bishops before the Reformation . . . 237 SECTION XIII. Nullity of Popish ordinations of English bishops, concluded 250 SECTION XIV. Genuine apostolical succession 271 Conclusion of the Essay 295 An Appendix : containing, — first, A Critique on the Apology for the Doctrine of the Apostolical Succession, by the Hon. and Rev. A. P. Perceval, B. C. L '311 Secondly, A Review of Dr.W. F. Hook's Sermon, Vicar of Leed's, on " Hear the Church" 340 PREFACE TO THE FIRST , EDITION. The writer of this Essay is alone accountable for all its faults and defects. He has written it without the counsel or the help of any man, or of any body of men. He beheves, and therefore he has spoken. Perhaps it will' make him some enemies : this he would regret, as he desires, as much as lieth in him, to live peaceable with all men. If maintaining the truth should make him enemies, he cannot help it. Some may think that he speaks too freely on certain points, and as to certain orders of persons. All he can say is, that he thought truth and piety required it. He would give honour to whom honour is due ; but he hopes he shall ever show the greatest courtesy to the truth of God. While men, or the ordinances of men, oppose not the truth of God, he would respect them, and would submit to them for the Lord's sake ; but when they oppose that truth, either in principle or in practice, he would call no man father upon earth. The author makes no pretensions to style : he only regards words as a plain man does his clothes ; not for ornament, but for use and decency. The confidence of his language arises from the convic- tion of his own mind, and not from any design to im- pose his opiniotis upon others. He dislikes to read an ° PREFACE. author who does not appear to believe himself. If any choose to controvert his positions, he freely allows them the liberty which he has taken. His design is catho- lic, NOT SECTARIAN. Truth is his object : though his efforts should perish, yet he will rejoice in the triumph of truth. He commits his work to God, and to his church, praying that the kingdom of our Redeemer may speedily come ; that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be established among us, and in all the earth, throughout all genera- tions ! Amen ! PREFACE TO' THE SECOND EDITION. The author, on issuing a second tditicm of this Es- say, embraces the opportunity of gratefully acknow- ledging his obligations to the public for their favourable reception of his work. The difference between this second edition and the former one, consists in the addition of some important arguments ; in the amplification of others ; and in the increase of highly important authorities from writers of great celebrity, but whose works are expensive, and rarely to be met with by general readers. One of the most important additions will be found in the second sub-section of section 3, on the apostleship of bish- ops. On a mature re-examination of the works of high church EpiscopaUans, the author perceived that this was a position which they esteemed of the very great- ' est importance, and in which they placed the greatest confidence. He set himself, therefore, to furnish a complete refutation of it. The reader is requested to give that sub-section a very attentive perusal. It will be found that several of the additional notes contain an exposure of the fallacies in the " Vindication of the Episcopal or Apostolical Succession, by the Rev. J. Sinclair, M. A., of Pembroke College, Oxford, ° PREFACE. Fellow of the Royal Society, Edinburgh, Minister of St. Paul's Episcopal chapel, Edinburgh, &c. Dr. Hook having requested the Hon. and Rev. A. P. Perceval, chaplain in ordinary to the queen, to take up the defence of the high church succession scheme, the honourable and reverend gentleman has done so ; and his workhavingbeen announcedby thedoctor's party as a complete answer to the Essay, the author has added a Critique on that work. He thinks the examination of these two specimens of defence by Mr. Sinclair and the doctor's chosen champion, Mr. Perceval, will suffice, and will show the reader how futile all such defences are, when tried on the principles maintained in this Essay. The Review of Dr. Hook's sermon, on " Hear the Church," having a very near affinity to the argument of the Essay, and that Review having been considered a complete antidote to the doctor's main fallacy, it is retained in the present edition. A general index is added to the whole. INTRODUCTION. " Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free," is a divine command. The truth of God, at the Reformation, made the Protestant churches free from priestly tyranny, and the traditions of men. It is the duty of every Protestant to watch against all encroach- ments upon this liberty. Popery commenced on the principle of exclusiveness and bigotry. " Out of the church is no salvation ; — the Church of Rome is the only true church ; — ergo, out of the Church of Rome is no salvation." This is the logic of Rome ; enforced, according to opportunity of power and circumstances, by excommunication and confiscation ; by fire and fagot to the body, and perdition to the soul, against all who have dared to resist its claims. All exclusiveness and bigotry generate intolerance. When a-ny part of God's church asserts its right to the rvhole inheritance of his people, it publishes jan act of ejectment against the rest ; and the spirit that dictated the ejectment will, when circumstances seem favourable, en- deavour to effect its object by persecuting those who do not admit this exclusive claim. To admit an unjust claim, is to encourage injustice. Our Christian birthright is a trust from heaven ; and we cannot " sell it for a mess of pottage,'' without an Esau's profaneness. A certain class of men have, at different times since the Reformation, come forvrard to effect that in the Pro- testant church which Popery endeavours to effect as to 1* 10 INTRODUCTION. the church universal. This they try to accomplish by a sophistical method of teaching the doctrine of apostolical succession. By this doctrine they excommunicate all the other Protestant churches in Europe. This is done se- riously and in earnest, and that, too, by men of consider- able influence and learning. The writer is convinced that . the broad absurdity of their arrogant pretensions will be sufficient to lead many to treat those claims with just contempt. However, there are some that seem willing to receive the bold assertions and pretensions of such men, as proofs sufficient to support their claims. Others, who do not believe them, would yet be glad to see plain rea- sons for rejecting them. It is for this class of persons, chiefly, that the following Essay is designed. Another object with the writer is to develop the nature of genuine Protestantism, and to supply an antidote to Popery. Popery is a deep-laid scheme. Its principal BASIS is priestly arrogance, generating the direst tyranny. This is not founded on the word of God, but in the traditions of men. This foundation must be exposed and broken up, or in vain shall we attempt to break the iron yoke of Popery. Now it is a matter worthy of the most serious and careful observation by the reader, that nearly all the great succession divines are semi-papists. Arch- bishop Laud is supposed to be the father of them. Among his distinguished disciples will be found Dr. Hickes, Bishop Taylor, the authors of " The Oxford Tracts for the Times," Dr. Hook, vicar of Leeds, &c. The reader may be surprised to find the celebrated Bishop Taylor represented as a semi-papist ; let him read his " Clerus Domini," and his " Episcopacy Asserted," and he will see the evidence of the statement. Bishop Tay- lor's splendid talents have imposed upon many, and have gained him more credit than he deserved. Like many pious Papists, he could write well upon devotional sub- INTRODUCTION. ' 11 jects ; but he is no safe guide as a theologian. Dr. Hook, and the authors of " The Oxford Tracts for the Times," are evidently introducing Popery into the Church of Eng- land, and spreading it in the nation. Many of the clergy of the Established Church are strongly opposed to the errors of these men, and they have spoken out manfully in the pages of the " Christian Observer." They seem, however, to be very tender of this doctrine of apostolical succession. They perhaps think it is calculated to add importance to their ministry in opposition to the Methodists and Dissenters. A spirit of exclusiveness is, indeed, very general among the clergy of the Established Church. An opinion, too, of the divine right of episcopacy has spread extensively in the Church of England : -most of its clergy seem willing to believe it. Hence, generally speaking, they are not the men from whom a refutation of this doctrine of apostolical succession is to be expected : yet it evidently increases Popery in the Church and in the nation. Its exposure and refutation, therefore, may be a general benefit to Protestantism. It will not be amiss here to obviate a difficulty that may arise in some minds. Perhaps some persons, especially the members of the Establishment, may thinlr that the writer is attacking the Church. If by " the Church" they will understand the principles of the Reformers, Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Jewel, &c., on the questions here dis- cussed; then he most unhesitatingly declares, that, with some trifling exceptions, he heartily embraces them, and means to defend them ; but if .by " the Church" they mean the principles of such men as Archbishop Laud, and his disciples the Oxford Tract-men, Dr. Hook, &c., then he does controvert them ; because he believes them to be un- scriptural, antiprotestant, exclusive, intolerant, and Popish. The author, indeed, writes not to attack, but to defend. 12 INTRODUCTION. These men make the attack. The consequence of their principles is to charge all other ministers as thieves and rohbers ; they try to trouble and frighten their flocks ; they expect their gain by gathering those they never sought out of the wilderness : v^^hat sort of shepherds, then, should we be to look with indifference upon such proceedings ? In prosecuting the subject, we shall first produce the statements of this doctrine of apostolical succession from the advocates of the system. We shall then endeavour to give the true state of the question, and refute the arguments advanced in favour of that system. In the next place, the arguments against these claims will be brought forward, showing the whole to be contrary to the principles of the Reformation, and leading, to persecution and Popery. Lastly, the nature of the only genuine and absolutely essen- tial apostolical succession will be briefly unfolded. The whole will be concluded with some practical inferences, and counsels of peace to the Protestant churches at large. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. SECTION I. STATEMENTS OF THIS DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCES- SION BY ITS ABLEST ADVOCATES. The design of the following pages is, first, — the refuta- tion of certain errors fraught with pernicious consequences to the peace of the whole Christian church ; and then the establishment of Scriptural truth in their place. To give the authors, accused of maintaining these errors, as fair a trial as the limits of this Essay will admit, we shall, in the commencement, introduce copious extracts from the works of the most distinguished among them. This will enable the reader to judge of the pertinence of the arguments against them. The importance of the subject, and the celebrity. of the writers, will, it is hoped, prevent the ex- tracts from appearing tedious. We shair arrange them under three heads : — 1. As to their doctrine of apostolical succession; 2. As to the necessity of ordination by succession 3. As to the nuUity or worthlessness of all other ordi- nations, and the ministrations belonging to them. First, then, as to their doctrine of apostolical succession. Bishop Taylor's " Episcopacy Asserted" was published by royal command. He had splendid talents : and doubt- less he exerted thera to the utmost to please his royal master, and to support a cause which he enthusiastically admired. We select him as a leading advocate, to give the cause the fairest chance of success. He closes his argu- ment for the divine right of this doctrine of apostolical suc- cession, as follows : — " The Summe of all is this, that Christ did institute Apostles and Presbyters, or 72 Disci- ples. To the Apostles he gave a plenitude of power, for 14 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION." the whole commission was given to them in as great and comprehensive clauses as were imaginable, for by vertue of it, they received a power of giving the Holy Ghost in con- firmation, and of giving his grace in the collation of holy orders, a power of jurisdiction and authority to governe the Church ; and this power was not temporary, but successive and perpetuall, and was intended as an ordinary office in the Church, so that the successors of the Apostles had the same right and institution that the Apostles themselves had, and though the personall mission .was not immediate, as of the Apostles it was, yet the commission arid institution of the function was all one. But to the 72 Christ gave no commission but to preaching, which was a very limited commission. - There was all the immediate Divine institu- tion of Presbyterate as a distinct order, that can be fairly pretended. But yet farther, these 72 the Apostles did ad- mit in partem solicitudinis, and by new ordination or dele- gation Apostolicall, did give them power of administering Sacraments, of absolving sinners, of governing the church in conjunction and subordination to the Apostles, of which they had a capacity by Christ's calling them at first in sor- tern Ministerii, but the exercise, and the actuating of this capacity they had from the Apostles. So that not by Divine ordination, or immediate commission from Christ, but by derivation from the Apostles (and .therefore in minority and subordination to them) the Presb34ers did exercise acts of order and jurisdiction in the absence of the Apostles or Bishops, or in conjunction consiliary, and by way of advice, or before the consecration of a Bishop to a particular Church. And all this I doubt not, but was done by the direction of the Holy Ghost, as were all other Acts of Apostolicall ministration, and particularly the in- stitution of the other order, viz. of Deacons. This is all that can be proved out of Scripture concerning the com- mission given in the institution of Presbyters, and this I shall afterwards confirme by the practice of the Catholick Church, and so vindicate the practices of the present Church from the common prejudices that disturbe us, for by this account. Episcopacy is not only a Divine institution, but the ONLY order that derives immediately from Christ."* Dr. Hickes, another distinguished scholar and divine of * Episcopacy Asserted, pp. 46-48, ed. Ox. 1642, 4to. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 15 the Church of England, denominated bishop and confessor by the Oxford Tract-men, thus speaks : — " Bishops are appointed to succeed the apostles, and like them to stand in Christ's place, and exercise his kingly, priestly, and prophetical office over their flocks ; can you, when you consider this, think it novel, or improper, or uncouth, to call them spiritual princes, and their diocesses, princi- palities, when they have every thing in their office that can denominate a prince ? For what is a prince, but a chief ruler of a society, that hath authority over the rest, to make laws for it, to challenge the obedience of all the members, and all ranks of men in it, axiA power to coeece them, if they will not obey 1 . . . . They stand in God's and Christ's stead over their flocks, the clergy as well as the people are to be subject to them, as to the vicegerents of our Lord And the successors of the apostles, the bishops, like spiritual princes, exercise the same coercive authority that they did in inflicting spiritual censures upon their disobedient subjects. It would require a volume to show you the various punishments with which they cor- rected their disobedience. They degraded clergymen from their order, and as for the people, they put down those who were in the uppermost class of communion into the station of penitents, and other inferior places ; others they forbid to come further than the church doors, and those whom they did not so degrade, they often suspended from the sacrament. The contumacious both of the clergy and laity they punished with excommunication ; from which, after very long and very severe penances, they absolved some ; and others, who were enormous, and very frequent lapsers, they would not reconcile to the peace of the Church, but in the danger, and prospect of death. I need not tell you how much the ancient Christians stood in awe of the APOSTOLICAL ROD in the hands of their bishops, es- pecially of excommunication, which they looked upon as the spiritual axe and sword to the soul, and thought more terrible than death."* And Dr. Hook, the present vicar of Leeds, thus states his views on the subject : — ^" Some persons seem to think that the government of the Church was essentially different in the days of the apostles from what it is now, because * On the Dignity of the Epis. Order', pp. 191. &c. Lond. 1707, 8vo. 16 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. they do not find the names and titles of the ecclesiastical oflScers precisely the same. For instance, as I have just said, he whom we now call a •presbyter, or priest, was fre- quently styled in the New Testament, a bishop. But it is not for names that we contend. We ask what was the fact, and the fact was this : that the ofiicer whom we now call a bishop, was Kt first called an apostle, although after- ward it was thought better to confine the title of apostle to those who had seen the Lord Jesus, while their success- ors, exercising the same rights and authority, though unen- dowed with miraculous powers, contented themselves with the designation of bishops. After this the title was never given to the second order of the ministry The pre- lates, who at this present time rule the churches of these realms, were validly ordained by others, who, by means of an unbroken spiritual descent of ordination, derived their mission from the apostles and from our Lord. This con- tinual descent is evident to every one who chooses to in- vestigate it. Let him read the catalogues of our bishops ascending up to the most remote period. Our ordinations descend in a direct unbroken line from Peter and Paul, the apostles of the circumcision and the Gentiles. These great apostles successively ordained Linus, Cletus, and Clement, bishops of Rome ; and the apostolic succession was regularly continued from them to Celestine, Gregory, and Vitalianus, who ordained Patrick bishop for the Irish, and Augustine and Theodore for the English. And from those times an uninterrupted series of valid ordinations has carried down the apostolical succession in our churches to the present day. There is not a bishop, priest, or deacon, among us, who cannot, if he please, trace his own spirit- ual descent from St. Peter or St. Paul."* In the next place, let us hear what is said about ordi- nation by succession bishops, even when wicked and heretical. Archdeacon Mason's " Defence of the Church of Eng- land Ministry" was begun and completed by the patronage, and under the counsel of Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, and was dedicated to King James I. Its authority is high, among the Church of England divines. He writes in the form of a dialogue, between a Romish priest, Philodoxus, * Two Sermons on the Church and the Establishment, ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 17 and a Church of England divine, called Orthodoxus. The title of chapter eleventh, book 2, is this, " Does schism or heresy take 9.vfa,y the power of consecration ?" He goes on to bring Philodoxus to confess that neither heresy, (p. 175,) nor degradation from the office of a bishop, (p. 176,) nor schism, (p. 180,) nor the most extreme WICKEDNESS, (quamvis enim viri essent omnium sceleratissi- mi, p. 178,) nor "any thing else, can deprive a person once made a bishop of the power of giving true orders." " Orthodoxus. Quod candidi largiris, cupidi arripimus." The Church of England divine says, " what you," the Papists, " candidly grant, we joyfully embrace ! !"* Every pious reader must be grieved to the heart to see the defenders of an important section of the Protestant church joyfally embrace the impious position, that a bishop is a true bishop, though a heretic, and the most wicked of men ! — and all for what ? why, merely to keep up the figment of episcopal ordination and succession. Indeed this is inevitable on the exclusive scheme of episcopacy, jure di- vino. If this perishes, they suppose their Christianity perishes. It must perish, on their scheme, or come through the hands of the moral monsters of Rome. Hence these impious positions are joyfully embraced to defend it. Lastly, these authors say, that no ordinations but such as are performed by succession bishops are valid and divine. This, also, with them is a necessary consequence. Thus Bishop Taylor : " Without (the offices of episco- pacy,) no priest, no ordination, no consecration of the sacra- ment, no absolution, no rite, or sacrament, legitimately can be performed in order to eternity ."t The learned Dodwell declares — " None but the bishop can unite us to the Father and the Son. Whence it will further follow that whoever are disunited- from the visible coitimunion of the Church on earth, and particularly yj-om that visible communion of the bishop, must consequently be disunited from the whole visible catholic Church on earth ; and not only so, but frora»the invisible communion of the holy angels and saints in heaven, and, which is yet more, from Christ and God himself. ... It is one of the most dreadful aggravations of the condition of the damned that * Vindicffi ifccles. Anglicans, edit. sec. fol. Lond., 1638. t Episcopacy Asserted, p. 197. 18 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. they are banished from the presence of the Lord, a,nd from the glory of his power. The same is their condition also who are disunited from Christ by being disunited from his visible representative," (the bishop.)* Dr. Hook, on this point, says, " You will observe how important all this is which I have now laid before you. Unless Christ be spiritually present with the ministers of religion in their services, those services will be vain. But the ONLY ministrations to which he has promised his presence is to those of the bishops who are successors of the first commissioned apostles, and the other clergy acting under their sanction, and hy their authority." " I know the outcry which is raised against this — the doctrine of the Christian Church for eighteen hundred years — I know the outcry that is raised against it by those secte which can trace their origin no higher than to some celebrated preacher at the Reformation. But I disregard it, because I shall, by God's help, continue to do, what I have done ever since I came among you — ^namely, declare the whole counsel of God, without regard to consequences or respect of persons, and at the same time, as far as in me lies, live peaceably with all men."t A passage or two from the Oxford " Tracts for the Times" may suffice, though all their volumes are impreg- nated with the same principles. " The hold," say they, " which the propagandists of the ' Holy Discipline' obtained on ihe fancies and affections of the people, of whatever rank, age, and sex, depended very much on their incessant appeals to ihevc fancied apostolical succession. They found persons willing and eager to suffer or rebel, as the case might be, for their system ; because they had possessed them with the notion, that it was the system handed down from the apostles, ' a divine epis- copate ;' so Beza called it. Why should we despair ' of obtaining, in time, an influence, far more legitimate and less dangerously exciting, but equally searching and ex- tensive, by the diligent inculcation of our true and Scrip- tural claim V'X * One Altar and One Priesthood, 1683, pp. 387 and 397. t Two Sermons on the Church and the Establishment ; and see Hickes on the Christian Priesthood, Pref. 194. t No. 4, p. 7. ON APOST9LICAL SUCCESSION. 19 " I fear we have neglected the real ground on which our authority is built, — our apostolical descent."* " A person not commissioned from the bisfwp, may use the words of baptism, and sprinkle or bathe with the water, on earth, but there is no promise from Christ, that such a man shall admit souls to the kingdom of heaven. A person not commissioned may break bread, and pour out wine', and PRETEND to give the Lord's supper, but it can afford no contort to any to receive it at his hands, because there is no warrant from Christ to lead communicants to suppose that while he does so here on earth, they will be partakers in the Saviour's heavenly body and blood. And as for the person himself, who takes upon himself without warrant Jo minister in holy tl iiiijs, he is all the while treading in the footsteps of Koraii,- Dathan, and Abiram, whose awful PUNISHMENT you read of in the book of Numbers. (Com- pare Numbers xvi with Jude 2.")t Here the reader sees the main features of this system ; — a system supported by a large number of learned and influential divines in the Church of England since the time of Archbishop Laud. It has lately been revived by the authors of the Oxford " Tracts for the Times," Dr. Hook, vicar of Leeds, &c. This doctrine is the root of all their errors and Popish proceedings. By such a scheme as this they FORGE A CHAIN TO BIND HEAVEN AND EARTH, GoD AND MAN, TO THE ACTS OF PRIESTLY ARROGANCE. AlloW the above doctrine, and though Satan and his host incarnate should become ordained by succession bishops, yet no ordinances but such as they administer have the promise of Christ, but are all vain ! This scheme of Anglican- Popery will be seen to have a little variation in its ma- chinery from Roman-Popery ; but they are both animated by the same genius, and both terminate in the same con- sequences. The reader will not regret to see, in the commencement of this Essay, the opinions of two celebrated foreign Pro- testant divines on this subject : the one, of the Lutheran church, and the other, of the reformed French church. Chemnitius, a greatly admired Lutheran divine, in his ad- mirable Examination or Confutation of the Council of Trent, says, " By this measure, they (the Papists) endea- ♦ No. 1, p. 2. t No. 35, pp. 2, 3. 20 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. vour not so much to reproach our (the Protestant) churches, as, at one stroke, to give a mortal stab, and to destroy them from the foundation. In their clamours by which they labour to establish this point, they contend, that in our churches is no true and legitimate administering of the sacraments; that God by our labours will give no blessing, no pardon, no remission of sins; that we can have no true sacrament of the body and blood of Christ ; that all our ministers sxe thieves and robbers, not having entered by the true door" (of apostolical succession) " into the sheep- fold. An atrocious denunciation indeed ! And they give no reason for it but this, that the ministers of our (Pro- testant) churches are not called, sent forth, ordained, shaven, and anointed by Popish bishops."* Now it is clear that there is a perfect identity in the matter urged against the reformers by the Papists, and that urged by high Church of England clergymen against all Protestants who have not episcopal ordination. If the latter have not ventured to be so bold in their denuncia- tions, we can easily see the reason. They know the full consequences, boldly declared, would, with many Protest- ants, even in the Church of England, work as an argu- mentum ad absurdum : the absurdity would produce re- action. They, therefore, generally tlirow it out to work upon weak, credulous, unsuspecting, or bigoted minds. Claude, in his able Defence of the Reformation, says, " And to speak my own thoughts freely, it seems to me, that that firm opinion of the absolute necessity of episcopacy, that goes so high as to own no church, or call, or ministry, or sacraments, or salvation in the world, where there are no episcopal ordinations, although there should be the true faith, the true doctrine, and piety there ; and which would that ALL RELIGION should depend on a formality, and even on a formality that we have shown to be of no other than humane institution ; that opinion, I say, cannot be lookt on otherwise then as the very worst character and mark of the highest hypocricy, a piece of Pharisaism throughout, that strains at a gnat when it swallows a camel, and I cannot avoid having at least a contempt of those kind of thoughts, and a compassion for those who fill their heads with them."t * Pt. ii, p. 4:21,ToI.,.Genev., 1634. t Pt. iv, p. 97, 4to. Lond., 1683. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 21 SECTION II. THE STATE OF THE GENERAL QUESTION. Having exhibited a general view of the doctrine of suc- cession as taught by these high Churchmen, it may now be proper to clear om- way by giving the true state of the question. The succession divines maintain, — 1. That bishops are, by divine right, an order superior to, distinct from, and having powers, authority, and rights incompatible with presbyters, simply as pres- byters : 2. That the bishops of this order are the sole success- ors of the apostles as ordainers of other ministers, and governors both of pastors and people : 3. That this succession is a personal succession, viz. — that it is to be traced through an historical series of persons, validly ordained as bishops, transmitting, in an unbroken line, this episcopal order and power to the latest generations : 4. That no ministry is valid, except it have this epis- copal ordination ; and that all ordinances and sacraments are vain, except they be administered by such episcopally ordained ministers. Now we deny every one of these positions. And we shall show, — 1 . That bishops and presbyters are, by divine right, the SAME ORDER ; and that presbyters, by divine right, have the same power and authority as bishops ; that ordina- tion by presbyters is equally valid with that of bishops ; and, consequently, that the ministry of all the reformed Protestant churches is equally valid with that of any epis- copal church : 2. That presbyters are as much the successors of the apostles as bishops are : 3. That a succession of the truth of doctrine, oi faith and holiness, of the pure word of God, and of the sacraments duly administered, is thfe only essential succession ne- cessary to a Christian church : 22 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 4. That all are TRtfE Christian churches where such a ministry and such ordinances are found. Here it should be well observed, that the distinguishing character of the scheme we oppose, is its unchristian ex- clusiveness and intolerance. If its advocates had contended only for the lawfulness or allowableness of an ecclesiastical arrangement for a class of ministers whom they choose to call bishops, without excluding the presbyters of other churches from their Scriptural power and audiority to per- form all the duties necessary for the heing and well being of the Christian church, this might have passed : but this does not satisfy them. Nothing will answer their design, but the degrading of the presbyters of those churches, and all presbyters, to an incapacit}; for performing those duties ■which God has committed unto them, and the setting up of an order of bishops, by divine right, with the sole and exclusive powers of ordaining ministers, and of governing them and the church to the end of the world. Again, if these writers had contended simply for the importance of a succession of pious ministers, in a settled state of things, in any church, as a great blessing to that church, and an en- couragement to the faith of its members, without making an unbroken line of succession absolutely essential in all states to the very being of a church, they would have acted commendably ; and not a word of disapprobation of such a succession is found in this Essay. But this would have allowed, with the early Christian fathers, that the succession of apostolical faith and doctrine is the only ESSENTIAL succcssion : this, however, is too liberal for our high Churchmen ; it would not answer their intolerant purposes. Bishop Taylor, the Oxford Tract-men, &c., solemnly maintain, that without an unbroken line of such bishops as their scheme maintains, and their ordinations from the apostles, there is no ministry, no promise of Christ, no blessings in any of the ordinances of religion ; and that, consequently, the Scotch church, the Lutheran church, a,nd all the Protestant churches in the world, are consigned, - like heathens, to the uncovenanted mercies of God ! As an epikgue to this drama, these writers, after this excommunication, sometimes affect to feel a little charity for the excommunicated, and say, " We do not hurt them — the Church doors are open— they can come in if they ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 23 please — ^they shut themselves out, &c." Just so says Po- pery : " We are the church," say they, — " its doors are open." And they will " compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, they make him twofold more the child of hell than themselves."* But if a person does not see reason for the dominion of his holiness of Rome, for denying the evidence of his senses in their doc- trine of transubstantiation, &c., then they consign his soul to perdition, and his body to the secular arm to be burned. If you say, " This is cruel," it is replied, " O ! no : we pity him — ^we do not hurt him — the church doors are open — ^he may come in if he pleases — ^yea, we entreat him to come in — he shuts himself out — his blood must be upon his own head." The reader must determine whether or not this charity is from above. - We repeat, then, that in perusing this or any other work on the subject, the reader must never forget that the estab- lishment of the fact of some kind of an order of bishops having existed in the church from an early period, and of the fact of an unbroken line from the same period, would not establish the system of these men. It might be allowed that both are important to the well being of a chiu-ch ; and yet it would not follow that they are neQessary to the being of that church. "No proof will do for the above scheme, but the proof that the Lord Jesus Christ has ABSOLUTELY determined that no ministers but such bishops as they feign shall convey this succession ; and thjit with- otJT this unbroken line of such bishops, and their ordina- tions from the time of the apostles, he will give no blessing to the ministry or ordinances of any church under heaven, to the end of the world. No proof ^ut this will suffice to the establishing of their monstrous scheme. If its advo- cates would act candidly and fairly, they should set them- selves to produce this proof, or give up their cause. If the reader keeps this, the true state of the question, dis- tinctly before his mind, their endless assertions and soph- isms wiU be powerless ; if he does not, he will, of course, be mystified and misled. But though we thus state the subject, that the establish- ment of the fact of some kind of an order of bishops from an early period in the church, and the fact of an unbiioken * Matt, xxiii, 15. 24 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. line from the same period, would not support their scheme ; yet, as to such an order of bishops as they contend for, and as to such an unbroken line of succession as they boast of, we DENY the FACT OF BOTH. God nevcr instituted the first ; and the last does not exist. All this will be cleary shown in the sequel. This being the state of the question, the proof of their own propositions lies upon the succession divines. Their proofs must be Scriptural, clear, and strong. This is evi- dent from the interests of both parties. The interests of the succession divines and their followers require such proofs. They venture to suspend the validity of their own ministry and ordinances, and the whole Christianity of all their people, upon this doctrine : what wretched apprehen- sions, then, must they have, except their proof be Scrip- tural, clear, and strong. The interests of other Christian churches require this. The result of this doctrine, they are aware, is to excommunicate all the other Protestant churches in Europe. He that attempts this, should show cause why he does it. His own character requires this : this also is necessary for the conviction and conversion of the offenders, and for the satisfaction of the public mind. Bishop Taylor, and some others, have attempted it ; we shall examine their attempts. Dr. Hook, indeed, is un- warrantably arrogant and insolent upon the subject. He says, among other arrogant things, in his " Two Sermons on the Church and the Establishment," " It is very seldom that the clergyman of the parish feels it to be worth his while to enter into controversy with the Dissenting teacher 1 He knows his superiority, and that he has nothing to gain by the contest." Nqjv this is not so meek, — first to ex- communicate you, and then to insult you for asking the reason for this sentence. " He knows his superiority, and that he has nothing to gain by the contest." Indeed ^ what, no justification for this tremendous sentence ? What, then, has he something to lose here 1 Truth always gains : error and evil deeds only lose by the light. Dr. Hook may possibly find he has something to lose, if he has nothing to gain. It is a common trick with the Pa- pists to be the most confident where they have least proof. They know many of their deluded followers will exercise an implicit faith in their assertions. This will do — rea- ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 25 soning would possibly lead many to doubt — perhaps to do more. It is wise in such a cause to avoid it, and to treat your adversary with scorn. Why not 1 you have " nothing to gain" by the controversy. Dr. "Hook, however, has favoured us with the outline of his scheme and argumenta- tion. These we shall notice in their place. Now though the proof, as we have said, lies upon these assertors of this personal succession scheme ; and though no man ought to be required to prove a negative; yet as they are shy of their proofs, and in their stead give the world their important ipse dixits ,- and as their bold asser- tions may trouble many, an exposure of the baselessness and futility of these assertions may be useful. Let the reader remember, that if we can only show that a reasona- ble ^^ doubt" lies upon any part of this scheme, that doubt will be fatal to it. If we show more ; if we show every PROPOSITION to be DOUBTFUL ; — yea, more stiU, every proposition to be baseless and false ; then the whole fabric falls to the ground. SECTION III. NO POSITIVE PROOF FROM THE SCRIPTURES OF THESE HIGH CHURCH CLAIMS. We will proceed to examine the Scriptural proofs ad- duced in favour of these high Church claims. Bishop Taylor has granted, (what every Protestant ought to insist upon,) that, except they iave clear, Scriptural grounds ».for these claims, the attempt to impose them on the church of God would be tyranny. " Whatsoever," says he, " was the regiment of the Church in the apostles^ times, that must be perpetuall, (not so as to have all that which was per- sonall, and temporary, but so as to have no other,) for that, and that only is of divine institution which Christ com- mitted to the apostles, and if the Church be not now gov- erned as then, we can show no divine authority for our government, which we must contend to doe, and doe it, too, or be call'd usurpers."* So says Chillingworth, in his immortal declaration, — " The religion of the Protest- * Episcopacy Asserted, p. 41. 2 26 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. ants— is the Bible. The Bible, I say, the Bible only is the rehgion of Protestants ! Whatsoever else they believe besides it, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable conse- quences of it, well may they hold it as a matter of opinion ; but as matter of faith and religion, neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high and most sehismatical presumption^* I ought to caution the reader on one point here — it is this, that he will not blame me if I do not bring forward any such arguments produced by these divines, out of the sacred Scriptures, as their cause might seem to demand. All I can say is, that I know of no arguments of this kind ; and therefore I cannot produce them. I promise him I will produce the best I have anywhere found urged by these advocates for their scheme. Perhaps, however, in justice to some eminent writers in favour of episcopacy, I should say, that they substantially give up direct Scripture proof, and rely cMejly upon an induction from the testimo- ny of the early Christian fathers. Thus, Dr. Hammond asks, " Who were "the apostles' successors in that power which concerned the governing their churches which they planted 1 and first, I answer, that it being a matter of fact, or story, later than the Scripture can universally reach to, it cannot be fully satisfied or answered from thence — ^but will in the full latitude, through the universal church in these times be made clear, from the recent evidences that we have, viz., from the consent of the Greek and Latin fathers, who generally resolve that bishops are those suc- cessors. "t The celebrated Henry Dodwell has probably never been surpassed in laborious ecclesiastical learning, and he devoted it all to the establishment of this system of exclusiveness on behalf of episcopal powers and authority. Now this high Church champion, after all his toil to estab- lish these claims, fairly gives up all direct Scriptural au- thority for them. "The sacred writers," says he, " no- where professedly explain the offices' or ministries them- selves, as to their nature or extent, which surely they would have done if any particular form had been presented * Religion of Protestants, chap, vii, sec. 56. t On the Power of the Keys, Preface. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 27 for pejpetual duration."* And the very learned Bishop Beveridge himself, another exclusionist, makes substan- tially the same acknowledgment. He says, " Nothing can be determined from what the apostles did in their early proceedings in preaching the gospel as to the establish- ment of any certain form of church government for perpetual duration."! But let us proceed to the attempts made to find some- thing in Scripture to support this scheme. § 1. — The Commission of Jesus Christ to the Apostles. Their first argument is taken from the commission of Christ to the apostles : " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to ob- serve all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."| The scheme of high Churchmen asserts that this commission belongs to bishops alone, as the exclusive successors of the apostles, and as the sole rulers and ordainers of all other ministers to the end of the world. The jproofis wanting : though Archbishop Potter tells us, that the passage before us " contains a full declaration of our Lord's intention."^ It would be idle to quote the at- tempts to supply this want of proofs by the reiterated asser- tions of these writers on the subject. The reader may see them in Bishop Taylor, sec. 3; Dr. Hook's Two Sermons, &c. The great reformers of the English Church thought very differently from these men ; for they appointed this very commission as a part of the solemn office for ordain- ing all presbyters : thus most decidedly determining that they believed this commission to belong to, all presbyters, as well as to bishops. There is not, indeed, a single syllable in the passage about distinct orders of bishops and presbyters. The whole commission plainly belongs equafly to every minister of Christ, in every age, as it does to a bishop. The Lord made no distinction ; and the ser- vant that attempts it, attempts a tyranny over his brethren * De Nupero Schismate, sec. 14. t Cod. Can. Ecc. Prim. Vinci., p. 317. Lond., 1678, 4to. X Matt, .txviii, 19, 20. § Church Govern., p. 181, ed. Bagster, 1838. 28 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. for wliicli he has no divine warrant. To see that our Lord intended no such thing as this proud scheme, let us hear him in other places on the relation of ministers, one to another. " But be not ye called rabhi : for one is your Master, even Christ ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man yam father upon the earth : for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters : for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased ; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."* " But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them. Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them ; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you : but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister : and whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."t The only just conclusions that can be drawn from these passages are, that all ministers of the gospel are equal by divine authority ; and that the only important distinctions before God will be those of deeper pj'eiy, more devoted labours, and greater usefulness to the churbh of God. " Whosoever will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all." Great dependance is placed by others upon our Saviour's words on John xx, 21-23, " Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you : as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them. Receive ye the Holy Ghost : whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them : and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." Now this is just as inconclusive as the other ; nay, the very indefiniteness of the Saviour's language, in both passages, is against them ; for, had he meant what they would have him to mean, he would, in a matter, according to this scheme, so all-important, have said so ; but he did not say so, which proves decidedly that he did not mean so. And here also, again, it is unfortunate for these writers, as be- longing to the Church of England, that her reformers have indisputably shown, that, in their views, this whole pas- * Matt. 3Exiii, 8-18. t Mark x, 42-45. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 29 sage, whatever power and authority it conveys, belongs PROPERLY to presbyters, as well as to bishops, by applying the whole to presbyters in the solemn act of their ordination to the ministry. We speak of the Book of Orders, or the Office for ordaining Priests (presbyters) and Bishops, as it was constituted by the great English reformers ; and as it continued till 1661, when it was altered to what it is at present. See section vii, of this Essay. § 2. — The Claim of Afosti,eship for Bishops. But it is said, and contended for, that bishops are now what the apostles were in their time. To be sure some things are excepted, as the pretence would otherwise im- mediately refute itself. Let us hear Bishop Taylor : " In the extraordinary priviledges of the apostles they had no successors, therefore of necessity a successor must be constituted in the ordinary office of apostolate. Now what is this ordinary office 1 Most certainly since the extraordinary (as is evident) was only a helpe for the founding and beginning, the other are such as are neces- sary for the perpetuating of a church. Now in clear evi- dence of sense, these offices and powers are preaching, baptizing, consecrating, ordaining, and governing. For these were necessary for the perpetuating of a church, unless men could be Christians that were never chris- tened, nourished up to life without the eucharist, become priests without calling of God and ordination, have their sinnes pardoned without absolution, be members and parts and sonnes of a church whereof there is no coadunation, no authority, no governour. These the apostles had with- out all question, and whatsoever they had, they had from Christ, and these were eternally necessary: these, then, were the offices of the apostolate, which Christ promised to assist for ever, and this is that which we now call the order and office of episcopacy. The apostolate and epis- copacy which did communicate in all the power, and offices which were ordinary and perpetuall, are in Scripture clearely all one in ordinary ministration, and their names are often lised in common to signify exactly the same ordinary function."* "■Imposition of hands is a duty and » Pages 14, 15. 30 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. office mcessary for the perpetuating of a church, ne gens sit vnius atatis, least it expire in one age : this power of imposition of hands for ordination was fix't upon the apos- tles and apostolike men, and not communicated to the 72 disciples or presbyters ; for the apostles, and apostolike men, did so deyacto, and were commanded to doe so, and the 72 never did so, therefore this office and ministry of the apostolate is distinct and superior to that oi presbyters, and this distinction must be so continued to all ages of the church, for the thing was not temporary but productive of issue and succession, and therefore as perpetuall as the clergy, as the Church itself."* " For farther confirmation," says Bingham, " of what has been asserted, it will not be amiss here to subjoin next a short account of the titles of honour which were given to bishops in the primitive church. The most an- cient of these is the title of apostles ; which, in a large and secondary sense, is thought by many to have been the original name for bishops, before the name bishop was ap- propriated to their order. For at first they suppose the names bishop and presbyter to have been common names for all of the first and second^ order ; during which time, the appropriate name for bishops, to distinguish them from mere presbyters, was that of apostles. Thus Theodoret says expressly, ' The same persons were anciently called promiscuously both bishops and presbyters, while those who are now called bishops, were' (then) ' called apostles. But shortly after, the name of apostles was appropriated to such only as were apostles indeed ; and then the name bishop was given to those who before were called apostles.' Thus, he says, Epaphroditus was the apostle of the Phi- lippians, and Titus the apostle of the Cretans, and Timothy the apostle of the Asiaticks. And this he repeats in seve- ral other places of his writings." " The author under the name of St. Ambrose asserts the same thing ; ' That all bishops were called apostles at first.' And therefore, he says, that ' St. Paul, to distin- guish himself from such apostles, calls himself an apostle, not of man, nor sent by man to preach, as those others were, who were chosen and sent by the apostles to con- firm the churches.' Amalarius cites another passage out * Page 27. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 31 of this same author, which speaks more fully to the pur- pose : ' They.l says he, ' who are now called bishops, were originally called apostles : but the holy apostles being DEAD, they who were ordained after them to govern the churches, could not arrive to the excellency of those first ; nor had they the testimony of miracles, but were in many respects infeijpr to them; therefore they thought" it not DECENT to assume to themselves the name of apostles ; but, dividing the names, they left to presbyters the name of the presbytery, and they themselves were called bishops.'" " This is what those authors infer from the identity of the names, bishop and presbyter, in the first age : they do not thence argue (as some who abuse their authority have done since) that therefore bishops and presbyters were all one ; but they think that bishops were then distinguished by a more appropriate name, and more expressive of their superiority, which was that of secondary apostles."* So Dr. Hook : — " The officer whom we now call a bishop was at first called an apostle, although afterward it was thought better to confine the title of apostle to those who had seen the Ijord Jesus, while their successors, exercising the same rights and authority, though unen- dowed with miraculous powers, contented themselves with the designation of bishops."! The importance of these extracts must apologize for their length. Powerful efforts are sometimes made to hold up this system by claiming authority for it from the precedents of Scriptural bishops. This, however, its • ablest advocates seem to be conscious is untjBuable ground. They find something more indefinite about the office of apostles. This makes it more easy to indulge in supposi- tions and assertions. Besides, the scheme is an imposing one : sole, exclusive successors of the apostles ! What may they not do, if they can establish this ? The world must bow to their awful authority. The pope has shown us what may be accomplished in subjugating the bodies, and souls, and substance of mankind, by one such suc- cessor : what would be the state of the world, then, were every bishop established as a pope in his diocess ? To * Page 21, vol. i, fol. Lond., 1726. t Two Sermons on the Church and the Establishment. 32 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. say this is all exaggeration, is to contradict all past history and experience. The nature of the subject, the boldness of these claims, and the confidence with which they are urged, demand a careful investigation of this apostlbship of bishops. But before we enter upon that investigation, it will not be irre- levant to notice, how these and similar advocates of this high scheme of episcopacy disagree with each other. Bishop Taylor declares that, if this high Church scheme be not the same as was in the apostles' times, and if they " cannot show divine authority for it, they must be called usurpers."* But the famous Henry Dodwell, one of its most learned and strenuous advocates, afiirms, " That all the reasoning from which men conclude that the whole model of ecclesiastical discipline may be extracted from the writings of the New Testament, is very precarious. There is," says he, " no passage of any sacred writer which openly professes this design. Indeed there is not one which so treats of ecclesiastical government, as if the author, or the writer's author, the Holy Spirit, had in- tended to describe any one form of church government as being to remain everywhere as for ever inviolate. The sacred penmen have nowhere declared, with sufficient clear- ness, how great a change must take place in church go- vernment when the churches should first withdraw from the communion of the synagogues. They nowhere clearly show how much was allowed to the personal gifis of the Holy Ghost, and how much to places and offices. They nowhere, with decided clearness, distinguish the extraordi- nary officers, who were not to outlive that age, from the ordinary ministers who were not to cease till the second coming of Christ. Indeed, all things of this nature were then so generally known, and they so suppose this know- ledge in what they say, that they never for the sake of posterity explain them ; concerning themselves only with present things, and leaving the future. They nowhere pro- fessedly explain the offices or ministries themselves, as to their nature or extent ; which surely they would have done if any particular form had been prescribed for perpetual duration."! The learned Dr. Bentley declares, that " our bishops, * Episcopacy Asserted, p. 41. t De Nupero Schismate, sec. 14. ON APOSTOLIOAL SUCCESSION. 33 with all Christian antiquity, never thought themselves and their order to succeed the Scripture EmaKonoi, (bishops,) but the Scripture AporoAot, (apostles :) they were diaSo- Xoi Tuv Anog'oXuv, the successors of the apostles. — The presbyters, therefore, while the apostles lived, were 'Ettkjkottoi, bishops, overseers."* Yet Dodwell, superior to Bentley in ecclesiastical learning, positively affirms, that " the office of the apostles perished ivith the apostles; in which office there never was any succession to any of them, EXCEPT to Judas the traitok."! Let the reader also remark, here, that the scheme of the apostleship of modern bishops ftdly concedes the point, that bishops and presbyters were, in the apostles' days, one and the SAME ORDER. For these advocates never reckon more than three orders in the ministry, namely, (1.) bishops, whose appropriate name, they say, is apostles ; (2.) priests or presbyters ; and (3.) deacons. Now were we to reckon Scriptural bishops and presbyters as distinct orders, this would make, for the apostles' days, four orders : and would contradict their own enumeration of orders. It follows, therefore, that their plan of apostleship fully concedes that Scriptural bishops and presbyters not only had these names in common, so that presbyters were called bishops, and bishops were called presbyters indifferently, but that they were really one and the same order. Accordingly, Dr. Hammond says, that presbyters, as mentioned in Acts xi, 30, were bishops ; also in Acts xiv, 23, and other places. And he says that the word presbyter was "fitly made use of by the apostles and writers of the New Testament, and affixed to the governors of the Christian church." — " And although this title of presbyter have been also extended to a second order in the church, and is now only in use for them, under the name of presbyter, yet in the Scripture times, it belonged principally, if not alone, to bishops, there being no evidence that any of that second order were then instituted." In plain English, the doctor fairly grants that presbyters, in Scripture times, were bishops, and bishops were presbyters : that is, they were one and the same order and office. And Bentley afiirms that " presbyters, while the apostles lived, were bishops." * Rundolph'3 Enchir. Theol., vol. v, p. 204. t De Nupero Schismatc, pp. 65, 68, ed. Lond., 1704, 12mo. 2* 34 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. We proceed, however, to investigate further these claims of the rights and authority of apostles for modem bishops. Let us consider whom it is said they succeed, and to what they succeed. The claim amounts to this, that modern apostles, by voluntary humility called bishops, are the exclusive successors of the twelve apostles ; that they suc- ceed them in those rights and in that authority which no other order of ministers possessed : and that this inherit- ance is indivisible, that is, that it cannot belong to two different orders of men at the same time ; yea, that it is itself the very essence of the order of modern apostles ; so that no individual could possess it but he would, ly the very fact of this possession, immediately become an apostle himself. To establish their scheme, these advocates must show two things : 1st, that the order of the twelve apostles was to be an ordinary, standing order in the church ; and 2dly, they must show divine law, positive divine law, for the exclusive succession of modern bishops to the rights and authority of these apostles. For if the order of the twelve apostles was extraordinary and temporary, the claim< to succeed them in that which had no continuance beyond themselves is a vain presumption : and if there be no divine law for giving to bishops the exclusive rights and authority of the twelve, then the assumption of such rights and authority, without divine law, is an impious assump- tion, and an attempt at an intolerable usurpation in the church of Christ. This being the state of the question, on this point, we come to inquire into the proofs. The proofs produced are of two kinds : first, Scriptural; secondly, ecclesiastical. As this is a question of divine right, Scriptural authority alone can decide it. Ecclesias- tical or human authority, as authority, is impertinent, and can decide nothing one way or another. However, we shall examine it in its place. First, then, the Scriptural proofs. The claims being so high and awful, the proofs must be clear, plain, and power- ful. Dr. Barrow's remarks on the matter of proofs as to the pope's supremacy will hold with equal force as to the supremacy of hishops. We shall insert them, with words in brackets, showing their application to this system. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION: 35 " If," says he, " God had designed the bishop of Rome [bishops as supreme over ministers and people] to be for a perpetual course of times sovereign monarch [monarchs] of his church, it may reasonably be supposed that he would expressly have declared his mind in the case, it being a point of greatest importance of all that concern the admi- nistration of his kingdom in the world. Princes do not use to send their viceroys unfurnished with patents clearly signifying their commission, that no man out of ignorance or doubts concerning that point, excusably may refuse compliance ; and, in all equity, promulgation is requisite to the estatjlishment of any law, or exacting obedience. But in all the pandects of divine revelation, the bishop of Rome [or, the supremacy of bishops,] is not so much as ONCE mentioned, either by name, or by character, or by probable intimation ; they cannot h^ok him [them] in other- wise than by straining hard, and framing a long chain of consequences, each of which is too subtle for to constrain any man's persuasion. — In the Levitical law all things concerning the high priest ; not only his designation, suc- cession, consecration, duty, power, maintenance, privilege of its high priest, [of bishops as high priests,] whereby he [they] might be directed in the administration of his [their] office, [of their supremacy,] and know what observance to require. Whereas also the Scripture doth inculcate duties of all sorts, and doth not forget frequently to press duties of respect and obedience toward particular governors of the church ; is it not strange that it should never bestow one precept, whereby we might be instructed and admo- nished to pay our duty to the universal Pastor ? .[to these supreme pastors ?] especially considering, that God, who directed the pens of the apostles, and who intended that their writings should continue for the perpetual instruction of Christians, did foresee how requisite such a precept would be to secure that duty ; for if but one such precept did appear, it would do the business, and void all contesta- tion about it."* Thus also speaks the learned Stillingfleet in his celebrated Irenicum : " We shall dissuss the nature of a DIVINE RIGHT, and show whereon an unalterable divine right must be founded." Very well: now high " Dr. Barrow's Treatise on the Pope's Siipremaev, Supp. 5, p. 1.55, &c., ed. Lond., 1680, 4to. 36 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. ,„ ' Churchmen say that modern bishops have divine right to " the rights and authority of apostles." Let Stillingfleet state the law of the case.* " Jus (law) is that which makes a thing to become a duty : so jus quasi jussum, and jussa jura, as Festus explains it ; that is, that whereby a thing is not only licitum (lawful) in men's lawful power to do it or no, but is made dehitum, (duty,) and is constituted a duty by the force and virtue of a divine command. — Whatso- ever binds Christians as an universal standing law, must be clearly revealed as such, and laid down in Scripture in such EVIDENT TERMS, as all who have their senses exer- cised therein may discern to have been the will of Christ, that it should perpetually oblige all believers to the world's end, as is clear in the case of baptism, and the Lord's supper." Let, then, such a law, such " a divine command, an universal standing law, clearly revealed as such, and laid down in Scripture in such evident terms, as all who have their senses exercised therein may discern to have been the will of Christ, that it should perpetually oblige all believers to the world's end"^et such a law be shown for the claim of the rights and authority of apostles - as belonging to modern bishops, and the question is ended. We all cordially submit to, and acquiesce in, such a divine law. But, if no such law be produced ; if no such law can be produced ; if no such law ever was promulgated ; then, to urge such a claim upon the consciences of all other ministers and people, and, on this baseless assump- tion, to pronounce all their ordinances void, all their minis- ters as Korah, Dathan, and Abiram f what is this but to curse those whom Christ has blessed ? what, but to intro- duce a system of usurpation in the church of God, essen- tially destructive of its peace to the end "of the world 1 This for the nature of the proofs. But to proceed : it will be proper here, in order to avoid ambiguity, to notice the different significations of the term apostle. The general meaning of the term apostle is, one sent, a mis- sionary, a messenger. Accordingly, when the Saviour sent forth the twelve, he also, saith St. Luke, "named them 'apostles." These are called the apostles, byway of emi- nence. Eusebius says, " The Lord Jesus Christ called twelve apostles, whom alone among the rest of his dis- * Stillingfleet's Irenicum, part i, chap i. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 37 ciples he denominated with peculiar honour, his apostles."* They are also called " the twelve" in various parts of the New Testament ; the " apostles of Christ" in opposition to apostles of men, or of churches, 1 Cor. i, 1 ; 2 Cor. i, 1 ; xi, 13, and in many other places. The term, when applied to others, is simply " apostle," or " the apostle," or " mes- senger of the churches." The term apostle is also applied in the New Testament to several other individuals in a more general, and less dignified sense. It is, in this -sense, applied to designate all who were sent to preach the gospel ; the twelve apostles, and all other preachers. This is proved by the following passages : — Matt, xxiii, 34, compared with Luke xi, 49. For the apostles, as mentioned in Luke, are explained in Matthew by being called " wise men and scribes ;" that is, all teachers or preachers of the gospel. So Dr. Hammond in Matt, xxiii, 34, " Prophets and others learned in your religion, which receiving the faith (Matt, xiii, 53) shall preach it to you ;" and therefore, in Luke xi, 49, he trans- lates the word " apostle" by the word " messenger ;" and so Tremellius translates the Syriac there. Dr. Whitby, in Matt, xxiii, 34, explains " wise men and scribes," by " true interpreters of the law and the prophets," and in- stances Stephen the deacon as one of them. Thus Calvin, Mr. S. Clarke, and Dr. A. Clarke, interpret these passages to mean all preachers of the gospel ; and, indeed, they do not seem capable of any other interpretation. In this sense, several of the fathers call the seventy disciples, sent forth by our Lord to preach the gospel, apostles. Apollos, who was nothing more than a lay preacher, is also^in this sense called an " apostle :" compare 1 Cor. iv, 9 with V, 6 ; so is Barnabas, Acts xiv, 14 ; and see 2 Cor. xi, 13, with v, 15 ; Rom. xvi, 7 ; Rev. ii, 3. The word apostle seems, also, to be apphed in the New Testament in a more general sense still, to signify any messenger on public business, whether a preacher of the gospel or not. Though we notice this sense of the term apostle last, yet it is, in truth, the most proper sense of the word ; and the former meanings only show particular ap- plications of this general one. Thus Dr. Hammond on Luke vi, 13: "The name (apostle) hath no more in it" " Euseb. E. H., lib. i, cap. 10. 38 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. than to " signify messenger on legate." " Among the Jews all sorts of messengers are called apostles. So Ahijah (1 Kings xiv, 6) is called aK^ripog ATroj-oAof, that is, a harsh apostle, or messenger of ill news. And in the Old Testament the word is no otherwise used. Among the Talmudists it is used of them that were, by the rulers of the synagogues, sent out to receive the tenths and dues that belonged to the synagogues. And, in like manner, the messengers of the church that carried their liberality,' or letters congratulatory, from one to another, are by Igna- tius called ■&eodgofioi and ■&eoTTpeal3vTai, the divine carriers, or embjissadors ; and so in the Theodosian Codex tit. de Judmis, apostoli are those that were sent by the patriarch at a set time to require the gold' and silver due to them." Thus the persons who were chosen hy the churches to carry the money collected in Greece for the poor brethren at Jerusalem are called the apostles ; that is, as our trans- lators justly render it, " the messengers of the churches," 2 Cor. viii, 33. This is explained by the apostle Paul himself, where he says, in 1 Cor. xvi, 3, " And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring .your liberality to Jerusalem :" as in 2 Cor. viii, 19, he speaks of them as " chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace," with this liberal contri- bution. The reader will observe that St. Paul does not number Titus with these apostles, or, more properly, mes- sengers ; and for this plain reason, these messengers were persons chosen or ordained by the churches to this business, — ^Titus was NOT ; but only sent in company with them by the apostle ; they, therefore, were messengers of the churches, and they only, 2 Cor. viii, 23, " Whether any do inquire of Titus,' he is my partner and fellow-helper concerning you : or our brethren be inquired of, they are the MESSENGERS of the churches, and the glory of Christ." In Phil, ii, 25, it seems to be used again to mean a public messenger, a messenger of the church, sent on their public business. Bishop Taylor here actually* perverts * No man's name should shield him when he perverts the truth. This is not the only instance in which Bishop Taylor has been guilty of perverting the truth to serve a system. Quoting the annotation of Zonaras, p. 280, upon the twelfth canon of the Laodicean council, " Populi saffragiis olim episcopi eligebantnr," he translates, "of old ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 39 the sense by a false translation. He renders avvefryogj my " compeer," in order to raise Epaphroditus, as a proto- type of modern bishops, to equality with apostles. lie would thus make PriscUla and Aquila (Rom. xvi, 3) apos- tolic compeers, rmig avvepyovg fiov ; and perhaps Priscilla would stand as a prototype for a race of female bishops ! Will he also make apostles themselves compeers with God, because they were workers together with him, Geov ■yap Ecjfiffv awegryoi 1 1 Cor. iii, 9. The apostle's language, however, is distinct, as before : — " Yet I suppose it neces- sary to send to you Epaphroditus, my companion in labour, avvepyov fiov, but yotjr messenger, vfioyvds anofoXov," Phil, ii, 25. Dodwell has the candour and good sense to see this. " If it were true," says he, " that these secondary apostles of the churches were the apostles of the churches for no other reason than this, that they were sent to plant churches ; there would in this view be no ground on which they could be distinguished from the primary apostles : for the apostles of Christ were sent forth and appointed by Christ himself to this office oi planting churches. Ephes. iv, 11-13. But we may easily gather from the Epistle to time bishops were chosen not withoct the sufirage of the people," instead of " by the suffrage of the people ;" and this is done evidently to weaken or alter the sense of the passage, as a proof of the people's power formerly in choosing the bishop " by their suffrages." He tells his reader, at p. 55, that Jerome is dissuading Heliodorus from taking on him " the great burden of the episcoPjIL office." Now Jerome commences his discourse on the subject by saying, " Provocabis ad cLBEOs'!" — "Do you now come to the cleegyI" But then Jerome, in the next line, speaks of these clekgy, without any distinction, as *' succeeding to the apostolical degree." Here is the secret. So Jerome must be made to speak to Heliodorus about " the great burden of the episcopal office I" Again, in the very ^ame page : " Feed the flock of God which is among you, said St. Peter to the bishops of Pontiis, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Similia enim suc- CESsoKiBus suis Pctrus scripsit prascepta, saith Theodoras — St. Peter gave the same precepts to his successors which Christ gave to him," p. 55. Here he finds Theodoret speaking of apostolical successors ; so they must be made bishops, though the sacred text expressly says they were " presbyters !" 1 Pet. -i, 1-3. There is a very reprehen- sible attempt of the same kind upon the eighteenth canon of the coun- cil of Ancyra, at p. 176. The Church of England divines never spare the Popish divines when they detect them in such tricks ; they boldly charge them with " forgeries and corruptions of councils and fathers." They do right. " Thou that judgest another, thou condemnest thy- self," if thou doest any of the same things. 40 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. the Philippians to what the office of Epaphroditus, as an apostle or messenger, referred, (chap, iv, 18,) ' But I have all, and abound : I am full, having received of Epaphrodi- tus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God.' His office, therefore, belonged to pectjniary affairs. Rem igitur pecuniariam spectahat ilia legatio."* He treats this subject well to the end of the section ; but we must study brevity. Here, then, we see the word apostle, or apostles, signi- nifies in the New Testament, first, " the twelve apostles," so designated by way of eminence, as distinguished from all others ; secondly, it signifies, in a more general and less dignified sense, all preachers of the gospel; and, ' thirdly, it signifies any public messenger, as " the messenger of the churches," 2 Cor. viii, 23 ; Phil, ii, 23. Here let the reader remark : First, that the application of the name apostle to the bishops of modern times, in the second and third senses, will give them no prerogatives over any other ministers of the gospel : it must, then, be claimed for them by high Churchmen in the first sense, as applied to designate the twelve ALONE ; this is their claim. Let this be strictly kept in mind, as these advocates often sophistically shiji their terms. Secondly, observe, that from the exclusive nature of the twelve apostles' office, none besides themselves could pos- sibly possess it during their lives ; consequently, nothing possessed by any other ministers during the apostles' lives belonged to this exclusive office. To see the truth of the former part of this sentence : suppose that any other ministers, during the lives of the twelve apostles, pos- sessed what are called their prerogatives in common with them, (the solecism must be excused,) it is clear as the light that such things ceased to be the prerogatives of the twelve the moment they were possessed by others in common with them. This could not be succession, but possession in common. It follows, therefore, that from the exclusive nature of the twelve apostles' office, none besides themselves could possibly possess it during their lives ; and, consequently, that nothing possessed by any • Dodwelli Diss. Cyprian, No. 6, ^ 17. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 41 Other ministers, during the apostles' lives, belonged to these exclusive prerogatives. Thirdly, then, it follovirs necessarily, that as Timothy, and Titus, and Epaphroditus, were not of the twelve, no argument can be deduced from any thing in their case in favour of the apostleship of modern bishops. Yet these advocates fill their volumes with tirades about Timothy, Titus, and Epaphroditus, as prototypes of modern bishops. Fourthly. To retort their own argument about names and things upon themselves — it would signify nothing for the divine right of the prerogatives of bishops were they sometimes called apostles by name, for all preachers of the gospel were sometimes called by that name ; they must prove the things apart from the name ; that bishops, as apostles, have what no other preachers of the gospel have. This brings us to things, to the prerogative of the twelve apostles : the proud claim of this system. What, then, were the prerogatives of the twelve apostles, EXCLUSIVELY possossod by them, as distinguished from all other gospel ministers whatever? They were the following : — 1. Immediate vocation, Gal. i, 1, " Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.") The ordination of an apostle, in the strict sense of the word, was not only immediately by Christ himself, without any imposition of hands, but it was complete at onbe, without the individual having passed through any other grades or offices in the ministry preparatory to it. Now no bishop was ever appointed immediately by Christ himself: high Churchmen maintain imposition of hands as necessary to their ordination ; and, what is perhaps most to the point in hand, no man, on the scheme of high Churchmen, can be made a bishop who has not previously received what they call the indelible character of the priesthood, in his ordination to the office of a presbyter. A bishop, who had never been a presbyter, is considered incapable of admin- istering the sacraments, and of conferring orders.* How is it possible, then, that bishops should be properly apostles, when the ordination of the one so essentially differs from the other, both in the form and essence of the ordination, * Field on the Church, p. 157, fol., 1628. 42 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. and in the qualifications of the individuals to he ordained ' Scriptural bishops, we know, were ordained such at once, without passing through any preparatory grades in the ministry ; but, then, the reason is plain, viz., that, in the Scriptures, bishops and presbyters were one and the same office. 2. Apostles were taught the gospel by immediate reve- lation : Gal. i, 12, " For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." 3. They were infallible teachers of it to others : Gal. i, 8, 12, " But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." 4. They had a commission of universal authority. 2 Cor. X, 13-16; xiii, 10; Rom. i, 14-16. They had a universal commission of divine infallible authority, as to the doctrine of faith and morals. It is not clear that they had any absolute authority in any thing else. They ordained elders or presbyters : so did Barna- bas ; so did Timothy and Titus, who were not of the twelve ; and so did presbyters, they ordained Timothy himself. But, when ministers had been ordained and appointed to any church, there is no decisive proof that the apostles alone governed those ministers. Dodwell remarks justly, that " their chief work was rather the planting of churches, than the ruling of churches."* Ignatius, the oracle of high Churchmen, says, " It is not lawful without the bishop, neither to baptize, nor to cele- brate the holy communion. He that does any thing with- out his knowledge, ministers unto the devilt" On the high Church scheme, the apostles, during their lives, were the only real bishops. Now did the apostles claim any such authority as this over every special act of other ministers ? Never ! The thing, indeed, was impossible. How could they be everywhere to appoint every baptism, and every minute detail of ministerial duty ? But there is not only * Dodwelli Diss. Cyprian., dissert, vi, sec. 17. "Illorum (Apos- tolorum) opera praecipua in disseminandis potias, quam regendis, Ec- clesiis collocata est." On apostolical succession. 43 no proof that the apostles alone governed ministers as well as the church, but there is no direct proof to the contrary. The ministers of the seven churches vs^ere some of them remiss, and some wicked : who, then, takes authority to correct and judge them ? The apostle John ? No ; he that walks in the midst of the golden candlesticks : he does it. To say that John might, but did not, would be to say that the Saviour should first have rebuked John for this remiss- ness ; yet nothing of the kind is found in the divine mes- sage, but every thing to the contrary. It may be asked. What cure is there for wicked ministers 1 We answer. The Scriptural method is, to teach the people to forsake them ; and to leave them 1 > the judgment of God. This as to the church cathcli. : of course, every particular church has the right to expel bad ministers, as well as bad men, from its communion. 5. Apostles had the power not only of working miracles, but also of COMMUNICATING miraculous powers to others. Acts viii, 14—19 ; xix, 6 ; 1 Tim. i, 6. I believe there is nothing more than these five preroga- tives that belong exclusively to the apostles : all other ministers preached and baptized. It is most certain that others, especially presbyters, ordained persons to the ministry. 1 Tim. iv, 14. Presbyters also ruled or GOVERNED the church. Acts xx, 28 : 1 Tim. v, 17, " Let the elders (presbyters) that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." In wMch,\hsn, and in what number of these prerogatives do modem bishops succeed the twelve apostles ? Have hey had immediate vocation, not of men, but by Jesus Christ ? Are they taught the gospel by immediate revela- tion ? These advocates dare not claim either of these prerogatives. Are they infallible teachers of others ? No. Have they a commission of universal infallible authority, as to doctrines of faith and morals, in all churches ? Have they universal jurisdiction, as bishops ? This they know to be a contradiction to other parts of their scheme, viz., that there can be only one bishop in one diocess. Have they, then, the power of communicating the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost? The rite of confirmation is founded on the assumption of this, or it is founded on 44 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. nothing that was the prercygatire of the twelve. The assumption confounds the advocates ; to give it up, gives up their cause. The claim, therefore, of the prerogatives of the twelve apostles for modern bishops, by these high Church advocates, is utterly unsustained by the New Tes- tament. This decides the whole matter. The claim is as baseless as it is bold. No names on earth ought to save it, for a moment, from the reprobation of the whole Chris- tian church. Thus much for Scriptural authority, both as to the name and the thing ; and no other authority can decide the question. However, though ecclesiastical authority will be discussed at length in the subsequent sections, yet as it will give a unity and completeness to the present article, we shall here briefly clear the subject of eccle- siastical authority. What ecclesiastical authority, then, is there for this claim of modern bishops, being, as apostles, really such, and exclusively the successors of the apostles 1 Some readers may be surprised, when I say, that there is not a single Christian father who says so: not one. What! not Theodpret ? No, not Theodbret ! Hear him : he says, " Those who are now called bishops were (anciently) called apostles. But shortly after, the name of apostles was appropriated to such as were apostles indeed, aXrj'&ug Atto^oXoi, TRtJLY apostles." Here, then, even Theodoret declares that bishops are not apostles truly ; that is, they are truly, as to the prerogatives of the twelve, not apostles at all ! What, then, is the meaning of his ambi- guous expression, " Those who are now called bishops were anciently called apostles V Well, in the first place, he guards his own statement by declaring that those now called bishops are not " truly apostles." What are they then 1 What you please, but not truly apostles. It is no matter to this argument what you call them. He says they were called bishops ; and his language imports that they then, in his time, exercised authority having some resemblance to what those anciently and truly called apostles, exercised. This is speaking to a fact, and not to the law of the case. We grant the truth of the fact : but what does it prove ? That they were really apostles ? No : Theodoret himself positively denies that as fact ; ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 45 and shows, that, even in his day, they were believed not to be truly apostles. And Ambrose, as cited by Amalarius, positively declares, that the ancient bishops were so far from thinking, with our modems, that apostle was truly the appropriate denomination for bishops, that they thought it NOT DECENT to assuiHO to themselves the name of apostles. Thus we find their own authorities destroy their scheme. Never was there a more bold and baseless fabrication palmed upon the public than this, that apostle was the APPROPRIATE name for bishops. The authors of it catch at some ambiguous expressions in writers of the_^A cen- tury ; but what evidence do they bring from the Scriptures, or the purest and earliest writers of the Christian church ? The Scriptures give no evidence for it, but the contrary. In those authors whom high Churchmen quote with the greatest triumph, Ignatius, Tertullian, and Cyprian, all the evidence is againsf this position of apostle being the appropriate name for bishop. Everywhere their highest declamations are made for them under the name — not of apostles, but of bishops. What a humiliation to men of learning, to lend themselves to the propagation of such strange perversions of the facts of the early history of the church ! But does not Ambrose say, that bishops were, by eccle- siastical writers, called apostles at fifst 1 He does. But he does not say that bishops exclusively were called apostles. He knew better. " Many were called apostles by way of imitation,"* says Eusebius ; an earlier and better authority on such subjects than Theodoret or Ambrose. So he calls " Thaddeus, one of the seventy," an apostle. The learned Valesius's note on the place is as follows : — ■ "Apostle here is to be taken in a large sense. After the same manner every nation and city termed them apostles, from whom they first received the truth of the gospel. This name was not only given to the twelve, but all their DISCIPLES, COMPANIONS, and ASSISTANTS, Were GENERALLV called APOSTLES." They all acted as missionaries in spreading the gospel. The word apostle means a mis- sionary. See, then, the goodly company of apostles ! Indeed Suicer shows that women, as well as men, were * Euseb. E. Hist., lib. i, c. 12. 46 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. sometimes called apostles by ecclesiastical writers ; and that the emperor Constantine and Helen were both fre- quently called, by ecclesiastical writers, laatTog'oXoL, apos- tolic compeers.^'* So St. Augustine says, " that, generally," in his time, " it was applied to such as were introduced into the ministry." He divides apostles into ybar classes, and says the third sort who were called apostles in his day, were such as were smuggle,d into the priesthood by popular favour — '^favore vulgi in saeerdtium subrogati."\ Jerome ^s plainer still. He makes the same division of apostles into four classes. In the first, he places Isaiah, the other prophets, and St. Paul ; in the second, Joshua the son of Nun ; the third he states to be, " When any one is ordaine^ by the favour and request of men. As we now," says he, " see many, not according to the will of God, but by bribing the favour of the multitude, become smuggled into the priesthood. "J Here it is plain from the testimony of these great men, earlier and better autho- rities than Theodoret, that, in their days, any priest, all priests, even the worst of priests, or presbyters, were COMMONLY denominated apostles. Grotius shows, that the emperors Honorius and Arcadius, in their laws, called the Jewish presbyters, apostles. § Tertullian expressly calls the seventy disciples, apostles ;\\ though Bishop Taylor declares that they were only presbyters. Chrysostom and Theophylact, also, are mentioned by Estius on 1 Cor. XV, 7, as applying the term apostle to the seventy ; so also Erasmus and Calvin, on the same place. Such is the result of ecclesiastical authority, as to the appropriate name of bishops. Bishops were sometimes called apostles ; but not bishops only. " Many," says Eu- sebius, " were called apostles by way of imitation." This name was not only given, by ecclesiastical writers, to the twelve, but to the seventy disciples ; and, says Valesius, to all the disciples, companions, and assistants of the apostles." Augustine and Jerome prove that it was com- monly applied, in their day, to any priest, to all priests, * Suiceri Thesam,, i, 477, and 1459. + August 0pp., torn, iv, App., p. 9, ed, Sugd., 1664. t Hieronymi Comment, in Epist. ad Galat., lib. i, cap i. Ij Grotii Annot. in Poli Syn., iv, 1, 280. II Tertuli. adversus Marciou, lib. iv, cap. 34. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. ' 47 evftn to the worst of priests. However, the bishops of that day, knowing that it did not truly belong to them, thought it not decent to use it, and to be called apostles ; they, therefore, laid it aside. Their modesty was com- mendable : in this our advocates do not choose to be their successors. But, if the argument from the jiame fails them, what was the fact as to the thing itself? Do ecclesiastical writers say that bishops were, in fact, the successors to the prero- gatives of the apostles 1 There is no doubt that they soon began to write in an inflated style Athanasius flourished A. D. 350. Some writers on episcopacy quote an Epistle of his to a monk named Dra- contius, in favour of bishops by divine right, as an order with powers incompatible with the. office of presbyters. Here is the usual fallacy of such writers, in presuming that any mention of bishops always means sxroH an order of bishops as this. Indeed they must write upon this fallacy, or they must drop their pens. But this is begging the question, and proves nothing. Now in this Epistle of Athanasius there is not a syllable about the difference between bishops and presbyters. The substance of the whole is this — Whether a monk, who was a layman, should enter the Christian ministry and brave the dangers that then threatened all in that office ; or whether he should, coward like, shun those dangers by remaining in the desert and in the cell. Athanasius presses the argu- ment that to despise this ministry, there spoken of as to a bishop, was to despise the - ordinance of Christ. Very true. We all believe this. But what does it prove as to the question before us ? Just nothing. Such are the best of their attempts at proving their scheme from the fathers of any age, either early or late. We shall not swell this volume by a lengthened exposure of them. The case of Ischyras's ordination, mentioned by Athanasius, is not de- cisive for either side of the argument ; though a thorough examination of it would perhaps be decidedly against the high Church scheme.* Ambrose flourished about A. D. 370. A commentary on St. Paul's Epistles, published in his Works, is some- times supposed to have been the work of Hilary, a dea- con of Rome. Divines generally seem to admit its worth and weight to be equal, whether it be ascribed to Ambrose or Hilary. The deacons of that day had risen greatly in the principal churches, and had become eminent. The cause was this : the deacons had the principal manage- ment of the goods of the church. The churches had become very rich, even before Constantine's time The * See Stillingfleet's Irenicmn, pp. 381, 382. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 127 number of deacons was limited to seven, in the church of Rome ; and this while the presbyters amounted to more than seven times seven. The deacons, therefore, had much power and influence. Some of them were among the most able and learned men of the age. Athanasius was only a deacon, while he was one of the most <:elehrated champions for the faith in the great council of Nice. Am- brose then, or Hilary, says, " After churches were con- stituted in every place, and officers appointed, things BEGAN to be arranged differently from what they were in the beginning ; for, at the first, all taught, and all bap- tized. But if all had continued to be allowed to perform the same things, it would have been absurd, and the min- istry would have become vile and* contemptible. The apostles' writings are not altogether agreeable to the order of things as now practised in the church. For Timothy, who was ordained a presbyter by Paul, he calls a bishop ; because the first or chief presbyters, were called bishops. His words are, " Primi presbyteri episcopi appellatantur."* First or chief presbyters were called bishops; and, as one departed, the next succeeded to the office. But because the next in succession were sometimes found unworthy to hold the primacy, the custom was changed by the provision of a council ; so that not the next in order, but the next in merit, should be made bishop, and consti- tuted such BY the judgment of a number of the presby- ters, lest an unworthy person should usurp,"and become a general scandal."! " The presbyter and bishop had one and the same ordination. The bishop is the chief among the presbyters — Episcopus est quiinterpresbyteros primus. "% Here it is plainly stated that the usages of the church, in his day, were different from what they were in the apos- tles' time ; and therefore they could only be of human authority, and not of divine right. The presbyters and bishops, he says, had " one and the same ordination." * Mr. Sinclair (p. 90) chooses to display some wit, and to show his knowledge, by declaring that " a ■prime presbyter, as presiding in the college of presbyters," is an " invention of the modern followers of Ae- rius" — that " this poetic personage, this creature of the dissenting ima- gination, was created by David Blondel." Mr. Sinclair, of course, talks by hearsay about Ambrose, otherwise his wit would have been spoiled, and his learning improved. t Com. in Ephes. cap. 4. % Com. in 1 Tim, iii. 128 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. The consecration of bishops, as now used, has no Scrip- tural authority : it is merely a ceremony. Then he pro- ceeds to say, that a presidency became established. This, at the first, took place by mere seniority, and one was CONSTITUTED BISHOP BY the judgment of the other pres- byters : the PRESBYTERS MADE the BISHOP ; and this pre- cedence was given to one presbyter as bishop, for the honour of the church and the ministry, and not by any divine right. Indeed, he says, it was different from apos- tolic usage. We may here introduce the matter of Aerius. I con- sider it of little importance ; and the opinion of Epiphani- us about it is much of the same value. Stillingfleet says, " I believe, upon the" strictest inquiry, Medina's judgment will prove true, that Hieron, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostoni, Theodoret, Theophilact, were all of Aerius's judgment as to the identity of both name and order of bishops and presbyters in the primitive church ; but here lay the difference : Aerius from thence proceeded te separation from the bishops and their churches, because they were bishops."* But then, say the advocates of episcopacy, Epiphanius wrote against his Opinion, and numbered Aerius among heretics because of it. As to Aerius's views, we have heard Stillingfleet's opinion. They who say he was accounted a heretic solely for main- taining that bishops and presbyters were, according to the Scriptures, the same, do not know what they say. Who maintained this more boldly than Jerome ? But neither Epiphanius, who was a friend of Jerome's, nor any other person, ever counted Jerome a heretic on this account. Augustine says, " Aerius maintained that a bishop could not ordain. He opposed the existence of the distinction be- tween a bishop and presbyter; he rejected it; he also fell into the heresy of the Arians, &c.t And as to Epi- phanius, whatever he was besides, he was a hot-headed, meddling bigot. He quarrelled with John, bishop of Jerusa- lem; and ordained in John's diocess without his leave. He collected a council in Cyprus to condemn Origen's Works, and wrote to Chrysostom to do the same thing. Chrysostom refused. Epiphanius had the temerity to enter Constantinople, Chrysostom's see, in order to cause * Iren., p. 276. t Vid. Augustini de Heresibus, No. 53. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 129 the decree of Cyprus against Origan to be put\n execution there. Before he entered the city, he ordained a deacon in one of Chrysostom's churches. He refused to hold com- munion with Chrysostom himself; threatened that he would, publicly, in the church, at Constantinople, with a loud voice, condemn Origen, and all who defended him. He came to the chm-ch, but being warned by Chrysostom that he might expose himself to danger from the people, he desisted. He tried to persuade the empress that God would spare the life of her son, (who was then dangerously ill,) if she would only persecute the defenders of Origen. He de- fended praying for the dead : Aerius opposed it. So he put Aerius into the list of heretics. Bishop Taylor him- self says, ' He that considers the catalogues [of heresies] as they are collected by Epiphanius, &c., shall find that many are reckoned for heretics for opinions in matters disputable, and undetermined, and of no consequence ; and that in these catalogues of heretics there are men num- bered for heretics, which by every side respectively are acquitted, so that there is no company of men in the world that admit these catalogues as good records, or sufficient sentences of condemnation.' "* And Dr. Cave, an unex- ceptionable authority with high Churchmen, says, "He [Epiphanius] was one of no great judgment and reasoning; he generally took his account of things upon trust, suffer- ing himself to be imposed upon by those narratives which the several parties had published of the proceedings, either of their own or of their adversaries' side, without due search and examination, which ran him upon infinite mis- takes, inconsistencies, and confusions."^ Chrysostom, who flourished A. D. 400, says, "Paul, speaking about bishops and their ordination, whstt they ought to possess, and from what they must abstain, having omitted [1 Tim. iii] the order of presbyters, he passes on to that of deacons. Why so, I ask? because the differ- ence between the bishop and the presbyter is almost no- thing. For the presidency of the churches is committed to presbyters, and the qualifications which the apostle requires in a bishop, he requires in a presbyter also ; being above them solely by their ordination, and this is the * Lib. of Prophes., sec. 2. Dupin, Biblioth Patrura. cent. 4th. f Dr. John Edwarde' Pratrologia, p. 53, ed. 1731, 8vo. 6* 130 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. ONLY tUn^ they, ' the bishops, seem to have more than presbyters."* This last remark refers to what is supposed to be the sheet anchor of episcopacy, in the modem sense, that is, the power of ordinatiori:.\ Chrysostom says they were the same in every thing else. Even as to ordination he only mentions the fact of the difference, and not the divine right. And as to the fact, his language is by no means decided. Jerome also himself has a remark of a similar kind in his Epistle to Evagrius : " What does the bishop which the presbyter may not do, except ordination ?" The interpretation of the one may be sufficient for the in- terpretation of the other. Jerome, then, it should be remembered, does, in that Epistle, most plainly declare that bishops and presbyters are the same. He then says, that " after the apostles' times, one preshyter was placed over the rest as a remedy against schism. For at Alexandria, from the evangelist Mark up to Heraclas and Dionysius, the bishops, (about A. D. 250) the presbyters always ELECTED one from among themselves, and placed him in the higher chair, and they, the presbyters, gave him the name of bishop ; in the same manner as an army may make its general; or as deacons elect one of themselves whose in- dustry they know, and call him archdeacon. For what does a bishop do," (that is, now he means about A. D. 400,) " except ordination, which a presbyter may not do V Here then, it is evident, that Jerome speaks simply of the fact and custom which had then, in his day, become established, as to what bishops do, and presbyters may not do ; not of * Corn, in 1 Tim. iii. t There is a radical absurdity at the bottom of all these mighty pre- tensions about the power of ordination. It is as plain as that two and two make four, that the greater always includes the less. Now the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper are the greatest ritual ordinances in the Christian church. A sacrament is, by all divines, considered above all other ritual ordinances. Ordination is not a sa- crament. It is therefore less than a sacrament. He that has power and authority to perform the greater, has power and authority to per- form the less. All presbyters, by the confession of our opponents, have power and authority to administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, the greater : all presbyters, therefore, have power and authority to administer ordination, the less. This, to a reasonable mind, would settle the whole question ; but as ths prejudices of some people are so strong as to take away the force of clear reason, we have met the opponents on their own ground. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 131 the poioer or right of presbyters, or that they could not by divine right do what the bishops did. This custom, or ecclesiastical arrangement, which, for the honour of the bishop and the church, made ordination generally a prero- gative of the bishop's office, Jerome advises the presbytery to comply with. Therefore " they may not," because of this custom, especially without the bishop's license, or- dain. Any other supposition would make Jerome contra- dict, in the same page, what he had most firmly maintain- ed. His illustrations show the same. The custom of the church at Alexandria was evidently intended by him as an example of ordination by presbyters ; else why mention it as something which had ceased, in his day, to be common. The presbyters, at Alexandria, prior to A. D. 250, elected one of themselves, placed him in the chair, (all the conse- cration he had) — and gave him his title of bislwp. It is trifling to say, as Episcopalians do, ' Perhaps there were bishops present who laid on hands and consecrated him.' This is little short of contradicting Jerome. He certainly makes the presbyters the doers of all that was done in making the bishop. The case of the army making its ge- neral is another instance which he mentions in illustration of his position. Every schoolboy knows that the Roman army in those days frequently created their generals by acclamation; and it is to these proceedings Jerome alludes : the lawfulness of the thing was no more necessary to his argument, than the^ lawfulness of the unjust steward's conduct to our Lord's argument. It is Xhefact, andits bearing, which are important. The deacons, too, then appointed one of themselves as their head, calling him archdeacon ; so tho presbyters make a presbyter their head, and call him bishop. The army made the general ; the deacons the archdea- cons ; and the presbyters made the bishop. This is plainly the sense. Presbyters, then, ordained even BISHOPS, in the see. of Alexandria, from the time of St. Mark up to Heraclas and Dionysius, that is, for about the first two hundred years after Christ. What need be clearer, than that Jerome's exception only regards the custom of the church in his day, (about one hundred and fifty years after what he refers to at Alexandria,) and not ih%poteer or right of the presbyters to ordain. Stillingfleet has moreover quoted, in confirmation of this view, the testi- 132 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. mony of Eutychius, the patriarch of Alexandria, who expressly affirms, " that the twelve presbyters constituted by Mark, upon the vacancy of the see did choose of their number one to be head over the rest, and the other eleven did lay their hands upon him, and blessed him, and made him patriarch," or bishop.* The manner it seems varied, the thing was the same. There never was any universally established manner of making bishops in the Christian church, excepting the Scriptural one, by which every man is made a minister and a bishop at once, by one and the same ordination. Chrysostom's language is similar to Je- rome's, and admits the same interpretation. He positively says, that the bishop had then nothing above presbyters but ordination ; and speaks doubtingly as to this : " This [ordination] is the only thing they seem to have more than presbyters." But even were he to speak with the utmost certainty, his language only states die fact and not the law. It was the fact, I believe, generally, in Chrysostom's days, for the honour of the bishop and the church, and (as they supposed) to prevent divisions, that bishops only or- dained bishops. This is perfectly consistent with all we have said to show the identity of bishops and presbyters by divine right. However, Calderwood, «Alt.'Damascen. p. 160, shows that a more accurate translation of Chrysos- tom's language will give a very different view of his mean- ing : the latter member of his sentence, correctly translated, being as follows : — " The bishop being above the pres- byter solely by their" (the presbyters') " Suffrage ; and by this alone they seem to assume an unjust superiority over the presbyters." This proves that Chrysostoni considered bishops and presbyters to be really and by divine right the same in all things, and taxes the bishops with abusing the power given them by the suffrage of the presbyters, inju- riously to depress those very presbyters. The questions on the Old and New Testament, found in the Works of St. Augustine, are mostly quoted as his by Episcopal writers : they could not find fault with me, therefore, if I . claim their authority as his authority. However, it is supposed they were written by a more an- cient author than Augustine. In quest. 101, while rebuking some deacons who put themselves before the presbyters, * StiUingfleet's Iren., p. 274. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 133 he says, " The superior order contains the inferior ; for a presbyter may perform the office of a deacon, an exorcist, or a reader. By a presbyter you must understand a bishop ; as Paul the apostle proves, when instructing Timothy, whom he ordained a presbyter, what sort of a person he ought to be whom he was to ordain a bishop. For what jis a bishop but the first presbyter, that is, the highest priest? Finally, he addresses such as fellow-presbyters, fellow-priests. But does the bishop ever address the dea- cons as fellow-deacons 1 No indeed ; and the reason is because they are so much inferior. — For in Alexandria, and through the whole of Egypt, the presbyter consecrates [that is, confirms] when the bishop is not present." Here Timothy is a presbyter ; he as a presbyter ordains bish- ops. St. Paul is said to mean a bishop when he speaks of a presbyter : and presbyters also perform confirmation, in the bishop's absence, " through the whole of Egypt." That presbyters both possessed and exercised the right of ordaining ministers in the primitive church, appears moreover by the thirteenth canon of the council of Ancyra, A. D. 315 : — " 'Tis not allowed to village bishops to or- dain presbyters or deacons ; nor is it allowed even to CITY PRESBYTERS tO do this in ANOTHER dtOCBSS WITHOUT the license of the bishop." High Church Episcopalians declare they cannot understand this canon ! It must be imperfect, or corrupt, or I know not what. So Socinians treat the Scriptures when they are plainly opposed to their schemes. However, no man who understands the Greek text o{ the canon will deny that the above is a fair translation. Here, then, in the first place, the chor-episcopi, or country bishops, are utterly forbid to ordain, and are evidently treated as inferior to city presbyters. Now Bishop Taylor, and many other learned Episcopalians, yM% admit that these chor-episcopi, or village bishops, had, by divine right, the power to ordain. Therefore the power of the city presbyter to ordain presbyters and deacons, is clearly supposed in the canon ; and is not taken away, but only limited in its exercise. He was not to ordain " in another bishop's diocess without his license ;" very proper : but then it is as clear as though the canon had said so, that the city presbyter might and did ordain presbyters and deacons in the diocess of his own bishop ; and might 134 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. do the same in any other diocess hy the license of the bishop of that diocess. It seem? they had been guilty of the irregularity referred to in the canon. However, there IS no limitation as to the diocess where they reside ; though the rules of order would require such things to be done with the consent of the bishop. Here, then, is another triumphant proof of the power of presbyters to ordain. There is considerable evidence arising to the same point from the illustrious council of Nice, A. D. 325,, which condemned Arianism, and so greatly promoted the estab- lishment of the orthodox faith on the doctrine of the Trinity. A bishop, they say, was to be constituted by bishops. But in their Epistle to the church of Alexandria, and the other churches of Egypt, they seem to speak of presbyters as still frequently ordaining presbyters. They are speaking of the clergy who had not gone away in the division with Miletius. Their words are : — " But as for those who, by the grace of God, and your prayers, have been found in no schism, but have ever remained imma- culate in the Catholic Church, it pleased the holy synod that they should have power to ordain, and give up the names of such as were worthy to be the clergy ; and in short, to do all things according to the ecclesiastical law and sanction."* The synod took away this power from all the Miletian clergy who had made division ; but as to those of the clergy of Alexandria, and the other churches of Egypt, who had not, Ihey allowed their power of ordain- ing, &c., to REMAIN. Valesius thinks Christophorson is mistaken in applying this passage to preslyters ; but Vale- sius's reasons do not invalidate Christophorson's vievi^. For even as to those from whom this power of ordaining was taken away, the Epistle says, they were to " continue possessed of their digniti' and office, but yet they were to acknowledge themselves always inferior to all those that had been approved of in every diocess and church, and who had been ordained before by our dearest colleague in the sacred function, Alexander." Now how could BISHOPS retain their honour and office, in the same diocess, while other bishops over them had the sole honour and office of bishops in those diocesses ? This is absurd. It * Socjat. Ecoles. Hist., lib. 1, c. 9, ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 135 remains, therefore, tliat they spake of presbyters. These presbyters, their language shows, botli possessed and exer- cised the power of ordaining presbyters sxid. deacons; though at that time they direct that bishops should ordain bishops. The regulations about ordination in the Christian church appear to have been chiefly derived from the regulations of the Jewish synagogue. To make this plain, we will here repeat the statement of those Jewish regulations as given by Maimonides, and will add a few remarks upon them. " In ancient times," says he, (that is, the times be- fore Hillel the elder, who died about ten years after the birth of Christ,) " every one who was ordained himself, ordained his scholars. But the wise men, in order to show particular reverence for Hillel the elder, made a rule that no one should be ordained without the permission of the president, neither should the president ordain any one without the presence of the father of the sanhedrim, nor the father without the presence of the president. But, as to other members of the sanhedrim, any one might ordain, (having obtained permission of the president,) by joining with himself two others ; for ordination cannot regularly be performed except three join in the ordination."* " In the ancient times" of the church, " any one who was ordained himself, ordained others :" the presbyters ordained Timothy, and each church " was ruled by the presbyters in common." Then, probably, about the middle of the second century, one presbyter was elected by the rest to preside in the presbytery, and over the general acts of the church. This presiding presbyter was, for dis- tinction's sake, called bishop : a term which up to that time had been common to all the presbyters, but which henceforward became appropriated to this presiding pres- byter. For the honour of this bishop, or president, " a rule was made that no one should be ordained without his permission," neither could he regularly ordain without the permission of the presbyters, as is most clearly proved by many examples in Cyprian himself, who apologized for ordaining a reader or subdeacon without their permission, even at the time when the rage of his enemies made it unsafe for him personally to consult them. With the per- * Vid. Seklen De Syned., lib. 2, c. vii, p. 173, 4to. Amstel., 1679. 136 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. mission of the bishop, however, the presbyters continued to ordain, as occasion required, for the first three hundred years : see the proof of this in the language of Firmilian, the celebrated bishop of Cesarea, in Cappadocia, and the decisions of the councils of Ancyra and Nice, in the pre- ceding pages. At Alexandria, it seems that the custom for the presbyters there to ordain their president or bishop continued until A. D. 250, as Jerome testifies. But the power and authority of the bishops gradually increased by their uniting to support each other ; by the pride and am- bition of many of them, (for the fathers themselves give abundant evidence of this,) and by their pleas that sub- mission to their authority was essential to prevent schisms, and to the peace of the church. They ventured at length in the council of Nice, not indeed to prohibit presbyters from ordaining presbyters ; but to make a law; that bishops ALONE should ordain bishops. Of course, as the council was principally made up of bishops, there would not be any opposition. Yet Ambrose expressly declares that the bishops and presbyters had " one ordination," that is, really such ; as the consecration of bishops is only a ceremony. Such is the origin, and such is the history of episcopal ordinations. Presbyters still unite with bishops in ordain- ing presbyters in the Church of England, though bishops alone ordain bishops. If this be used as a matter of pru- dential arrangement by a particular branch of the Christian church, it may be justified on the principle that such non- essential things may be left to the discretion of each church to determine ; but when it becomes urged as divine law ; when, upon this principle, the ministers of churches who -use no such episcopal ordinations, are declared to be no ministers, and all their ordinances vain ; here the whole question is altered altogether : the peace of the Christian world at large is broken ; the ministers and people of all other churches are insulted ; a monstrous system of spirit- ual tyranny is introduced ; and a many-headed Popery is established upon this shallow pretence of the sole au- thority of bishops by divine right. That Ipishops ordaining or consecrating bishops is a nonessential, demonstrably follows from the proofs that have been given in these pages, that the order of bishops itself is a mere matter of ecclesiastical arrangement, and ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 137 has no divine right. At first they were made merely by the election of their fellow-presbyters, as in the church of Alexandria, for nearly two hundred years. Then it seems some ceremony was used in placing them in the higher chair or throne, as it was called ; so the term for it came to be ENTHRONizATioN. Yet so far was it from impress- ing any indelible character, as they call it ; or conferring, as an act, extraordinary powers, forming a distinct order, that this enthronization or consecration was frequently repeated, when an individual was removed from one bishopric to another. So, for instance, Socrates,* speak- ing of Miletius, who first had been feishop of Sebastia, afterward of Beraea, but after this was sent for by the in- habitants of Antioch to be* their bishop, says that here, at Antioch, another, a third enthronization, was performed. Many cases of a similar character might be given. And, indeed, that the consecration of bishops was not considered at the Reformation to be, like ordination, incapable of repe- tition, will be evident from the fact, that many bishops were then consecrated anew when translated to other bishoprics ; as may be seen by the instances and the words given from the registers, in Courayer on English Ordinations. t The Oxford Tract-men have % little outwitted themselves in publishing Archbishop Cranmer's translation of Justice Jonas's " Sermon on Apostolical Succession and the Power of the Keys," as containing the " mature and deliberate judgment" of Cranmer on these subjects. For, after speaking of ordination as performed by the apostles upon others for " the ministration of God's word," he adds, " And THIS was the consecration, orders, and unction of the apos- tles, whereby they, at the beginning, made bishops and priests, and this shall continue in the church even to the world's end. And whatsoever rite or ceremony hath been added more than this, cometh of man's ordinance and policy, and is not commanded by God's word." Now Cranmer, we shall see, in the next section, distinctly maintained that bishops and priests were, by the law of God, the same. Here he says that that consecration, orders, and unction whereby the apostles appointed individuals to the minis- tration of God's word, was the only real ordination they * Eccles. Hist., part ii, chap. 44. t Page 65, English translation, London, 1725, 8vo. 138 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, had ; for " whatsoever rite or ceremony had been added more than this, corneth of man's ordinance and policy, and is not commanded by God's word." " Cranmer and Bar- low," says Courayer, " afBrm that the consecration [of a bishop] is not necessary, and that the designation [or ap- pointing to the office] is sufficient."* We wish to study brevity ; otherwise it would be easy to show at length the same point, viz., that the ordination or consecration of bishops, as distinct from their ordination as presbyters, has nothing in it but a mere human ceremony of appointing ati individual to some specific duties in the church. The word of God has not a syllable upon it : therefore it is utterly void of divine authority. There is not a particle of genuine evidence upon it for the first hundred years after Christ. It never had, in any age, any thing that essentially distinguished it from the ordination of a presbyter. This is abundantly evident from Morinus's celebrated work on Ordinations. There it is shown, that in every thing but imposition of hands, different churches and different ages have varied from each other ; and, in most of the matters, have varied without end. Now that cannot be essential to a thing which sometimes does not exist with it at all ; and this is fhe case with every thing belonging to the consecration of bishops, excepting impo- sition of hands ; and even this, in some cases, was not used. Imposition of hands is common to the ordination of a presbyter as well as to that of a bishop ; it cannot be common to both, and yet essentially distinguish the one from the other ; there is nothing, therefore, in the conse- cration of a bishop, nor ever was, that essentially distin- guished it from the ordination of a presbyter. If it be pleaded that the chur^ih has appointed words to be used at this consecration to distinguish it from that of a presbyter; we grant it. But then the church never had any authority from Scripture to do more in this than to make it a pru- dential ecclesiastical arrangement. The reformers of the Church of England did not even appoint any word's for the act of consecration to distinguish the office of a bishop from that of a presbyter : the words that now distinguish them were added in later times. * P. 147; and see Burnet's Ref., vol. i, Record, No. 21. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 139 If, then, the consecration of bishops is a mere human ceremony, it is impossible that the act of bishops, as lishops, in ordination, can have any divine efficacy or authority above that of presbyters. Bishops may ordain one another for ever, but this would never change the matter. A cipher multiplied by a cipher always produces a cipher. All the authority, then, that bishops have to ordain men to the ministration of God's word and sacraments, arises from their authority as presbyters, and from this ALONE. Scores of bishops in the Romish Church never were presbyters : yet .these men have ordained presbyters and bishops in the church without number. Through these our high Churchiien have received their boasted orders. Such is their vaunted " unbroken series of valid ordina- tions," and apostolical succession ! The tenacity of high Churchmen to their exclusive and intolerant scheme must be my apology to the reader for the length of this section. We will now state the result of the inquiry : — ■ 1. No clear evidence appears that any of the fathers of the first three centuries, or any council, ever maintained this high Church doctrine of the divine right of bishops ALONE to be successors of the apostles, and to ordain and GOVERN pastors as well as people. 3. No DISTINCTION appears between the office of pres- byter and bishop in the Epistle of Clemens Romanus, nor in the Epistle of Polycarp, the most ancient and genuine pieces we have in the first century. 3. In the second and following centuries, a custom GRADUALLY becomes established for one presbyter to be placed over the others ; and the term bishop, or superin- tendent, becomes appropriated to him alone. 4. The ancients assign, as the reason for this arrange- ment, the honour of the church — the peace of the church — the prevention of schisms or divisions — and the unity of the whole. So TertuUian, Cyprian, Hilary or Ambrose, Augus- tine and Jerome. 5. Presbyters presibed over the church ; in some places it would seem chiefly : but even where a superin- tendency had taken place, they appear with the bishop, as sitting to rule in common with him ; and without them he could not do any thing of importance in the church. So 140 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. Ignatius, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Origen, Cyprian, Cor- nelius, Firmilian, and Jerome. 6. Presbyters ordained. This is, as to the fact, proved by Firmilian, the celebrated bishop of Cesarea, in Cappadocia ; by the custom of the church of Alexandria for the first two hundred years after Christ ; by the testi- mony of Jerome and Eutychius ; and by the council of Ancyra, and the council of Nice. The right of power also necessarily follows from their being the same order as bishops. !* 7. Presbyters are the successors of the apostles ; this is distinctly stated by Ignatius, Irenseus, and Jerome. We have not yet given a most striking passage of Jerome on this point. Hear him then : " Do you approach to the clergy ? — God forbid that I should speak disparagingly of the CLERGY : they axe successors to the degree of APOSTLES, — qui aposiolico gradui succedentes." And, after mentioning the difficulties and dangers of their station, he says, " Non est facile stare loco Pauli ; tenere gradum Petri." — " It is no easy matter to stand in the place of Paul, nor in the degree of Peter."* 8. The ONLY true and indispensable succession to the apostles is the succession of faith, and not of persons : Irenseus, Tertullian, and Ambrose. This last bishop says, " They have not the succession of Peter, who have not the faith of Peter."t The conclusion is, then, that in the purest Christian antiquity, bishops and presbyters were, by divine right, the SAME ; " all the difference which existed, in fact, between them was almost nothing ;" and was merely by custom, or the use of the church, as a prudential measure, to promote order, peace, and unity. Ordination by presbyters, and all other acts of presbyters, are, by divine right, equally .VALID with those of bishops : the succession of faith is the only true succession. Ministers and churches who do not hold this— who adulterate it — are to be forsaken ; and those ALONE received as truly apostolical successors, ministers, ordinances, and churches, where this faith is preached as the apostles preached it, and as they left it to us in the sacred Scriptures as their last will and testa- ment, sealed as with their oath, and their blood. Let the * Epist. ad Heliodoruin tie Vita Ereraotica. t De Penitentia. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 141 semi-popish divines, allowed improperly in the Church of England, and the thorough-going Papists of our country, look about them. Their succession is not the succession of the apostles, nor of the earliest fathers ; but a. fabri- cation of their own, based xcpon false assumptions, and built up by bigotry and intolerance, out of human traditions, forged authorities, and abominable idolatries. See section X of this Essay. APPENDIX to SECTION VI. ON THE ECCLESIASTICAL ACCODNT OF THE EISHOFS OP THE SEVEN CHCRCHE9 MENTIONED IN THE REVELATION; AND ON THE SUPPOSED DIFFICULTY OF ACCOUNTING FOR THE EXISTENCE OF EPISCOPACT AT SO EARLY AN AGE OP THE CHURCH. There are two points which Episcopal writers consider of much importance in this Controversy, and which we have not yet introduced. They might chronologically have been introduced sooner ; but the reader will here examine them with greater advantage, after the preceding discussion : they are, , 1. As to what are called the bishops of the seven churches of Asia, mentioned in the Revelation of St. John : and, 3. The supposed difficulty of accounting for the exist- ence of episcopacy at so early an age of the church, ex- cept on the principle that it is jure divino, established by divine right. First, then, as to what are called the bishops of the seven churches of Asia, mentioned in the Revelation of St. John. As most of the difficulty upon both these points arises from the ambiguity of the words bishop or episcopus, and episcopacy, let it be premised that there are three different senses in which these words are used in this controversy. As to the word bishop : — this word is used in the New Testament, 1. As synonymous with the word presbyter ; " the names are common ;" see pages 83-86 of this* Essay ; 2. Somewhere in the second or third century the word bishop was applied to distinguish the primus presbyter, appointed by the suffrages of the other presby- ters, and by ecclesiastical arrangement, as superintendent 142 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. of minister and people ; 3. High Churchmen use it for an order of ministers claiming powers and authority incom- patible with the office of presbyters. Now we grant there Were bishops in the seven churches of Asia in the first sense ; but we deny that there is any solid proof of their existence, in the second sense, in these seven churches. Clemens Romanus, who, according to the best authority, wrote A. D. 96 to the church at Corinth, (comparatively in the neighbourhood,) mentions not a syllable about a primus presbyter as superintendent over the presbyters. Presby- ters, according to Clemens, then " rtded the church in com- mon." The Revelation is supposed to have been written onlj' four years after this time. As to bishops in the third sense, high Church bishops, we utterly deny that there is any evidence of any such bishops in the seven churches. Even the corrupted Epistles of Ignatius would not sustain the authority of high Church bishops ; for presbyters are there made equal to the apostles : are they so with high Church bishops ? Nay, so far from this. Bishop Taylor maintains that bishops only are properly pastors^ § 25 ; doctors, or teachers, § 26 ; and priests, § 27 : so that, on this scheme, poor presbyters are only a sort of tolerated pastors, existing by the leave of the bishops : see ^ 9 of his Episcopacy Asserted. As to tradition, on this question there is none that can be surely depended upon. Take, for instance, the case of Timothy's being bishop of Ephesus. There is absolutely none that gives him the rights and authority of a high Church bishop. But, passing the ques- tion of the hind of episcopacy, for a moment, is there any satisfactory proof of the fact, that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, one of these seven churches 1 I unhesitatingly answer. There is not; see page 57 of this Essay. Dr. Whitby grants, " that he can find nothing on this subject in any writer of the first three centuries." But then he says " this defect is abundantly supplied by the concurrent suffrage of the fourth and fifth centuries." Well, let us see. He refers to Eusebius first, and very properly : for succeeding authors generally took their reports from him. If the fountain fails us, the streams must fail too. Now Eusebius honestly confesses, that though' he made it a main point, in writing his history of the early ages of the church, to inquire into such matters, yet all was dark, and ON APOStOLlCAL SUCCESSION. 143 he " could nowhere find so much as the bare steps of any who had passed that path of inquiry before him," excepting something like " a torch here and there afar off." Then, Speaking of Paul and Peter, and the churches founded by them, he says, " Now how many, and what sincere fol- lowers of them have been approved as sufficient to take the charge of those churches by them founded, is not easy to say, except such and so many as may he collected from the words of Saint Paul." Does this sort of evidence abundantly supply the defect of the total silence of the first three centuries ? And nothing better is to be found. Euse- bius says, " Timothy is reported to have been the first that was chosen to the bishopric of the Ephesian church." He gives no authority; which he always does when he has it. The report is evidently only guess-work, in its origin, having arisen from St. Paul's mentioning his name in connection with Ephesus ; but see page 57 of this Essay. The stories in ecclesiastical history about the early bishops and founders of churches are- generally full of confusion and contradiction ; they are mostly the inventions of a later age. See section x. But were we to grant these statements (confusion as they are) to be true, they never make the powers and authority to be those of high Church bishops ; the preceding discussion has abundantly shown this. The result, then, of this investigation of ecclesias- tical authority, and of tradition on this point, is, that there were bishops in the seven churches of Asia ; for bishops and presbyters are spoken of by Clemens Romanus, the best authority on the subject, as one and the same ; that there is no clear evidence of a superintendency, in the seven churches, of a primus presbyter as over ministers and people ; and that, as to high Church bishops, it would be a burlesque to compare them with the bishops of the seven churches, and of Clemens Romanus. Secondly, let us consider the supposed difficulty of ac- counting for the existence of episcopacy at so early an age of the church, except on the principle that it is jure divino ■ — established by divine right. Here we must remember the distinction above made, as to the diflierent meanings of the word bishop : the same applies to the word episco- pacy. 1 . We grant a Scriptural episcopacy by divine right, in which bishops and presbyters are identical; 144 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 2. We grant an ecclesiastical arrangement of superintend- ency, otherwise called episcopacy; 3. We grant a usurp- ation of powers and authority claimed for bishops by divine right, otherwise also called episcopacy. Now we have no difficulty in accounting for the first, or Scriptural episcopacy. The second also is easily accounted for, as is shown from Jerome, &c., in the preceding pages. The third kind, viz., high Church episcopacy, had no existence in the early ages of the church ; we have not to account, therefore, for what did not eocist. SECTION VII. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AT THE REFORMATION AGAINST THESE CLAIMS. I KNOW it would be in vain for me to attempt to per- suade many Church people that I am not writing against the Church of England. They mean the Church as ne- cessarily implying a divine order of bishops, we have said, in the very words of Jerome, as given at page 93 of this Essay. The sixth chapter is wholly taken from the treatise on the " Seven Degrees" found in Jerome's Works, as mentioned at pagd 93. It is as follows : "Behold, I declare that pres- byters have the power to perform the sacraments, even ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 171 while their own hishops are standing at the altar. But, seeing it is written, ' Let the presbyters be honoured with double honour, especially such as labour in the word of God,' it is the duty of presbyters to preac]^ ; their blessing edifies the people ; confirmation by them is suitably per- formed ; it is proper for them to give the communion ; it is necessary that they should visit the sick, pray for the weak, and perform all the sacraments which God has given. Let none of the bishops, inflated, on this account, with the envy of a diabolical temptation, show their wrath in the church, if the presbyters sometimes exhort the people ; if they preach in the churches ; if, as it is written, they bless the people. To any one that opposes these things, I would say, Let him who forbids the presbyters what God has commanded them, tell me, who is greater than Christ ? or what is to be preferred to his body and to his blood ? If the presbyter consecrates Christ, when he pronounces the blessing upon the sacrament on the altar of God ; is not he worthy to bless the people, who is worthy even to con- secrate Christ ? It is by your bidding, ye most unjust hishops ! that the presbyter, as to the laity and the women, has been deprived of the office of giving God's benediction — ^has lost the very use of his tongue — has no confidence to preach — has been mutilated of every part of his powers and authority — ^nothing but the bare name of a presbyter is left — the plenitude and perfection of his consecration are taken away. Is this your honour, O ye bishops, thus to bring ruin upon the flock ? For when by your power you take away from the pastors the privilege of performing with diligence what God has commanded, contagion and destruction spread among the flocks, and you bring evil upon the Lord's inheritance, while you wish alone to be great in the church. We read, that, in the beginning, presbyters were commanded to rule in the affairs of the church — ^presbyters were sometimes in the councils of bishops ; for presbyters themselves, as we read, were called bishops : accordingly it is written to a bishop, ' Neglect not the gift which is in thee by the laying on of my hands ;' and, in another place, to presbyters, ' (The Holy Ghost,) who has made you bishops to rule the church of God.' But proud bishops hate to have this name given to presbyters .■ they do not approve of what Christ approved, who washed 1''3 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. the feet of the disciples — who was baptized by John, though John exclaimed that he needed to be baptized by him. I write these things for this purpose, that if the ERROR OF PAST TIME Cannot he remedied, humility at least may at present be preserved, that presbyters may perform those things in their churches, which are done at Rome, in the East, in Italy, in Crete, in Cyprus, in Africa, in lUyricum, in Spain, in Britain, and even in part of Gaul ; and which is done in every place where that humility continues which takes place in heaven, (a matter still higher,) where the seats of angels have their due order." The writer of this Essay expressly disclaims any intention by this iquotation to reflect upon all bishops, as unrighteous or tyrannical men. Many bishops, in different ages, have been truly men of God. His chief object in the quotation is to show the views of the Romish Church on the subject of episcopacy by divine right, at the period when this part of the canon law was composed. Episcopacy, in general, is certainly here declared to be an error of past times : and bishops, many of them, are spoken of as usurping tyrants. Presbyters are spoken of as despoiled by them of the authority and usefulness which, by divine right, truly belonged to presbyters. Part of the seventh chapter of the council of Hispala, in Spain, in the seventh century, is worth translating : — " It has been reported to us that Agapius, bishop of Cordova, has frequently appointed village bishops (chor-episcopi) or presbjrters (who hy the canons are both one) to consecrate altars and churches without the presence of the bishop. Which, indeed, is not to be wondered at, principally for this reason, that the bishop is a man ignorant oi ecclesiastical discipline. Therefore it ought to be determined unani- mously, that no such license should be used among us, knowing that the appointment and consecration of an altar is not allowed either to a presbyter or to a village bishop. For in the sacred Scriptures, the Lord commanded that Moses alone should erect the altar in the tabernacle, that he alone should anoint it, because he was the high priest, as it is written concerning him, ' Moses and Aaron among his priests.' Therefore that which the head priests aHone might do, of whom Moses and Aaron were types, the presbyters, who resemble Aaron's sons, ought not to pre-; ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 173 sume to seize. For though in the dispensation of the sa- cred mysteries most things are common to presbyters and bishops, yet sotne by the authority of the Old Testament, and some by the authority of the emperors laws, and by ecclesiastical rules, the presbyters know to be forbidden to them, as the consecration of presbyters, deacons, and vir- gins, the erection of an altar, the benediction and the unc- tion ; seeing it is not permitted to them to give the bene- diction to the ehurch, nor to consecrate altars, nor to lay on hands in baptism, nor to give .the Holy Ghost to such as are converted froifl heresy, nor to make the unction or holy ointment, nor to sign the forehead of the baptized vyiththe holy ointment, nor even to reconcile a penitent publicly in the time of mass, nor to give recommendatory letters. For all these things are disallowed to presbyters, because they are not in the highest part of the priesthood, which, by the command of the canons, belongs only to bishops." Here are distinctions enough, with a witness, between bishops and presbyters. And here is a true history of them : — an argument from a type or figure in the Old Testament ; ecclesiastical rules ; and the emperor's laws. But do these make the distinction to be of divine right ? The council expressly declares the very reverse, and that it is " by the command of the canons." Besides, presbyters arid chor-episcopi, village bishops are treated as the same : one law is applied to both. Now Bishop Taylor and others grant that village bishops had the power to ordain, &c., and that such regulations only limit its exercise ; the same is true as to presbyters. And the author of the Trea- tise on the Seven Degrees, above mentioned, gives the same account. He says, " The ordination of clergymen, the consecration of virgins, the dedication of altars, and the preparation of the chrism, were reserved to the bishop SOLELY /or the purpose of giving him authority or honour, lest the discipline of the church, being separated among many, divisions should arise between the ministers, and should produce general scandal. For this cause also the election of bishops has lately been transferred to the me- tropolitan ; and while this high power is given to the me- tropolitan, the same power is taken away from others ; so ■that the bishops themselves, as high priests, begin to feel another placed over them ; and this n^t as a matter of divine 1'''4 ' ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. nght, but as a matter of necessity, arising from the nature of the case." Here the ground of the distinction between bishops and presbyters is considered to be the same as that between bishops and archbishops, that is to say, it is merely an ecclesiastical, prudential arrangement. Mr. Johnson, the translator of the canons of the univer- sal church, a strong succession advocate, and a man of great learning, says, " That opinion, that the order of priests and bishops was the same", prevailed in the Church of Rome for four or five ages [centuries] hefore the Refor- mation."* Thus, then, we have the history of the matter in this church up to the Reformation. Jerome determines the point in his day, A. D. 400. The canon law does the same. A; D. 1200. The learned Mr. Johnson, an unex- ceptionable witness with high Churchmen, settles the point for five hundred years before the Reformation. Bishop Burnet, too, we have seen, says, that at the Reformation it was " the common style of that ag^ to reckon bishops and priests the same office." Finally, the council of Trent positively refused to ac- knowledge the doctrine of the order of bishops by divine right. They decreed that the hierarchy was of divine right, and that bishops were in fact above presbyters ; but the pope's legates, and all who more especially belonged to the court of Rome, most strenuously opposed the doctrine of divine right oi bishops. In these matters we only speak to facts ; and the facts are as above stated, as any one may see by consulting the acts and history of the council. It perhaps may surprise some, -that we so decidedly charge the succession scheme as semi-popery, when in the doctrine of the divine right of bishops, an essential part of the scheme of our high Church divines, the Church of Rome differs from them. The reader has only to consider, that the same end may be aimed at by different means. This is the case here. We said, in the commencement of this Essay, that these high Church divines, " come for- ward to effect that in the Protestant church, which Popery endeavours to effect as to the church universal." Their machinery is different. The Popery of Rome created a one-headed pope : our high Church divines try to create a many-headed pope. The Popery of both has one mind — * Clergyman's Vade Mecum, vol. ii, Pref., j). 54. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 175 bigoted, exclusive, intolerant, and persecuting. All the ju- risdiction of Popery centres in the pope. He imparts of his FULNESS to the bishops ; they swear fidelity to the pope. They support the pope, and the pope, supports them ; and altogether they unite to bind the church in fetters of iron. Our succession-men place all authority by divine right in the bishops. The bishops, according to this scheme, are to reward them, by giving them the exclusive right to minis- ter the ordinances of Christ. They are to support each other, in order to form a chain to bind in Popish bondage the Protestant church, or else to excommunicate from the pale of Christianity such as bend not to their authority. Pre- venticn is better than cure ; and it is hoped that this hum- ble effort, under God's blessing, may do something to ex- pose the Popery lying at the root of the scheme it opposes. The authors of the Oxford Tracts for the Times are Eng- lish Jesuits, and aim to accomplish for Anglican Popery, what the Roman Jesuits do for Roman Popery. There is a conspiracy : it is disguised Popery ! May Heaven scatter their counsel, and cause the gospel to run and be glorified ! We have shown that the original reformed Church of England gives no sanction to this semi-popish scheme : see section vii. The Lutheran church never maintained the divine right of bishops. The archbishop of Cologn_ joined them, but they never used his episcopal powers to give an order of jure divine bishops to their church. They retain the name, in some places, but they have no jure divino episcopal or- dinations. About 1528, says Haynes, in his translation of Melchior Adam's Life of Luther, " by the advice of Lu- ther^ and by the command of John the Elector, was ordain- ed a visitation of the churches in Saxony." In 1528 Lu- ther put forth an " Institution of Visiters." Haynes quotes Luther, saying, " We are visiters, that is, bishops, and we find poverty and scarcity everywhere. The Lord send forth workmen into his harvest. Amen." And in another place to Spalatinus, " Our visitation goeth on ; of what mise- ries are we eye witnesses ; and how often doe we remem- ber you, when we find the like or greater miseries in that harsh-natured people of Voytland-! Let us beseech God to be present with us, and that he would promote the work of his poore bishops, who is our best and most faithful Bishop 176 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. against all the arts and forces of Satan. Amen." And again, — " In our visitation in the territories of Wittemberg, we find as yet all pastors agreeing with their people, but the people not so forward for the word and sacraments."* again, " Luther wrote thus to Melancthon : ' Concerning obedience to be performed to the bishops, as in jurisdiction and the common ceremonies, I pray you have a care, look to yourself, and give no more than you have, lest ye should be compelled again to a sharper and more dangerous warre for the defence of the gospel. I know that you always except the gospel in those articles : but I fear lest after- ward they should accuse us of breach of our covenant, and inconstancy, if we observe not what they please. For they will take our graunts in the large, larger, largest sense, and hold their own strictly, and as strictly as they can. In briefe, I wholly dislike this agitation for concord in doc- trine, as being a thing utterly impossible, unlesse the pope will abolish his popedom.' "f Luther was no more than a presbyter, but he ordained their first bishop. "About this time the bishoprick of Neoburgh, by Sala, was voyd ; there Nicolas Amsdorf, a divine born of a noble family, was:): enstalled by Luther at the command of the elector of Sax- ony, the patron of that diocese ; and Julius Pflugius, whom the canons of the coUedge chose, was refused. Luther placed him in the bishoprick Jan. 20, A. D. 1543. This thing, as many conceived, gave occasion to other stirres, and very much offended the emperour, who much affected Pflugius for divers respects. Of this we see more in Amsdorf 's Life. After this Luther wrote a book in the German tongue, and call'd it ' The Pattern of the Inau- guration of a true Christian Bishop.' "§ " The gospel," says one of the Lutheran articles, " gives to those that are set over the churches a command to teach the gospel, to remit sins, to administer the sacraments, and * Page 71, 4to. London, 1641. t Pages 83, 84. t Melchior Adam, in the Life of Amsdorf, mentions this matter a9 follows: "On the 30th day of January, 1542, the elector Frederic, and J. Ernestus, the brother dukes of Saxony, being present, in the city of Neoburg, by Sala, this noble and unmarried person [Amsdorf] was ordained bishop by Luther : Nicolas Medler, the pastor of Neoburg, George Spalatinus, the pastor of Aldenburg, and Wolfgang Stemius, another pastor, joining with Luther in the imposition of hands. § Page 102. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 177 jurisdiction also. And by the confession of all, even our adversaries, 'tis manifest, that this power is, by divine right, common to all that are set over the churches, whether they be called pastors, or presbyters, or bishops." " But one thing made a difference afterward between bishops and presbyters, viz., ordination, because 'twas or- der'd that one bishop should ordain ministers in several churches : but since bishops and pastors are not different degrees by divine right, 'tis manifest, that an ordination, performed by a pastor in his own church, is valid ; and that the common jurisdiction of excommunicating those that are guilty of manifest crimes does belong to all pastors."* The party of high Churchmen have lately republished a tract of Mr. Charles Leslie, the nonjuror, on episcopacy, in a periodical called " The Voice of the Church." In this tract, Leslie says, the Lutherans " still retain epis- copacy." Now could such men as Leslie, and can ^uch men as Dr. Hook and the Oxford Tract-men, be ignorant of the principles and facts just stated about the Lutheran church ■? Can they be ignorant, therefore, that the episco- pacy of the Lutheran church, and the episcopacy which they advocate, have little in common but the name ; and that these two systems of episcopacy totally differ in all the great points for which high Churchmen most strenu- ously contend ? If they are not ignorant of these things, where is the honesty of leading the public mind astray by the mere' ambiguities of language ? It is painful to be under the necessity of exposing these dishonourable proceed- ings. But these gentlemen must blame themselves. The fault is their own ; and it is but justice to the public to expose it.f * Abridgment of Mr. James Owen's Plea, pp. 40, 41. t The Rev. J. Sinclair has occupied about ten pages of his work on Episcopal or Apostolical Succession, with the sophistical ambiguity noticed in the text. : he has placed it in front of all his arguments, as though he had nothing better to produce. In this attempt he tries to bring in the Lutheran church, Calvin, Beza, &c., for the support of episcopacy by divine right. . The reader has seen the case of the Lu- theran church. The Augsburgh Confession expressly declares, that, "according to the gospel, or jure divino, no jurisdiction belongs to bishops as bishops." Beza acknowledges bishops, so does the New Testament, He distinguishes them into three kinds, — Scriptural, S* 178 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSIOSl. The French church, and the reformed church in Germany, both maintain equality of bishops and presbyters. The synod of Bort, representing the reformed church of Ger- many, adopted the confession of faith belonging to the Belgic church. The thirty-first article contains this state- ment : " As regards the ministers of the divine word, they have everywhere the same power and authority." The pastors and seniors of the French churches, met in national council at Vitry in 1683, subscribed the same confession. King James sent some English bishops and divines to the synod of Dort. They gave their suffrages to this confes- sion, along with the rest of the divines, as is clearly stated in session 146. This consent was caught at by some to impugn the very existence of an order of bishops at all in the Church of England, even as a mere prudential or ecclesiastical arrangement. Carlton, bishop of Chiches- ter, who was one of those- that had been present at the synod of Dort by the order of King James, replied to this misinterpretation of their consent to that article, and showed that he and his colleagues had objected to such a construction of the sense of the articles as would encourage opposition to all exercise of superintendency by one class of ministers over others. The members of the synod with whom he conversed declared they wished for some such superintendency as they supposed the English bishops exer- cised, as calculated to promote good order, and to prevent divisions in the church. Yet they all, the English bishops and divines too, gave their votes for the confession just quoted, that, " as regards the ministers of the divine word, , they have everywhere the same power and authority." The case seems to be this :* they all believed that, by divine right, all ministers of the divine word, bishops and pres- byters, were equal ; but that, as a prudential ecclesiastical human, a.ndL antichristian : high Church bi-shops he classes among the last. See references to hin:i, and to Calvin, &;c., in the following sec- tion. "What delusion, to pretend the authority of these reformers for such an episcopacy as Mr. Sinclair and his high Church brethren maintain ! * So Bishop -Carlton, in his Treatise of Jurisdiction, p. 7, quoted by Calamy in his Defence of Moderate Nonconformity : " The poiaer of order, by all writers that I could see, even of the Cliurch of Rome, is understood to be immediately from Christ given to all biskops and priests alike in their consecration." — Calamy, vol. i, p. 104, edit. 1703. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. I'J'Q arrangement, an order of bishops, as superintendents over other ministers, was not antiscriptural, nor ungodly ; but calculated to promote order and peace in the church, and to prevent divisions. This has certainly been the general opinion and practice of the church from the beginning of the second century, up to this day. The church is placed between two evils — the tyranny of the people, and the tyranny of ministers. The divine plan favours neither. The Scriptures lay down only general principles, and leave the details of church government to every society ; and while nothing is done contrary either to the letter or the spirit of Scripture, by either ministers or people, we may approve of all, and leave all to the full exercise of their own choice. Whoever takes upon him to condemn those who keep to these limits, is an enemy to the peace of the church. It is a plain Scriptural principle that ministers are to govern the people ; — that the^are to govern according to the letter and spirit of their commission ; — and that, while they so govern, the people are hound by the authority of the word of God to submit to their government, and to honour them as those who watch for their souls ; but when ministers violate the law of their commission, their authority so far ceases, and the people are, in that propor- tion, free from the obligation to obey them. A well-guarded superintendency of one class of ministers over other minis- ters, if determined upon by the church, is allowable ; and is a useful arrangement. All such plans must be judged by their own character and administration. Every reflect- ing reader will equally admire the divine wisdom in what is defined, and in what is undefined. What is defined, guards against anarchy ; what is undefined, guards against tyranny. May Heaven grant both ministers and people to see and preserve their privileges, without abusing the same, either to anarchy or tyranny ! The Remonstrants perfectly acquiesced in the above principles, as may be seen in their Apology by Epis- copius.* The Waldenses had the ' came principles. There are two reasons for mentioning this remarkable people here. The first is, an occasional pretence by some Churchmen, * Episcopi Opp , vol. ii, par. socund., p. 226, fol., eJ. 166.5, 180 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. that they have had their order of episcopacy by divine right through this church ; another is, a feeble and ineffectual attempt of some Moravian historians to claim for that church some superiority on the same ground. In " An Account of the Doctrine, Manners, .Liturgy, and Idiom of the Unitas Fratrum, [that is, the Moravians,] taken from, and comprising the Supplement [dedicated to the Church of England] of the Vouchers to the Report of the Com- mittee of the Honourable the House of Commons, concern- ing the Church of the Unitas Fratrum, lately printed in folio," London, 1749, 8vo., we have a long extract from a letter of Jablonsky, a Moravian bishop, to Archbishop Wake. In this he quotes Comenius, another Moravian Ijishop and historian, in proof that " the Bohemian Brethren, arising from the ashes of Huss, regularly received the episcopal order— anno 1467," as foUovcs : " The Brethren's chief concern vras about pastors for the souls : vifhence they should get them, WEen those they had at present should decease. It w^as too uncertain a thing, to vi^ait till some of the Roman ordination, for the love of truth, should come over to them. And they remembered, that the fore- mentioned primate of Bohemia, Archbishop Rokyzane, had often testified that all must be renewed from the bottom. Therefore an ordination was to be begun at home, by that power which Christ had given his church. But they were afraid that it might not be a regular ordination if a pres- byter should create a presbyter, and not a bishop. At length, in the year 1467, the chief persons from Bohemia and Moravia, to the number of about seventy, met together in' a village near Richnow, called Lhota; and, having poured fourth many prayers and tears to God, that he would vouchsafe to show whether h§ approved of their design, they resolved to inquire the divine will by lot. They chose, therefore, by vote, nine men from. among them ; and, having put into the hands of a child twehe pieces of paper folded up, they bid him distribute to those nine men. Now nine of the papers were empty, and only on three stood written — It is : so that it was possible they all might get empty papers, which would have imported a negative will of God. But so it was, that the three written ones came into the hands of three among them, viz., Matthias Kxihnwald, a very pious man ; Thomas PrzelaU' ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.; 181 cius, a learned man ; and Elias Krzenowius, a man of sin- gular prudence. These found Stephen, bishop of the Waldenses, who sending for the other bishop, and some of the ministers, declared to them their descent from Con- stantine's time ; and also the articles of their doctrine, and the dreadful sufferings they had undergone in Italy and France; and having heard again, with approbation and congratulation, the account which ours gave of their with- holding themselves as well from the Calixtines also now, as formerly from the pope ; and, finally, to enable these three ministers to ordain, they created them bishops by im- position of hands, and sent them back in peace." This is Coraenius's account, who died 1670. Then Jablonsky speaks of the succession of these bishops in "The Unity," as having " gone on uninterruptedly from the first begin- ning of the Unity till 1650;" and he proceeds with an account of the succession till the time of writing to Arch- bishop Wake. At the close of his letter, the mention of the " episcopal succession" occurs three times in two pages ; and at page 1 35 the Church of England is spoken of as " their only episcopal sister in the Protestant world." Arvid Gradin, a person of great trust, and employed on the most important embassies among the Moravians, thus briefly describes this affair : " Being solicitous about a regular and apostolical ordination of pastors, there met in the year 1467, out of all Bohemia and Moravia grave, and pious men, about seventy in all, who sent three of their number, being marked out by lot, to Stephen, bishop of the Waldenses, then under banishment in Austria. He having called together the other bishops, his colleagues, consecrated these three persons, who were ministers and teachers remarkable, for their piety and learning, bishops, by imposition of hands : their names were Matthias of Cunewald, Thomas Praelautensis, and Elias Chrzenovitz." He then speaks of " Comenius complaining that he, like Elias, was alone left remaining, without any hopes of handing down the apostolical succession which was lodged in him; and accordingly he wrote, in the year 1660, a very melancholy lamentation, and dedicated it to the English Church." This,, and much more in the same authors, shows a disposition unduly to magnify episcopal ordina- tion and succession. Indeed I think that both Comenius 183 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. and Jablonsky really believed in the divine riglit of epis- copacy, as did many divines of the Church of England in the times of Comenius — ^tiines of much high Churchism in England. It was well for the Brethren that the truth of the matter was not so ; otherwise the church of God had perished among the Bohemians when Comenius died, for Bishop Holmes informs us in the work noticed below, that the succession expired in that branch at the death of Come- nius, and was not renewed again for nearly one hundred years, viz., in 1735. However, since the publication of the first edition of this Essay, I have received a candid and excellent letter on the subject of Moravian episcopacy, from the Rev. Benjamin SeifFerth, a Moravian minister at Kimbolton. From this I am happy to learn that the Moravians do not hold episcopacy to be of divine right. Mr. SeifFerth refers in proof of this, among other authorities, to the " History of the United Brethren," by the Rev. John Holmes of Ful- neck, Yorkshire, who is a bishop of the Moravian church. At pages 50 to 53, vol. i, the Rev John Holmes gives the following account of the matter of sending to this Stephen, the supposed bishop of the Waldensian church, for episco- pal ordination : — " A most important subject of deliberation, both at their synods and -at other times, was how to maintain a regular succession of ministers, when those who now exercised the ministry among them, and who had previously been ordained among the Calixtines, were dead. For the pur- pose of coming to a final decision on this point, a synod was convened in 1467, and met in the village of Lhota, in the house of a person of the name of Duchek. Seventy persons were assembled at it, consisting of ministers, noblemen, scholars, citizens, and peasants, deputed by the several congregations of the Brethren in Moravia and Bohemia. " The synod was opened by fasting, prayer, and reading the Scriptures. After much deliberation, they came to a unanimous resolution to follow the advice of Lupacius and others, and to elect their ministers from their own body. With the example of the election of Matthias before them, (Acts i, 15-26,) who was appointed by lot, they conceived that they were not acting contrary to Scripture by adopting ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 183 the same mode, and they reposed implicit confidence in the Lord, who alone hath the disposal of the lot, (Prov. xii, 33,) that, in a case of such emergency as the present, ■which involved such important consequences to their whole church, he would counsel them according to his will. They first nominated twenty men, from among whom nine were chosen, being in their opinion duly quali- fiedfor the office of the ministry, men of approved piety and irreproachable conduct, and possessing a thorough know- ledge of divine truth, and much practical experience. Of this number they determined that three should be ap- pointed hy lot for the ministerial office. Being thus agreed on preliminaries, they prepared twelve slips of paper, on three of which they wrote the word est, [this is the man,] and left the other nine blank. All the twelve slips of pa- per were then rolled up, put into a small vase, and mixed together. " Hereupon Gregory addressed the assembly, admonish- ing them to\be fully resigned to the direction and will of God, our heavenly Father, to whom they had referred the decision, whom of these nine men he chose to become ambassadors of his Son in the church. He encouraged them confidently to expect that God would hear and an- swer their prayer. After this they^ repeated their suppli- cations to the Lord, entreating him so to overrule their present proceedings, that the affirmative lot inscribed with the word est, might be received by such only of the nine men, previously nominated, as he himself designed to ap- point to the ministry, or if none of the present candidates were approved by him, he would cause each of them to receive a blank, or negative lot. Prayer being ended, they called in a little boy, directing him to hand one of the slips of paper to each of the nine men, who gave them unopened to other members of the synod. On opening the papers it was found, that the three inscribed with est had been received by Matthias of Kunewalde, Thomas of Presche- lauz, and Elias of Kreschenow. The whole assembly novif joined in a solemn act of thanksgiving to God, joyfully receiving these three men as pastors and teachers, and promising them obedience by giving them the right hand and the kiss of peace. The transaction was closed with the celebration of the Lord's supper. 184 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. " The Brethren, however, soon found that the work was not yet complete. In their own estimation, the appointment of these men for the ministry of the gospel, in the manner described, was sufficiently valid ; but they knew it required something more to give it equal sanction with the religious public. They required regular ecclesiastical ordination. In order to discuss this important subject, another synod was convened before the end of the year. In this assem- bly two questions were principally agitated. " The first was, whether ordination by a number of pres- byters was equally valid with that performed by a bishop ? The decision of the synod was to this effect ; — That pres- byterian ordination was consonant to apostolic practice, (1 Tim. iv, 14,) and the usage of the primitive church, ■which might be proved from the writings of the primitive fathers ; consequently the newly elected ministers might be ordained by those now exercising the sacred functions of the gospel among them, and who had previously been Calixtine clergymen in priest's orders. But, as for many ages no ordination had been deemed valid in the reigning church, unless performed by a bishop, they resolved to use every possible means for obtaining episcopal ordination ; that their enemies might thus be deprived of every pretext for discrediting the ministry among thera. " This decision involved the second question, which was, to what regularly organized community of Christians the synod might look for episcopal ordination. There could in reality exist but one opinion on this subject. For it was highly improbable, that any bishops connected with the Romish Church would transfer this privilege to the Brethren ; and besides this church, they knew only one other Christian community, to which they might apply with any hope of success. This was the Waldensian church. Several circumstances encouraged the Brethren to apply in this quarter. The Waldenses had existed for a long period as a distinct body of Christians, they constituted a regularly organized society, tracing the succession of their bishops from the times of the apostles ; they had on a former oc- casion come to the assistance of the Brethren, and now had several congregations in Austria, served by their own bishops and ministers. " Conformably to these resolutions of the synod, they ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 185 elected three of their ministers, who were already in priest''s orders, and sent them to the Waldensian bishop, Stephen. Having informed him of the object of their visit, the state of the unity of the Brethren, and the transactions of the synod, he received them with demonstrations of the most cordial joy ; and in his turn related the leading events in the history of the Waldenses, and gave them an account of their constitution, and the succession of their bishops. Hereupon he ordained these three presbyters bishops of the Brethren's church, with imposition of hands, being assisted by another bishop, and in presence of the elders. Of these three first bishops of the Brethren's church, Melchior Bradacius is the only one whose name has been handed down to posterity. He had from the very commencement of the church of the Brethren ren- dered it essential service, and merited an honourable dis- tinction. Of the other two, one had previously exercised the ministry among the Waldenses, and the other in the Romish Church. " Scarce had these bishops returned to their brethren, when it was resolved to convoke another synod. This assembly was principally occupied in amending and com- pleting their ecclesiastical constitution. In order to this, their first public act was the ordination of the three men, lately appointed by lot for the ministerial office, [to be] presbyters of the Brethren's church. One of them, Mat- thias of Kunewalde, was, before the close of the synod, consecrated bishop. They then proceeded to the appoint- ment of ten co-bishops, or conseniors, elected from the body of presbyters. No doubtful proof this of the increas- ing number of congregations and members, in connection with the Brethren's church." The reader will observe several discrepancies between these accounts. First, as to the opinion of the ancient Brethren about the real importance of episcopacy. Comenius says, — " They were o^aicZ that it might not be a regular ordination if a presbyter should create a presbyter, and not a bishop." Arvid Gradin says they were solicitous about it. Mr. Holmes says that the synod, after agitating the subject, decided to this eifect : " that presbyterian ordination was consonant to apostolic practice and the primitive church ;" 186 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. and that they adopted episcopal ordination for this special, prudential reason, viz., " that their enemies might thus he deprived of every pretext for discrediting the ministry among them." » Secondly, Comenius, seems to make the meeting at Lhota, in which Matthias Kuhnwald, &c., were elected, to be called for the special purpose of sending these three men to Stephen for episcopal ordination ; so does Arvid Gradin : Bishop Holmes makes this meeting appoint these three men to the office of the ministry without any regard to episcopal ordination; for at the close of the meeting, " the whole assembly joined in a solemn act of thanks- giving to God, joyfully receiving these three men as their pastors and teachers, promising them obedience by giving them the right hand and kiss of peace." Thirdly, both Comenius and Arvid Gradin state that the three men who were sent to Stephen, and consecrated bishops by him, were Matthias Kuhnwald, Thomas Przel- aucius, and Elias Krzenowius : but Bishop Holmes says the men who went to Stephen, and were consecrated bishops, were not the same as those mentioned by Come- nius and Gradin ; but that one of their names was Melchior Bradacius ; and that the names of the other two have not been " handed down to posterity." Then another synod, a third, is convoked, according to Bishop Holmes, and " their first public act was the ordination of the three men, lately appointed by lot for the ministerial office, pres- byters of the Brethren's church. One of them, Matthias of Kunewalde, was, before the close of the synod, conse- crated bishop." I must confess that such very striking and material dis- crepancies, among these highly respectable historians of the Brethren's church, on a point so important, makes me suspect that there is very little of perfectly authentic history ort the subject of this matter about Stephen and the epis- copal ordination and succession. Perrin, who possessed better means of information than almost any other historian of the Waldenses, differs, as we shall soon see; from all these historians : according to him, the object of this, the journey, was different ; the persons sent, were different, " two ministers and two elders ;" the transaction between Stephen and those persons was different : what they did, ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 187 was not to give a sucgession of bishops, but " in token of their great joy, and that holy society and correspondence, which they desired to hold with them, they blessed them, praying and laying their hands upon them." The whole episcopal colouring of this affair seems to have arisen from the high Church imagination of Coraenius : Jablonsky gladly laid hold of it to propitiate Archbishop Wake, of the Church of England ; and hence others have followed in the same track. But let us direct our inquiry to the opinions and practice of the Waldenses. The Moravians profess to have their episcopacy from Stephen, whom iliey call bishop of the Waldenses, in 1467. If the Waldenses neither taught this doctrine of high Church bishops, nor maintained such an order, then, of course, they could not give what they possessed not them- selves ; and all the authority derived from them for these pretensions comes to nothing. The doctrine of episcopacy by divine right, if true, is a matter of the very first importance ; all who held it, must have felt it to be so. Had the Waldenses held this, they would have spoken accordingly, in clear, strong, defined terms. Thus they did speak on all subjects they believed to be of great magnitude. It may then be taken as a sure rule, that, while the subject was constantly before theln, and yet they never say clearly and strongly that the order of bishops, as having superintendency over presbyters, was by divine right ; — no, nor even mention such a thing as bishops among them ; that this negative evidence is proof they did not hold such a doctrine. But when they say much to the contrary, the proof strengthens still more. Besides, where were the Waldenses to get the notion ? We have seen that the Roman church never held it ; the Greek church never held it ; the Scriptures do not teach it ; — where then were they to get it ? He that affirms they held it, must prove his affirmation. / deny it ; let it be proved. I might rest the matter safely here. The early and authentic writings of the Waldenses are very few ; yet some light may be obtained from them. Let the reader keep one thing in mind ; — viz., that suppose it could be proved, as a fact, that they had presbyters and bishops, still this would not prove that they held the high 188 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. Church notions of episcopacy by divine right. Jerome constantly mentions bishops in the church, in his day, as a fact, but positively denies the divine right of episcopacy. The Church of Rome had the distinction between bishops and presbyters as a, fact, but never maintained the divine right of episcopacy. The reformers of the English Church established the distinction as a fact, but never maintained the divine right. By overlooking or denying this difference between the fact and the divine right, many showy volumes have been written in favour of episcopacy, which are nothing but splendid sophisms from end to end. However, I doubt the fact of the Waldenses having had bishops in their earliest history. I believe it cannot be proved from any of their documents, written before the time when the Moravians profess to have received the episco- pal order from them, viz., 1467. Any later evidence will be inconclusive. Much to the contrary certainly appears in their writings before that period, as the following extracts will show. They speak of ministers in the fol- lowing manner : — " They who are pastors ought to preach to the people, and feed them often with divine doctrine ; and chastise the sinners with discipline." Written A. D. 1100. "Feed- ing the flock of God, not for filthy lucre sake, or [raor] as having sdperioritv oier the clergy." " As touching orders, we ought to hold that order is called the power which God gives to man, duly to administer and dispense unto the church the word and sa.craments. But we find nothing in the Scriptures touching such orders as they" (the Papists) " pretend, but only the custom of the church." Treatise of Antichrist, A. D. 1220. " All other ministerial things may be reduced to the aforesaid." Ihid. " Those that being partakers of the outward ceremonies, instituted ONLY hy human inventions, do believe and hope to partake of the reality of pastoral cures and offices, if they be shaved or shorn like lambs, and anointed or daubed like walls," &c. Having described the ceremonies then used by the Romish Church in confirmation, they say, " This is that which they call the sacrament of confirmation, which we find not instituted either by Christ, or his apostles-^ therefore such sacrament is not found needful to salvation ; whereby God is blasphemed, and which was introduced by ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 189 tlie deviVs instigation, to seduce the people, and to deprive them of the faith of the church, and that by such means they might be induced the more to believe the ceremonies, and the necessity of the bishops." Ibid. Speaking of "pas- tors," without any distinction, they say, " We pastors do meet together once every year, to determine of our affairs in a general council. Among other powers and abilities which God hath given to his servants, he hath given au- thority to chuse leaders to rule the people, and to ordain elders [presbyters] in their charges according to the diver- sity of the work, in the unity of Christ, which is proved by the saying of the apostle, in the first chapter of his Epistle to Titus : ' For this cause I have left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbyters] in every city as I have ap- pointed thee.' When any of us, the aforesaid pastors, falls into any gross sins, he is both excommunicated and prohibited to preach." From MSS. several hundred years before Luther or Calvin. Here it is remarkable, that their quotation from Titus stops, in such a way, as not to intro- duce the term bishop, occuring in the next verse. Why was this J The following authorities will answer this ques- tion. Reinerus, the oldest authority on their tenets, as a historian, (having written about 1250,) says, " They consi- dered prelates to be but scribes and Pharisees ; that the pope and all the bishops were miirderers, because of the wars they waged ; — that they were not to obey the bishops, but God only ; that in the church no one was greater than another ; that they hated the very name of prelate, as pope, bishop," &c. A similar statement is given by ./Eneas Sylvius : " The Roman bishop, and all bishops are equal. Among priests, or ministers of the gospel, there is no dif- ference. The name of a presbyter does not signify a dignity, but superior merit."* Mr. Faber quotes Pilich- dorf, saying, "They rejected the consecration of bishops, priests, churches, altars, &c."t Perrin remarks, that "the monk Reinerus reported many things concerning the vocation of the pastors of the Waldenses which are mere fictions : as that they had a greater bishop and two followers, whom he called the elder * Catalog. Test. Veritat., vol. ii. + Faber's Vallenses, p. 418. Lond., 1838. 190 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. son, and the younger, and a deacon ; that he laid his hands upon others with a sovereign authority, and sent them where he thought good, like a pope." " Against these impostures, here follows what is found in their writings, concerning the vocation of their pastors." He then gives the same account from their own writings as we have given in the text ; but no account of an order of bishops is found in them. There is no distinction among them but what age, or wisdom, or piety, might confer. Leger gives the monk Reiner's account of this matter a little differently. He introduces him speaking of the barbes or pastors, saying, " that they had always among them some chief pastor, endowed with the authority* of a bishop, with two coadjutors, one of whom he called his eldest son, and the other his younger.'"^ This is certainly more consistent with the other statements of Reiner. For how could he say they had a greater bishop, when he says they reprobated the very name of bishops ? But he might say that some chief pastor was endowed with the authority of a bishop, &c. Their own writings say, ."The last re- ceived pastors must do nothing without the license of their seniors : as also those that are frst are to undertake no- things without the approbation of their companions, that * Mr. Faber, refemng to Gilly's Excurs. to Piedmont, p. 73, says, " The venerable Peyrani, when asked by Dr. Gilly, in the year 1823, whether, in the Vaudois church, there had not formerly been bishops properly so called, readily answered, ' Yes : and I should now be styled' bishop, for my office is virtually episcopal, but it would be absurd to retain the empty title, when we are too poor to support the dignity : and have little jurisdiction save that which is voluntarily submitted to among ourselves : the term moderator is, therefore, now in use with us, as being more consistent with our humiliation.^ " Now, if riches and worldly dignities are_ necessary to bishops properly such, then there were none such in the earliest ages of the church, nor of the Waldenses either: the same remark would apply to any jurisdiction with civil power to coerce; neither the primitive church, nor the ancient Wal- denses, knew any thing about such jurisdiction. If the term bishop is an " empty title" without these, something very different from primitive episcopacy must be meant by it. " But," says Peyrani, " a moderator is virtually a bishop :" yes, as much so as a Lutheran superintendent or president. If this is what is meant by being "properly" a bishop, then many writers on these subjects express themselves very impro- perly. + See Peyran's Historical Defence of the Waldenses. Lond., 1826, Appendix, pp. 491, 492. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 191 every thing may be done among us in order. We pastors do meet together once every year to determine of our affairs in a general council."* This is the authority the seniors had. Such have the Lutheran and Wesleyan Methodist superintendents. Such had the bishops in the days of Cyprian. Yet the Waldenses do not appear to have had the name of bishop. They are said to have HATED THE VERY NAME of bishop. Much less, therefore, had they the doctrine of divine right. Indeed this account of Reiner's about a bishop vrith two coadjutors, an elder son and a younger son, seems not properly to be spoken of the Waldenses at all, but only of those who were properly Paulicians. See Mr. Faber's Vallenses, pp. 564, 565. Hence it would appear that the Waldenses had no such name as bishop for any of their pastors, but that, according to the earliest historians who knew them best, "they reprobated the very name of bishops." Their pastors fed the flock, ruled the flock, and ordained others to the minis- try of the word. The Waldenses, then, had no doctrine of the divine right of bishops to govern the church, and to have the sole right of superintending and ordaining other ministers. The pretence of deriving the divine right of episcopacy through the Waldenses is, in truth, mthouPany solid foundation whatsoever. The Moravian bishops have no superintendency by the power of their order over all other ministers ; they are ordained by the authority of the elders or presbyters ; and are subject to the conference of presbyters. They, by the authority of the presbyters, ordain other ministers. This office of ordaining ministers is their only important differ- ence from presbyters ; and as they do it by the authority 'of the presbyters, it amounts to nothing but a mere eccle- siastical arrangement. Bishop Holmes -says, (p. 25,) " The writings of Wick- liffe were the means used by God for illuminating the mind of Huss. Wickliffe himself, on the subject of equality and of gospel ministers, evidently followed the writings of the ancient Waldenses, for he sometimes uses their very words. Now Wickliffe boldly affirms all gospel ministers to be equal by divine right. Huss followed him in this, and maintained the same point, as may be seen in Fox's Acts * Perrin, part ii, b. i, chap. 10. 193 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. "^ and Monuments.* He is charged with maintaining, and doth not deny it, that he saith, ' All priests are of like power ; and affirmeth, that the reservations of the pope's casualties, the ordering [ordaining] of bishops, and the consecration of priests, were invented only for covetous- ness.' The Waldenses taught Wickliffe ; Wickliffe taught Huss : they all maintained equality, by divine right, of all gospel ministers." AH the reformers viewed the Bohemian Brethren's church government in this light. The English reformers did. A number of the Bohe- mians fled out of Germany into England in the time of Edward VI. They were incorporated, as a church, under John Alasco. Now the later Moravians reckon John Alasco as one of their bishops at that time. Let us hear Bishop Burnet's history of this matter : " This summer, John Alasco7 with a congregation of Germans that fled from their country upon the persecution raised there, for not receiving the interim, was allowed to hold his assembly at St. Austin's, in London. The congregation was erected into a corporation. John Alasco was to be superintendent, and there were four other ministers associated with him. There were also three hundred and eighty of the congre- gation made denizens of England, as appears by the re- cords of their patents."! In the king's letters patent for their incorporation, the following is the style : — " De uno superintendente et quatuor verbi ministris erigimus, creamus, ordinamus, etfundamus" &c. — " We erect, create, ordain, and found this church, under one superintendent and four ministers of the word." Would Alasco, who wanted neither talents nor courage to defend himself, have submitted to the degradation (as a thorough Episcopalian would have supposed it) of being stripped of Ids dignity in a solemn deed of incorporation, and made a mere superintendent ? Would not the same reasoning hold as to the opinion of the other ministers, and the whole church, upon the sub- ject? The word superintendent is repeated ten times over in these documents ; but never the word bishop as applied to Alasco, or to any minister of the Bohemian church. The Rev. Benjamin Seifferth, in the letter before men- tioned, speaking of John Alasco, thinks I am in an error * Vol. i, p. 791, &c., ed. 1641, folio. t Vol. ii, part i. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 193 in supposing that the latter Moravian historians reckon him as one of their bishops. He says, " Count Zinzen- dorf, indeed, fell into this error ; but I believe it has been acknowledged to be an error. Holmes is not chargeable ■with it ; nor, as far as I am aware, are any of our writers : and Comenius, and especially Regenvolscius, show that El Lasco was not even a member of the Brethren's church, though a warm friend to it." I have given Mr. SeifTerth's statement. Now it seems Count Zinzendorf believed k Lasco, or Alasco, belonged to the Moravians ; and the highly authoritative work above quoted, taken from the Vouchers presented to the House of Commons, and indeed to both houses of parliament, considers the transaction in Edward's time to have been with the Brethren's church, and of course with a Lasco as its chief minister. See p. 134 of that work. And, in a note on the same page, they speak of " one of our [Moravian] bishops having been in the commission for reforming ecclesiastical laws in England. We cannot forbear giving the honoured reader two of the most remarkable passages of our said Bishop John a Lasco's Preface to the Liturgy, for his Congrega- tion at Austin Friars," in 1550 ; a similar statement, as to his being a Moravian minister, is made in a note at p. 108 — " This noble prelate of ours." It is not for me to decide who is right in this matter. It would be easy to prove that the Lutheran church viewed this Bohemian episcopacy as a mere ecclesiastical arrangement, amounting in substance to nothing more than the same arrangement among themselves ; sometimes de- nominating the individual a superintendent, as in Germany, generally ; and sometimes a bishop, or even archbishop, as in Sweden and Denmark. AU the Swiss and Geneva reformers prove this by expressing their approbation of the church discipline of the Bohemians and Waldenses ; for every body knows that these reformers determinately main- tained the equality by divine right of all gospel ministers. Indeed the story about that Stephen, who, the Moravians say, conveyed to them this episcopal succession, is very differently related by Perrin, one of the earliest of the modern historians of the Waldenses. He had more au- thentic documents connected with their ancient history than any later historian ever possessed. He says, " About 9 194 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. • 1467; the Hussites, reforming and separating their churches from the Church of Rome, understood that there were some churches of the ancient Waldenses in Austria, lying Upon the frontiers of Bohemia, in which there were great and learned men ordained, and appointed to be pastors ; and that the doctrine of the gospel flourished in its full force and vigour among them : then that they might be informed of the truth thereof, they sent two of their ministers with two elders, giving them in charge to inquire into, and know what those flocks or congregations were ; for what reason they had separated themselves from the Church of Rome ; their principles and progress ; and also to discover and make known unto them the beginning of their own conduct in Bohemia, and to acquaint them with the cause and reason of their separation and dissension from the Romish Church. " These men being arrived thither, and having found out those Waldensian churches, after a diligent and care- ful search after them, they told them, that they did nothing but what was agreeable to the ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of his apostles, confining themselves wholly to the institution of the Son of God in the matter of the sacrament. " It was a matter of great joy and satisfaction to the Waldenses, to understand, that a great number of people in Bohemia had advanced the glory of God, by casting off the corruptions and idolatries of the Roman Church, and exhorting them in God's name to continue and carry on that work which they had so well begun, for the know- ledge and maintenance of the truth, and for the establish- ment of a good order and discipline among them ; in token of their great joy, and that holy society and correspondence which they desired to hold with them, they blessed them, praying and laying their hands upon them."* And then, having mentioned the burning of a great, number of the Waldenses in a violent persecution, he says, " Among others, the history* gives us an account of one Stephen, AN ELDERLY MAN, who being bumt there," (at Vienna,) " confirmed many by his constancy." The translation I quote is by " A lover of our Protestant Establishment, both in church and state." Perhaps " one Stephen, an * Perrin's History of the Old Waldenses, part it, b. ii, chap. 10. ON APOSTOLPGAL SUCCESSION. 195 elderly man," should have been translated, " one Stephen, a presbyter or elder." This is the very Stephen of whom the Moravians speak as conveying the episcopal succession to them. Hence they sometimes speak about the Church of England as " their only episcopal sister." The mission- ary labours of the Brethren we. would duly estimate ; much may be said for their simple manners and piety ; yet all such representations as tend to confine a gospel ministry and gospel ordinances to any episcopal succession schemes are to be suspected. Their tendency is to bind the bless- ings of Christianity by ordinances that God never made. No order of men ought to be encouraged to assume sucTj powers. Simplicity may be frequently beguiled by them, and may look upon them as harmless ; but those who study the subject in the light of history, and the knowledge of human nature, will think very differently. -As to apostolical succession, Reiner testifies that the Waldenses maintained, " that those only are the successors of the APOSTLES who imitate their lives. Inferring from thence, saith he, that the pope, the bishops, and clergy, ■vr\o enjoy the riches of this world, and seek after them, do not follow the lives of the apostles, and therefore are not the true guides of the church ; it having never been the design of our Lord Jesus Christ to commit his chaste and well-beloved spouse to those who would rather prosti- tute it by their wicked examples and works, than preserve it in the same purity in which they received it at the be- ginning, a virgin chaste and without spot." This is the true view of the apostolical succession. The reformers contended for this. We rejoice to believe that the bishops and presbyters in the Moravian church have this succes- sion; but most eminently so their missionaries, and all other devoted missionaries to the heathen. May every church zealously contend for this succession, and may their labours be crowned with apostolical success in the con- version of thousands and tens of thousands from idols to the living God ! The matter of the Scotch church, and all the dissenting churches, as maintaining the identity by divine right of all ministers, is denied by none, and therefore needs no proof. The reader will have long §ince perceived that €as main 196 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. end of this argument upon the identity of bishops and pres- byters, as one and the same office, is to show that presby- ters have EQUALLY as much divine authority to ordain others to the Christian ministry as bishops have. Another prerogative, however, is generally claimed for bishops, viz., that of CONFIRMATION. We have taken but little notice of this ; yet it would hardly suit the design of this Essay wholly to omit it. We account it not of sufficient importancerfor lengthened remark or discussion in a sepa- rate section : a brief notice of it here, therefore, by way of episode, may suffice. We may comprise all that is necessary to be said on the subject in two particulars ; first, as to the thing itself ; and secondly, as to the minis- ter who may perform it. First, as to the thing itself. Those illustrious witnesses to the truth against Popery, the Waldenses, as we have seen, speaking on this subject, say, " This is that which they call confirmation, which we find not instituted either by Christ or his apostles ; therefore such sacrament is not found needful to salvation ; whereby God is blasphemed, and which was introduced by the devil's instigation, to seduce the people, and to deprive them of the faith of the church, and that by such means they might be induced the more to believe the ceremonies, and the necessity of bishops." Wickliffe also says, " It does &ot appear that this sacrament should be reserved to a Cesarean prelacy ; that it would be more devout and more conformable to Scripture language, to deny that the bishops give the Holy Spirit, or confirm the giving of it ; and that it therefore seems to some, that the brief and trivial confirmation of the PRELATES, and the ceremonies added to it for the sake of pomp, were introduced at the suggestion of Satan, that the people may be deceived as to the faith of the church, and that the state and necessity of bishops may be more acknowledged."* Melancthon observes, "The rite of confirmation, as retained by bishops, is altogether an idle ceremony : but an examination of youth, in order to a pro- fession of their faith, with public prayer for the pious part of them, would be useful, and the prayer would not be in vain."f Ravanel, whose work had the approbation of the * Vaughan's Life of Wickliffe, vol. ii, p. 308, sec. ed., 1831. t Loci Communes, de Confirmatione. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 197 French reformed church, says, " The wrangling Popish divines maintain the dignity and efficacy of confirmation ABOVE the sacrament of baptism itself; for they assert that it is not lawful for any one but a bishop to confer it, while they concede that presbyters can administer baptism : and they impiously teach that confirmation is a certain perfecting and consummating of baptism, as if those were to be counted only half Christians who are baptized only, and not con- firmed ; whereas the apostle testifies that we put on Christ in baptism."* Bishop Taylor boldly declares, that, until we^ are confirmed, we are imperfect Christians ; such, " without a miracle, are not perfect Christians :" that is, not really Christians at all. Calvin has some admirable remarks upon the subject, Inst., lib. iv, c. 19. He ap- proves of a similar procedure' to that mentioned above by Melancthon. He exposes the absurdity and impiety of taking the act of the apostles in conferring the visible and MIRACULOUS GIFTS of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of their hands upon the baptized, as a ground for the pretence of bishops to confer the Holy Ghost by the laying on of THEIR hands in confirmation. He calls them " apes of the apostles." He shows that by this kind of pretence they invalidate baptism itself, thus making void the command- ments of God by the traditions of men, and exclaims, " O the iniquity of this proceeding !" He then ofl^ers ironically an improved definition of confirmation, viz., that it is " a marked disgrace to baptism, which obscures the use of baptism, yea, abolishes it: the devil's false promise, to draw us away from the true promises of God." The rite of confirmation in the English Church differs from the Popish one in that it is not called a sacrament ; and some ceremonies are laid aside : in all other respects it is equally unscriptural in its pretences, and dangerous in its conse- quences. To establish a claim to it as a prerogative of bishops, in imitation of the apostles, they, the bishops, must confer the gift of miracles. The latter they cannot do : the claim, therefore, exposes Christianity itself to con- tempt. This claim ought to be given up. Bishop Taylor, speaking of the Popish doctrine of extreme unction, says, " When the miraculous healing ceased, then they were not Catholics, but heretics, that did transfer it to the use of * Bibliotheca Sacra, sub voce. 198 ON APOSTOLICAL STJCCESSION. dying persons." By this rule he would convict the Church of England of heresy in the use of confirmation. It doubt- less imbodies serious errors ; though we do not say it (Sonstitutes heresy. Every Christian has a right to repro- bate it as a public injury to religion. It is degrading also to all other ministers, as implying that the sacrament of baptism, as administered by them, is imperfect. It dero- gates from the sacrament of baptism itself.* Besides, there is the solemn declaration made by the bishop, in administering the rite of confirmation, that the " Almighty and everlasting God has given forgiveness of jill THEIR siNs"'— aZZ their actual personal sins — to the mtjlti- TUDES of young persons brought to be confirmed, many of whom are plainly ungodly persons, and who had never been seen by the bishop before. This is enough to make any pious person tremble. It is a daring presumption, only equalled by the height of Popery itself. The great danger to souls is, that multitudes believe it. I pity many good men who are entangled with these things. The re- formers of the English Church might find some excuse for retaining them, because it was difficult in the darkness of those times to see the truth in all things ; but there can be no excuse at this day for retaining them. Every Pro- testant ought to protest against these corruptions of Chris- tianity. Melancthon's view contains all that the Scrip- tures warrant. Secondly, let us consider who is the minister to whom the administering of this rite belongs. Indeed, as there is no divine authority for the thing itself, of course there is no divine regulation about the minister. Bishop Burnet grants, that there is " no express institution of it, neither by Christ nor his apostles ; no rule given to practise it."t * Bishop Heber, in his Life of Bishop Taylor, speaking of his work on Confirmation, says, " There is, indeed, a dangerous consequence attendant on both Taylor's arguments, that, by limiting the gift' of the Holy Ghost to confirmation, he makes baptism, taken by itself, of NONE EFFECT, or, at most, of no further effect than as a decent and necessary introduction to that which would be, on'this hypothesis, the main and distinctive consignation of a Christian." King James I., at the Hampton Court conference, declared his opinion, " that arguing a confirmation of baptism, as if this sacrament without it were of no validity, is plainly blasphemous." t Burnet on the Articles, art. 35. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 199 The whole is merely a matter of human arrangement. How- ever, Bishop Taylor dashes off the affirmation, that "bishops^ were always, and the only ministers of confirmation." It is humiliating to find this splendid writer frequently so reckless in assertion, and so careless of proof. Bishop Heber candidly acknowledges, in his admirable Life of Taylor, that " he was any thing rather than a critical in- quirer into facts (however strange) of history or of philo- sophy. If such alleged facts suited his purpose, he re- ceived them without examination, and retailed them without scruple." Vol. ii, p. 179, 12mo. Now, to overturn for ever, and from the foundation, his rash affirmation, and all similar affirmations, we have only to bring before the reader the indisputable fact, that in the Greek church it never was confined to the bishops, but always was, and is to the pre- sent day, administered by presbyters and bishops promis- eaoualy. There is no satisfactory proof, indeed, that it existed at all in the early ages of the church, after the apostles' time, in the sense and manner in which it is now used in the Church of England, As the concluding part of baptism ; and as a way of confirming the baptism of heretics, it somewhat early came into the church, as may be seen in Cyprian, epist. 72 and 76, ed. Pamel. ; in Sui- cer's Thesaurus, vol. ii, col. 1534, &c., ed, 1682; and Calderwood's Altare Damascenum, p. 257, &c., ed. 1708. " The invention" says Bishop Burnet, art. 25, " that was afterward found out, by which the bishop was held to be the only minister of confirmation, even though presbyters were suifered to confirm, was a piece of superstition without any colour from Scripture. — In the Latin church, Jerome tells us, that in his time bishops only confirmed ; though he makes the reason of this to be rather for doing to them honour, than from any necessity of law. — It is said by Hilary, that in Egypt the presbyters did confirm in the bishop's absence : so that custom grew to be the universcd practice of the Greek church." The learned Mr. Smith, in his work on the " Present State of the Greek Church," tells us, that " the administration of confirmation is conceded to bishops and presbyters promiscuously" in the present Greek church: p. 112, ed. sec, 1678. The Church Of Rome, as an ordinary rule, confines it to bishops, but has always granted that presbyters, by the permission of the 200 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. church, were capable of administering confirmation ; and presbyters have actually and frequently administered it in that church.* So much for the truth of Bishop Taylor's rash and reckless affirmation, that " bishops were always, and the only ministers of confirmation." There is no divine authority for the thing : the present mode of administering it is full of presumption and danger. In a reformed state of the matter, presbyters might, by the will of the church, be equally as efficient administrators of it as bishops. To claim it as a divine prerogative of bishops, is like all the other assumptions of this scheme — an utterly baseless assumption. Here, then, is abundant proof of the shallowness of the pretence of some who seem to boast as though almost all the authority of the Christian church was on the side of their high Church claims for episcopal succession. The truth is, we see, that no Christian church ever main- tained IT ; many have expressly negatived these claims ; NONE ever affirmed them. The maintaining of the true Scriptural liberty of every section of the Christian church is a matter of great import- ance to Christianity itself, and to the peace of the Chris- tian world at large. While no Scriptural principles are violated, and while the morals of the church are not cor- rupted, each church has the sacred right of adopting what form of government it deems the best. No section of the Christian church has any authority, beyond these princi- ples, to bind the practices of another church. Every at- tempt to do this is essentially Popery ; it is antichrist, setting up his throne in the church above the throne of God himself. Episcopacy, if administered with humility, and in a pacific spirit, may, on these principles of Chris- tian truth, be adopted and justified ; but, if its advocates become proud and insolent to those churches who adopt it not ; if they insult the ministers, and endeavour to disturb the minds of the private members of those churches by unscriptural declamation and denunciation against the va- lidity of their ordinances ; if they proudly arrogate to them- selves the sole right to administer the ordinances of the gospel : in such a case, they commence a spiritual usurpa- * See the Canon Law, distinction 95, and Lancelot's Notes on the "ame. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 201 tion and tyranny in the church of God. To overturn such a system is to defend the gospel ; and its overthrow will promote the peace of the whole Christian world. SECTION IX. THE GREATEST DIVINES OF ALL AGES SHOWN TO BE AGAINST THESE EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS FOR THE DIVINE RIGHT OF BISHOPS. Or course this point has been anticipated in the pre- ceding sections; for while it has been shown that no church ever affirmed this order of bishops by divine right, but that all churches have substantially negatived it, the doctrine of these churches proves the opinion of the greatest divines of all ages to have been against the tenet of bishops being by divine right an order distinct from, and superior to, presbyters ; having government over mi- nisters as well as over people ; and the sole power and authority of ordaining other ministers in the church of God. But besides their testimony in the voice of their different churches, many of them have spoken so expressly upon the subject, that it may be worth while to hear them deliver their own decisions. First, The Christian Fathers. — We have treated this subject in a former section. We shall give the learned Stillingfleet's opinion in connection with this point. " I believe," says he, " upon the strictest inqiliry, Medina's judgment will prove true, that Hieron, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theo- phylact, were all of Aerins's judgment, as to the identity of both name and order of bishops and presbyters, in the primitive church ; but here lay the difference, Aerius from thence proceeded to separation from the bishops and their churches, because they were bishops."* WicKLiFf E : — " I boldly assert one thing, viz., that in the primitive church, or in the time of Paul, two orders of the clergy were sufficient, that is, a priest and a deacon. * Irenicum, p. 276, sec. ei., 1663. 9* 202 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. In like manner I affirm, that in the time of Paul, the pres- hyter and bishop were names of the same office. This appears from the third chapter of the First Epistle to Ti- mothy, and in the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus. And the same is testified by that profound theologian, Jerome."* Erasmus : — " Anciently none were called priests but bishops and presbyters, who were the same, but. afterward presbyters were distinguished from the priest ;"t that is, from the bishop. Cranmer : — •" The bishops and priests [presbyters] were at one time, and were no two things, but both one in the beginning of Christ's religion."^ Dr. Whitaker, one of the greatest Protestant champi- ons in the days of Queen Elizabeth and James I. : — " For- merly there was no difference between a presbyter and a bishop. — -For the placing of bishops over presbyters was a HUMAN arrangement — ordo humanusfuit — devised to'take away schisms, as history- testifies."^ Calvin : — ■" The reason why I have used the terms bishops and presbyters, and pastors and ministers, promis- cuously, is, because the Scriptures do the same ; for they give the title of bishops to all persons whatsoever who were ministers of the gospel."\ Beza : — " The authority of all pastors is equal among themselves ; also their office is one and the same."*[f As mighty efforts are often made to bring in the authority of Beza for these claims, we will add another passage or two from this great reformer. In his work on the Church, De Ecclesia, above quoted, he begins the thirty-second sec- tion thus : — ^" At length we come to the third species of ecclesiastical offices, viz., that which pertains to spiritual jurisdiction. Now this jurisdiction was committed to presbyters properly so called ; whose name implies as much as though you should call them senators or elders. . The apostle, in 1 Cor. xii, 28, calls them governors or rulers. And Christ designates the college of presbyters, * Vaughan's Life ofWicklifFe, vol. ii, p. 275, sec. ed. Lond., 1831. (■ Scholia in Epist. Hieron. ad Nepot., folio 6, vol. i, ed. 1616. t Burnet's History of the Reformation. ^ Whitakeri 0pp., pp. 509, 510, fol. Genev., 1610. II Instit., lib. 4, c. 8, sec. 8. T De Eccles., sec. 29. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 203 tU church, because in them resided the supreme power in the government of the church." Here " presbyters, properly so called, have committed to them the spiritual jurisdiction of the church, and supreme power." How strange ! to pretend that such a vi^riter is an advocate for the supreme power of bishops by divine right. Beza, speaking of the angel- of the church, mentioned Rev. ii, 1, calls Mm the president, " who," he says, " oug'ht in the first place to be admonished about these matters, and then by him his other colleagues, and so the whole church. But from this to try to prove the establishment of that order of episcopacy which was afterward introduced into the church of God by human arrangements, is what neither can nor ought to be done : it will not even follow from this place that the off,ce of president should necessarily be per- petual ; even as it is now at length clear by that tyrannical oligarchy" (that is, the bishops) " whose head or apex is antichrist, and loho arose from this scheme with the most pernicious effect upon the whole church, and upon the world." Melancthon : — " They who taught in the church, and baptized, and administered the Lord's supper, were called bishops or presbyters ; and those were called deacons who distributed alms in the church. But these offices were not so separated as to make it sinful for a deacon to teach, or to baptize, or to administer the eucharist. Indeed all these things are lawful to all Christians ; for the keys are given to all. Matt, xviii."* M. Flacius Illykious. — Treating of the time of the apostles, he says, " A presbyter was then the same as a bishop." Speaking of the primitive church, he says, " The bishop was the- first presbyter among the presbyters of each church, and this was done for the sake of order." And, after quoting Jerome's statement, that, in the apostles' time, bishops and presbyters were not distinguished one from the other, but that this distinction, of one to preside over the rest, was made afterward, as a remedy against schism, Flacius himself remarks, " Hence it is evident that, about this time, in the end of the first or the begin- ning of the second century, this alteration took place, so * Loc, Com., 12mo. Basil, 1521. 204 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. that episcopacy is not so much by divine appointment as by human authority."* Blondell and Dalleus : — " Episcopacy as now distin- guished from presbyters, according to the custom of the church from the third century, is not of apostolical appoint- ment, but merely of human institution."! Claude : — " As to those who were ordained by mere priests, [presbytersj] can the author of the Prejudices be ignorant that the distinction of a bishop and a priest, or minister, as if they had two different offices, is not only a thing that they cannot prove out of the Scriptures, but that even contradicts the express words of the Scripture, were bishops and priests are the names of one and the same office, from whence it follows that the priests have, by their first institution, a right to confer ordination, that cannot be taken from them by mere human rules."| BocHART : — " If the question be as to the antiquity, I am plainly of opinion, with Jerome, that in the apostles' age, there was no difference between bishops and presby- ters, and that the churches were governed by the common council of the presbyters. Therefore presbyters are more ancient than bishops. In the mean time I grant that epis- copal government is very ancient, and that, a little after the apostles' times, it became universal and greatly useful." See his letter to Morley, chaplain to King Charles I., and afterward bishop of Worcester. Upon this letter the Rev. James Owen remarks, " Of late years some arts have been used to procure letters from some eminent foreign divines, to condemn the nonconformists here, without hearing both sides. This is evident by Dr. Morley's letter to the famous Bochart."§|| * Catalog. Test. Veritat., vol. i, p. 84. t Vid. Beverigii Codex Can. Eccles. Prim. Vind. Proem. t Defence of the Reformation, part iv, p. 95. ^ Abridgment of Mr. James Owen's Plea, p. 39. II " When the French churches were earnestly solicited (particularly by Bishop Moreton) to receive a clergy ordained by English bishops, they absolutely refused that motion i Peter Moulin, a famous French Protestant minister, in his letter to the bishop of VSCnchester, excusing himself for not making the difference between bishops and presbyters to be of divine appointment, he pleads, — that if he had laid the difference on that foundation, the French churches would have silenced him." — Ibid., pp. 37, 38. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 205 Grotius : — " EmoKom), or the office of a bishop, sig- nifies inspection or oversight of any kind. The inspectors, or those who preside over the church, are presbyters. The chief of these presbyters, afterward, by way of excel- lence, BEGAN to be called bishop, as is evident from those canons which are termed apostolical canons, in the Epis- tles of Ignatius, in TertuUian, and others."* When this illustrious scholar had received a copy of the celebrated Epistle of Clemens Romanus, he tells us he " read and re- read it." He then gives his judgment in the following manner : — " Clemens never mentions that extraordinary authority of bishops, which, after the death of St. Mark, began by the custom of the church to be introduced at Alex- andria, and, by this example, elsewhere : but he plainly shows, as St. Paul does, that the churches were then governed by the common council of the presbyters ; which presbyters both Clemens and St. Paul say were the same AS BisH0PS."t And, in his posthumous work, quoted by many Episcopalian writers with the greatest confidence, and even with something like triumph, he plainly declares, that " episcopal pre-eminence, or the superiority of one minister over others, is not of divine right." " This," says he,. " is sufficiently proved, because the contrary is not proved.''^ Logic this, which these writers are well pleased to forget, but which their readers should always have in mind. Here, perhaps, is a proper place to point out a mistake into which many Church-of-England divines have fallen. They have found that Calvin, Beza, and other illustrious foreigners, praised the ecclesiastical order in the Church of England, and have immediately jumped to the conclu- sion, that those divines and great scholars were in favour of episcopacy by divine right. Now the whole conduct of Calvin and Bezar, for instance, in the government of their churches, as well as their declaration in the above quotations, distinctly shows the contrary. The case of Zanchius will illustrate the/matter still further. Zanchius, says the Rev. J. Sinclair, " was by some * Annot. in 1 Tim. iii. + Grotii Epist., No. 347, ed. Amstel., fol., 1687. t De Imperio Sum. Potest, circa Sacra, cap. xi, p. 337, ed. Paris, 1647. 206 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. reputed among the most learned of Calvin's contempora- ries." Mr. Sinclair, and some others, catch at an admis- sion of this eminent reformer, that episcopacy may be properly established, as one form of church government, as though by this admission he meant to support episco- pacy by divine right. This is a fallacy ivMch suck writers always employ : without it they cannot stir a single step in this controversy. Zanchius spent nearly the whole of his life in the services of a church that was wholly presbyterian. This practice, therefore, utterly destroys all the clfiims of exclttsive Episcopalians to the benefit of his testimony. In his Confession of his Faith, he solemnly delivers his judgment on the subject of ministerial equality : chapter twenty-fifth contains thirty-nine aphorisms on the govern- ment of the church, and on the ministry of the gospel. In aphorism ninth, he says that the Lord Jesus Christ con* stituted^^ue orders of ministers, — "apostles, prophets, evan- gelists, pastors, and doctors, Ephes. iv, 11." The first three he says were extraordinary and temporary ; the two last " ordinary and perpetual." " For," says he, " the frequent mention, by the apostles, of bishops, presbyters, and teachers, does not constitute new orders; for those who are called pastors are the same as are always signi* fied by bishops ; and often by the name of presbyters." Zanchius maintained the notion that presbyters sometimes meant lay elders as church rulers ; and, therefore, he says, that presbyters often signified pastors, though, in his view, not always. Then, aphorism tenth, the title is, " The fathers not condemned by us because they added more orders of ministers." In aphorism eleventh, he explains himself about these new orders, added by the fathers, to what Christ and his apostles instituted. " Therefore," says he, " seeing that all the former ministers of the gospel were equally called pastors, bishops, and presbyters ; and seeing they were all of equal authority ; one began afterward to be placed over all his colleagues ; although not as a master or lord, but as a head in a college to the rest of the fellows of the college : to him principally was committed the care of the whole church, and therefore it- became the custom to give him alone, by way of excellence, the name of bishop or pastor ; the rest of his colleagues being content with the name of presbyter ; so that there ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 207 began to be only one bishop and many presbyters in eeush city : this arrangement we judge is not at all to be con- demned. As to which matter the account of Jerome, and the judgment he dehvers in his Epistle to Evagrius, in his comment on Titus, is embraced by us, where be declares that this whole arrangement was rather yrom custom than divine appointment, to take away dissensions and schisms. On the same ground we think the appointment of archbish- ops, and even of the four patriarchs, which took place indeed before the council of Nice, may be excused and defended : although all these in course of time were car- ried to the highest ambition and tyranny. This is the reason why the nearer an approach is made in the orders of ministers to apostolical simplicity, the more we approve it ; and we judge that due care should everywhere be used to attain to this simplicity." Then, at the close of the chapter, is an enumeration of errors to be rejected ; the eleventh is, that of " extending the authority of a bishop beyond that given by Christ who called him." Here we see Zanchius solemnly declare his faith to be, that " all the ministers of the gospel, instituted by Christ and his apostles, were equally called pastors, bishops, and presbyters, seeing they were all of eq.ual atjthoritv ;" that bishops, as superintendents over other ministers, were " added by the fathers ;" and that the ground of their exist- ence, as such, is the same as that of archbishops and patri- archs, which all grant to be merely a human arrangement. Zanchius, then, maintained that episcopacy was merely a human arrangement ; yet these men quote him to prove its divine right: Zanchius maintained that it might be approved and justified when modestly used ; yet these men quote him to maintain its necessity and its exclusiveness against the validity of all olhe/ forms ! But Calvin, Beza, Zanchius, &c., had no objection to episcopacy as an ecclesiastical arrangement of a superin- tendency of one minister over other ministers, for the sake of order and good government in the church ; provided it could be guarded against a tendency to ecclesiastical tyranny. Very right. The Wesleyan Methodists adopt the same opinion, and practise it under a very extended superintendency. It is so guarded among them as to pre- vent the possibility of supposing one minister superior by 208 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. divine right to another. The truth of the case is,H;hen, that these great continental divines and scholars, in their approbation of the ecclesiastical arrangements in the Church of England, show that they really believed the episcopacy of that Church not to be of divine right, but of human authority: this is the only legitimate conclusion that can be drawn from their statements and conduct ; a conclusion directly opposed to the end for which many of the Episcopalians now quote them. Indeed, these men pervert and abuse the authority of the great reformers, and continental divines. ViTRiNGA : — " All the rulers or governors of the church of Ephesus were equally, and without the least difference, called bishops, presbyters, and pastors. Acts xx, 17, &c. Yea, indeed, were we to collect all those places in the his- torical books, and epistles of the New Testament, in which the persons presiding over the church are mentioned, under different circumstances, we should meet with them everywhere equal both in name and in office, no difference at all ever being made between them. Bishops, presby- ters, and pastors, according to the style of the sacred Scrip- tures, are names designating one and the same order of men ; they are neither distinguished in the kind of their order, nor their office. This position will stand, I am persuaded, as long as the Acts of the Apostles and their epistles shall be read without prejudice."* MosHEiM : — " The rulers of the church were called either presbyters or bishops, which two titles are, in the New Testament, undoubtedly applied to the same order of men."t Stjicer : — " At the first, therefore, all presbyters were equally over the flock, and had none over themselves ; for ihey were called bishops, and had episcopal power, and ac- knowledged none above themselves, seeing they all came by order to the prim-icy, which primacy was only a matter of order by sitting in the first chair, and conferred no superior power. And this was the constitution of the church under the government of the apostles. Afterward, when bishops were made above presbyters, both being the SAME in name and reality, then the bishops presided over ♦ De Synagog. Vet., lib. 2, cap. 2, pp. 447 and 485. t Eccles. Hist., vol. i, p. 101. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 209 the presbyters of each city, all bishops being accounted equal. This state of things continued till the council of Nice, A. D. 325, or a little after. From that time metro- politans were placed over the bishops of a province, and had the right of orijaining the bishops of that province."* ScHLEUsNER : — " FoT at length, after the apostles' age, that difference was introduced between the bishops and presbyters, that the bishops should have the greater digni- ty, as Suicerus rightly states in his Thesaurus Ecclesias- ticus."t Archbishop Usher : — " I asked him [Abp. Usher] also his judgment about the validity oi presbyter's ordination ; which he asserted, and told me that the lang [Charles I.] asked him, at the Isle of Wight, wherever he found in antiquity, that presbyters alone ordained any 1 and that he answered, I can show your majesty mirre, even where PRESBYTERS ALONE SUCCESSIVELY ORDAINED BISHOPS ; and instanced in Hierome's words, Epist. ad Evagrium, of the presbyters of Alexandria chusing and making their own bishops from the days of Mark till Heraclas and Dio- nysiiis.''^ And his express words, quoted by Dr. Parr, in his Appendix te the Archbishop's Life, are these — " A presbyter hath the same order in specie with a bishop : ergo, a presbyter hath equally an intrinsic power to give orders, and is equal to him in the power of order."^ Now here is a host of men, whose qualifications for giving their judgment in this matter were never surpassed, all determining, with one voice, that by divine right all ministers of the GOSPEL ARE EQUAL ; and that the order of bishops, as now existing, is only a human ar- rangement. Here, then, this all-deciding point is placed on the basis of a catholic or universai, doctrine of the Christian church. The celebrated rule of Vincentius Lirinensis is, that a doctrine truly catholic, is one " believed in all places, at all times, and by all the faithful. And we are thus catho- lic, when we follow universality, antiquity, and consent : but we follow universality, when we profess that only to be * Thesaur. Eccles., torn, i, col. 1180. t Lex. Gr. in Nov. Test., sub voce eirusKoiro^. t Life of Baxter, by Sylvester, fol., lib. i, part ii, sec. 63, p. 206. () See Dr. John Edwards's Discourse on Episcopacy, chap. xiv. 210 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. the true faith which is professed by the church all the loorld over. In like manner, we are followers of antiquity, when we religiously adhere to that sense of Scripture which manifestly obtained among the holy fathers, our predecessors. And lastly, we ioWovr consent, when we embrace the definitions and opinions of almost all, if not all, the bishops and teachers of the ancient church."* Vincentius himself shows no case in which this rule more fully applied than it applies to the position, 'that all gospel ministers are, by divine right, equal in power and authority in the Christian church. The MAIN PILLAR of this semi-popish succession scheme was the assumption of the divine right of episcopacy. But we have now shown that presbyters and bishops are one and the same, by the supreme authority of the sacred Scriptures most expressly; by the consent of the FATHERS ; and by the consent of all the Christian CHURCHES in the world. The following conclusions, then, are fully established : — 1. All THE ACTS of presbyters are, by divine right, of EQUAL AUTHORITY with the acts of any bishops or arch- bishops whatever. 2. Ordination by presbyters has equal divine authority with ordination by bishops ; and is more conformable to the Holy Scriptures. 3. Presbyters are equally as much successors of the apostles, in all the rights and authority remaining to the ministers of Christ, as the bishops are. 4. Whatever evidence, moreover, there is in any epis- copal church for an uninterrupted line of bishops from Peter, or any other apostle, there is the same evidence for an UNINTERRUPTED LINE of presbytcTs from that very apostle to the present day in every other Protestant church in the world. No man can properly or Scripturally be a bishop, except he be first a presbyter. Every bishop, then, necessarily presupposes a presbyter: where there is no presbjrter, there can be no bishop, even on the princi- ples of our opponents. Therefore, wherever there is an uninterrupted series of true bishops, there is an uninterrupt- ed series of presbyters also. The Lutheran church, the Reformed or Calvinistic churches of Germany, the re- * Reeves's Translation, chap. iii. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 211 formed French church, the church of Scotland, the Dis- senters in general of Great Britain and Ireland, and the Wesleyan and Calvinistic Methodists, are all governed by presbyters. These had an uninterrupted succession from other presbyters. Those in the Scotch church, in the Lutheran church, &c., had an uninterrupted succession from the presbyters (bishops) of the Romish Church : those of the different Protestant churches in England, from the presbjrters (bishops) of the Church of England. What these bishops were, by ecclesiastical or human ar- rangement, as distinct from presbyters, or real Scriptural 'lishops, adds no validity to their acts above presbyters. This we have already clearly proved. All they had of real Scriptural auihority arose from any claim they might have to be considered as real Scriptural presbyters. All ^is authority passed to the presbyters of the above-men- tioned churches by uninterrupted succession in their ordi- nation. The human authority of a bishop does not effect the question at all. If an uninterrupted succession is worth any thing, it is, therefore, worth as much for presbyters as for bishops. The ministry, the ordinations, the adminis- tration of the sacraments, lin all the above-mentioned churches, therefore, are, even on this ground, equally as Scriptural, valid, and apostolical, as the ministry, &c., of any episcopal church. But, if they have equal validity and apostolicity from the argument of a succession of persons, many of them have reason to thank God, on their own behalf, that they have much more evidence of the same thing from the personal piety of their ministers, the doctrines they teach, the discipline exercised over their members, the unsecularized state of their churches, the Scriptural character of their various ordinances, and, above all, in the conversion of sinners unto God. This EXCLUSIVE, intolerant scheme, then, of apostolical succession in bishops alone, as taught by these high Church divines, falls to the ground. It is a monstrous FABRICATION, designed to support a system of usurpation over ministers and people ; and to maintain a method of excluding from the pale of Christianity all who do not sub' mit to it. It is Anglican Popery with many heads, set up in the place, and to accomplish the purposes, of the Popeiy of Rome. Let all true Protestants protest against it. Let 212 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. US contend for the succession oi faith and holiness as the only infallible tests of a Christian church. For this let all ihe true members of the Church of England contend, both ministers and people. The writer, for one, will then fer- vently pray that God may make them a thousand times as many more as they are at this day. The world is before us : ihs faith of the gospel must save it. It is adapted and designed for this purpose. May the preaching of this faith, by whomsoever and wheresoever, have free course and be glorified ! SECTION X. NO SUFFICIENT HISTORIC EVIDENCE OF A PERSONAL SU(> CESSION OF VALID EPISCOPAL ORDINATIONS. In the close of the last section, we have shown that the proof of the equality, by divine right, of bishops and presbyters, is fatal to the whole scheme of high Church suc- cessionists ; utterly destroying its exclusive character. Here we might safely rest thfe cause. But as pretensions are boldly avowed, by high Churchmen, of their ability to trace the pedigree of their ordinations through an unbroken series of apostolical bishops ; and as they employ this topic for the purpose of intolerance, it may not be without inte- rest, or utility either, if we examine this point also. Dr. Hook shall state their case : " The prelates who at the present time rule the churches of these realms, were validly ordained by others, who by means of an unbroken SPIRITUAL descent of ordination, derived their mission from the apostles and from our Lord. This continued descent is EVIDENT to EVERY ONE who chooscs to investigate it. Let him read the Xjatalogues of Bishops, ascending up to the most remote period. Our ordinations descend in a direct UNBROKEN line from Peter and Paul, the apostles of the circumcision and the Gentiles. These great apostles suc- cessively ordained Linus, Cletus, and Clement, bishops of Rome ; and the apostolic succession was regularly con- tinued from them to Celestine, Gregory, and Vitalianus, who ordained Patrick, bishop for the Irish, and Augustine ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 213 and Theodore, for the English. And from those times an uninterrupted series of valid ordinations has carried down the APOSTOLKiAL SUCCESSION in our churches to the present day. There is not a bishop, priest, or deacon among us, who cannot, if he please, trace his ovm spiritual descent from St. Peter or St. Paul."* I am perplexed to' account for such statements as the above. I have investigated this subject, and I solemnly declare my belief that they are utterly false. My per- plexity is, I say, how to account for them. I cannot, I do not think, that the authors of them mean to say what they know to be false. I suppose they wished them to be true ; and, not having time to examine for themselves, take them upon trust, and give them at second hand. But then if we can find excuse for Dr. Hook's want of knowledge of his subject, his arrogance can have none. Let the reader care- fully mark the tone of the doctor's Two Sermons on the Church and the Establishment. They axe full of arrogance and insolence to all other churches — " The words of his mouth are smoother than butter, but war is in his heart : his words are softer than oil, yet are they drawn swords." " You will observe," says he, " how important all this is which I have now laid before you. Unless Christ be spiritually present with the ministers of religion in their services, those services will be vain. But the only min- - istrations to which he has promised his presence, is, to those of the BISHOPS who are successors of the first com- missioned apostles, and the other clergy acting under THEIR sanction and by their authority, " I know the outcry which is raised against this — the doctrine of the Christian church for eighteen hundred years — I know the outcry that is raised against it by those sects which can trace their origin no higher than to some celebrated preacher at the Reformation, — ^but I disregard it, because I shall, by God's help, continue to do, what I have done ever since I came among you, namely, declare the whole, counsel of God, without re- gard to consequences or respect of persons, and, at the same time, as far as in me lies, live peaceably with all men." After perusing the preceding part of this Essay, the reader will clearly see how much confidence is to be * Two Sermons, 3d edition, Leeds, 1837, pp. 7, 8. 214 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. placed in the doctor's assertion, that his doctrine of apog. tolical succession has been " the doctrine of the Christian church for eighteen himdred years." His excommunica- tion of ALL the Protestant churches in the world from the pale of Christianity, except the Church of England, (for it is at these he points the finger of scorn — " those sects, which can trace their origin no higher than to some cele- brated preacher at the Reformation,")- is exactly in the .spirit of. the declaration of Froude, a leader of the Oxford Tract-men, quoted at page 144 : — " Really," says he, *' I HATE the Reformation and the reformers more and more." Yet all this baseless assertion, and this denuncia- tion against all these Protestant churches, the doctor be- lieves he makes " by the help of God .'" — and, at the same time, he persuades himself that he endeavours " to live peaceably with all men ! .'" Let it be understood that the writer of this Essay does not wish to undervalue the succession of pious pastors in any church ; no, it ought to be a cause of gratitude to God, when he raises up and gives such men to his church. But God's gifts never bind his own hands from giving equally excellent men, in any age, to any church. How- ever, the case is altogether different when those who arrogate the title of his ministers, corrupt the gospel, and absolutely forbid any one, without their sanction and sinful impositions, to preach it in a purer form. And, since the time of the apostles, this has been done repeatedly by pretenders to apostolical succession. Indeed, could this personal descent be made out with the completeness pre- tended, it would prove no divine right to any exclusive claims to God's ordinances and blessings. God never made it a requisite in true ministers ; and the man that attempts it, in order to exclude other churches from the pale of Christianity, is an enemy to the rights, and to the peace of God's church. He may have deceived himself, and think otherwise ; but such he is, and such he must be, tiU he abandon his scheme. No such descent, however, can be proved. We will now proceed to show that there is no suffi- cient HISTORIC EVIDENCE of this " direct unbroken line from Peter," &c. Every link of this evidence ought to be clear and strong. Dr. Hook says they are " evident to any ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 215 one who wishes to investigate the subject." But the very first links are all broken in pieces. Eusebius is.often appealed to with confidence by suc- cession divines. He had the fairest opportunity for giving certainty to this subject up to his day, could certainty have been had. He wrote about A. D. 320. He had read every thing which remained by any or all of the fathers before him. The emperor Constantino the Great was his friend ; so that he could not want facilities and means of information. One great end at which Eusebius aimed, was " to preserve from oblivion the successions, although not of all, yet of the most famous apostles of our Saviour in those churches which then were eminent and still renowned."* Now let us hear his own account of the certainty he possessed on such subjects. He tells us, in this very chapter, that he had "to tread a solitary and untrodden way — and could nowhere find so much as the hare steps of any men who had passed the same path before ; excepting only some shows and fokens divers here and there had left, particularly declaring of the times they lived in, holding forth torches as it were afar off, and lifting up their voices from on high, and calling as out of a watch-tower what way we ought to go, and how without error or danger to order our discourse." This is not a very luminous, certain path ! — Then speaking of Paul and Peter, and the churches founded by them, he says, " Now how many and what sincere followers of them have been approved as sufiicient to take the charge of those churches by them founded, it is not easy to say, except such and so many as may be collected from the words of St. Paul." This is honest ; but it shows the folly of building our Christianity upon such an uncertain foundation ; for St. Paul gives no suc- cession lists ; and even Eusebius hath nothing certain besides the words of St. Paul. He then proceeds to say, " Timothy is reported to have been the first that was chosen to the bishopric of the Ephesian church ; as also Titus, of the churches in Crete." This is evidently guess- work in its origin, upon the foundation of St. Paul's having mentioned their names in connection with these two places ; for Whitby acknowledges he '• can find nothing * Eccles. Hist., b. i, chap, i, English translation, Cambridge, 1683. S16 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. of this matter, as to Timothy and Titus being bishops of Ephesus and Crete, in any writer of the first three centu- ries"* The thing refutes itself in Eusebijis, as to Titus, by saying that he was bishop of the " churches," eKKXeaiuv, in the plural, in Crete. No such thing occurs in the ear- liest Christian writers as that of any man being bishop of more than one church, (one parish.) This was seldom, if ever, more than a single congregation. Timothy, the New Testament says, was an evangelist : most probably Titus was so too. No place of residence is mentioned as to either of them : it is likely they had none, but travelled anywhere under the direction of the apostles, to set in order in new churches the things that remained to be set- tled. All beyond this is doubtful : all contrary to it is false. Bishop Pearson, whom all Churchmen will allow to be unexceptionable authority, positively declares that Eusebius had no archives or diptychs to go by ; and he says, the supposition that he had Catalogues of the Roman bishops is utterly vain — "conjecturam vanissimam esse."\ As to bishops of Rome, we shall immediately see that Eusebius is contradicted by others. There is no cer- tainty. Dr. H. adroitly slips by a difficulty of no small magni- tude, by tracing his own spiritual descent from Peter or Paul, Linus, &c. " There is a npuTov -ievdog in this case lies at the bottom," says Dr. Cave, " it being gene- rally taken for granted, that St. Peter was in a proper sense bishop of Rome, which yet I believe can never be made good."J It is a question never yet settled, wSether Peter ever was at Rome ; but all the authority there is for Linus, Cletus, and Clemens, as links in the chain, make them to have derived it from Peter, and not from Paul. Now Arch- bishop Cranmer says, " It is not even certain that Peter ever was at Rome."^ The very learned Flacius Illyricus declares himself doubtful whether Peter ever was at Rome.|| The learned Zanchius, another ^ eminent reformer, has * Whitby's Preface to the Epistle to Titus. + Pearsoni 0pp. Posth. de Successione, diss, i, cap. ii. } Dr. Cave on the Government of the Ancient Church, pp. 9, 10, ed. 1683, 12mo. Lond. * Burnet's Ref, book ii, A. D. 1534. II Catalog. Test. Ver., v. 1, pp. 484, 485, edit, secund. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 217 shown enough to make any candid person stand in doubt on the same subject.* However, suppose we grant this, and even reckon Peter the first bishop of Rome : then who succeeded Peter ? No man on earth can tell. One mentions one person, another says it was another, and these the very witnesses who are cited to prove the point. " The fathers," says Dr. Dwight, " however sincere, and however satisfactory their testi- mony, concerning facts which passed under their own eyes, yet received traditionary accounts loosely : and both believed and recorded much of what took place before their time without truth or evidence." Bishop Taylor hinjself says, " the fathers were infinitely deceived in their ac- count and enumeration of traditions."^ Now Tertullian, Rufinus, and Epiphanius, say Clement succeeded Peter. Jerome declares that " most of the Latin authors supposed the order to be Clement the successor of Peter." But Ire- naeus, Eusebius, Jerome, and Aiigustine, contradict the above authorities, and say Linus succeeded Peter ; Chry- sostom seems to go the same way. Bishop Pearson has proved that Linus died befdl:e Peter ; and therefore, on the supposition that Peter was first bishop of Rome, Linus could not succeed him. Cabassute, the learned Popish historian of the Councils, says, " It is a very doubtful question concerning Linus, Cletus, and Clemens, as to which of them succeeded Peter." Dr. Comber, a very learned divine of the Church of England, says, " Upon the whole matter, there is no certainty who was bishop of Rome, next to the apostles, and therefore the Romanists" (N.B., Romanists) "build upon an ill bottom, when they lay so great weight on their personal succession."^ But who was the third bishop of Rome ? for of the second there is no certainty to be had. Here the confusion is greater still. The Roman Catalogues — the Catalogues of high Churchmen — must have somebody, so they put Cletus in. Hear Dr. Comber again : " The like blunder there is about the next pope, [bishop of Rome,] the fabulous Pontifical makes Cletus succeed Linus, and gives us seve- ral Lives of Cletus, and Anacletus, making them of several * Zanchius de Ecclesia, cap. 9. + Liberty of Prophesying, sec. 5. t Dr. Comber on " Roman Forgeries in Councils," part i, c. 1. 10 218 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. nations, and to have been popes at different times, putting Clement between them. Yet the aforesaid learned bishop of Chester [Pearson] proves these were oivly two names of the same person ; but the notes" (of the Popish editors of the Councils) " attempt to justify the forged Pontifical, by impudently affirming that Ignatius, (Anacletus's contem- porary,) Irenseus, Eusebius, St. Augustine, and Optatus, were all mistaken, or all wronged by their transcribers, who leave out Cletus. But every candid reader will rather believe the mistake to be in the Pontifical, (which is a mere heap of errors,) and in the Roman Martyrology and Missal, which blindly followed it, rather than in those ancient and eminent fathers. And every one may see the folly of the Romish Church, which venerates two several saints on two several days, one of which never had a real being ; for Cletus is but the abbreviation of Anacletu^s name." — Dr., Comber, ut supra. It must be evident to every reader, that as Dr. Hook, &c., maintain the same unbroken line of bishops with the Roman Pontifical, Dr. Comber's remarks apply directly to their succession in common with that of the Papists. The Pontifical is the Romish book containing the lives and pretended decrees of the early popes, according to the opinion of the Church of Rome. Their Catalogues are generally made from it : it is justly denominated a forgery by Dr. Comber. What a triumphant succession! whose main authority is a forgery.* Then who was fourth bishop of Rome 1 The Papists, Dr. Hook, &c., say Clement was. Dr. Hook does not distinctly make Peter bishop of Rome ; but this makes no material difference. Now we have heard that TertuUian, Rufinus, Epiphanius, and, according to Jerome, " most of the Latin authors," say he was second bishop, and suc- ceeded next to Peter. Platina, the Popish biographer of the popes, a high authority in his way, says, that just be- , fore Peter's martyrdom he appointed Clement to be bishop of Rome ; and all this while he gives twenty-three years to the presidency of Linus and Cletus as preceding Cle- ment in that bishopric. Peter had been dead twenty years * That this Pontifical is a forgery is proved beyond a doubt by numerous authors ; among others, see Howell's Pontificate, Dupin's Bibliotheca Patrum, Jewel's Defence. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, 319 when Clement is said to become bishop ; and yet they Bay Peter made him bishop of Rome ! Cabassute says, " the whole question is very doubtful." Prideaux, a stanch and learned Churchman, says, " no certainty is to be had." Howell, a thorough Churchman, and learned writer, after going at length into what he calls the stupidity and fables of the Romanists on this point, concludes :— " Here it is evident how very doubtful and uncertain is the personal suc- cession of the Roman bishops." Dr. Comber concludes this point by remarking, that the stupidity and fable here are " a sufficient- proof there is neither truth nor cer- tainty in the pretended personal succession of the first popes." Dr. Hook must set his priests, curates, and dea- cons to work. Here is enough to do for the Rev. Mr. Ward, the Rev. Mr. AylifFe Poole, &c., with the Rev. Dr. Hook to assist them. Similar confusion is to be found in several succeeding parts. Platina, who had as good opportunity as any man to know the truth of history, as to the succession of the popes, &c., acknowledges that the authorities on the sub- ject, in several of the following centuries, were full of confusion.* "And he complains," says Prideaux, "that they who were appointed as protonotaries to register the passages in the church were in his time become so illite. rate, that some of them could scarce write their own names in Latin." Fine chroniclers '. on whose faithfulness and accuracy to place the existence of our Christianity ! Pri- deaux remarks in another place, A.D. 858, that " Onu- phrius, Platina, Ciacdnius, complain much of the neglect of registering, [and] the confusion of their popes' lives, notwithstanding their succession is made such a con- vincing argument." The elections of the bishops of Rome increase the doubts of a serious inquirer here. They were, even long before the time of Vitalianus, such scenes of intrigue, con- tention, violence, and bloodshed, that there is far greater probability that, Scripturally speaking, the most orthodox and excellent person was thrown out, and a heretic, as Liberius, or a murderer, usurped the seat, than that any thing like a legitimate succession constantly took place. Bishop Burnet show$ th^it for about three hundjred y^ajs * See hi».LiveB of Anicetus I., Jojin XIII. «nd XV. 220 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. " the popes were made upon the emperors' mandates. Nor did the emperors part easily with this right, but, after that, the Othos and the Henrys kept up their pretei>sion, and came oft to Rome, and made many popes ; and though most of the popes so made were generally anti-popes and schismatics, yet some of them, as Clement the Second, are put in the Catalogues" — the succession — " of the Popes by Baronius and Binnius ; and by the late publish- ers of the Councils, Labbee and Cossartius. There was indeed great opposition made to this at Rome ; but let even their own historians be appealed to, what a series of MONSTERS, and not men, those popes" — succession bishops — " were ; how infamously they were elected, often by THE WHORES OF RoME, and how flagitious they were, we refer it to Baronius himself, who could not deny this for all his partiality in his great work."* A fine uninterrupted " SERIES — of monsters" — apostolical bishops — " elected often by the whores of Rome!!" A pretty spiritual de- scent for high Church priests ! ! As Cardinal Baronius was one of the greatest champions of Popery, his testimony to the wickedness employed in the election of the popes is above all exception. He says, speaking of the beginning of the tenth century, " ! what was then the face of the holy Roman Church ! how filthy, when the vilest and most powerful whores ruled in the court of Rome ! by whose arbitrary sway diocesses were made and unmade, bishops were consecrated, and — which is inexpressibly horrible to be mentioned ! — false POPES, THEIR PARAMOURS, wcro thrust iuto the chair of Peter, who, in being numbered as popes serve no purpose except to FILL UP the Catalogues of the Popes of Rome. For who can say that persons thrust into the popedom without any law by whores of this sort were legitimate popes of Rome ? In these elections no mention is made of the acts of the clergy, either by their choosing the pope at the time of his election, or of their consent afterward. All the canons were suppressed into silence, the voice of the decrees of former pontiffs was not allowed to be heard, ancient traditions were proscribed, the customs formerly practised in electing the pope, with the sacred * Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England, p. 50, 4to., second edition. Lond., 1688. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 221 rites, and pristine usages, were all extinguished. In this manner, lust, supported by secular power, excited to frenzy"in the rage for domination, ruled in all things." His own words are — " Qua tunc fades sanctcB EcclesicE Romanm ! quAm f from their latest writ- ings, that we should not he disturbed; but because we teach it, as the Scriptures and the church have delivered it to us, exclusively, therefore the loorld hateth us. Just so, if the early Christians could have been contented to profess their religion, as one of the six hundred tolerated by heathen Rome, and had been liberal enough, according to the modem abuse of the term, to regard all religion as pretty much alike, they would have had no need to endure the cross, the stake, or the teeth of wild beasts : but be- cause they taught their religion, as the Scriptures and the church had delivered it to them, exclusively, therefore the world hated them. While, therefore, the charge of exclu- siveness is an argument in our favour against whom it is brought, seeing that we bear it in common with the primi- tive martyrs ; it is an argument against those who bring it, seeing that they do so, in common with the very heathen." We have quoted the whole of this paragraph, for the pur- pose, among other things, of giving a specimen of Mr. Per- ceval's views, reasoning, and style. He is in a dreadful fright, it seems, lest " the world," the heathenish dissenters, should call the successionists to martyrdom ! Good man ! 14 ^14 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. We will relieve him, by assuring Wm that the only perse- cution he has to fear from us, is one or other of the follow- ing tortures : either, first. To prove that the Scriptures teach this exclusive doctrine ; or, secondly. To withdraw his denunciations and excommunications of other Protest- ant churches ; -or, thirdly, If he will continue them, witjiovt Scriptural proofs to support them, then that he be published to the world as a senji-papist, a bigot, a persecutor, and a disturber of the peace -of God's church. So far are we from persecution, that he bears witness to the contrary, by saying, that, if high Churchmen would be content that their scheme should be allowed " as one among many," we should NOT disturb them. Then it seems we only want to live and let live. Is this persecution ? But what shall be said of men who really and seriously maintain, that if they cannot reign alone, and extinguish all other churches, they are injured, reviled, about to be martyrs, and given to the teeth of wild beasts ! ! While noticing miscellaneous matters, it may not be im- proper to make a brief observation or two on a note at page 35, in which he charges me with " denying that the apos- tles had any sole jurisdiction ;" and concludes it by observ- ing that they who " carp at the authority of bishops, pre- sently proceed to carp at that of the apostles, and will pro- bably not be deterred from carping at that of our Lord him- self." Now as to what he calls " denying that the apos- tles had any sole jurisdiction," my language, even as quoted by himself, is this : " There is no very clear evi- dence." And again, " I think we find no declared autho- rity solely belonging to them as apostles, to call any minis- ters to account, or to depose them." Is this " denying" the thing, by merely expressing a thought dubiously? — or, by saying, if there be any evidence, it is not " very ' clear evidence ?" " One might have thought," says Mr. Perce- val, s' that the sentence concerning certain false teachers ' whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme,' 1 Tim. i, 20, had been proof sufiicient of such authority, and of the exercise of it." What Mr. Perceval might have thought, and what is " veryxlear evi- dence," may be different things. Now let us examine a little the only parallel case mentioned in the New Testament, agreeing to the statement made in the Essay, ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 315 viz., in churches already planted, having ministers already appointed over them — ^the case is found 1 Cor. v. 1-13. In this case, though the church had neglected its duty, yet the apostle does not proceed to excommunicate, even this private member, on his own sole authority. He directs a church court to be formed, or called together. Pool, in his Synopsis, quotes Estius thus describing the composi- tion of this court : " The apostle directs the calling of a public assembly, that all understanding the greatness of the crime, might acknowledge the justice of the punish- ment. It does not follow, indeed, from this place, that the multitude have the power of excommunication, yet the multitude in some sense excommunicate, namely, by their ' approbation and suffrage in favour of the excommunication, and by avoiding the excommunicated person. The minis- ter performed the act of excommunication by the direc- tion of St. Paul." Thus, also, Calvin on the place :' " It is to be observed that St. Paul, though an apostle, did not proceed alone to excommunicate according to his own views and feelings, but he consulted with the church, that the thing might be done by the authority of all." Bishop Fell on the place, says, " The approbation' and consent of the church was used in the apostles' time in ecclesiastical censures." Erasmus, also, considers the matter was to be done in " a public assembly." The language of the chapter is decisive in proof of this. Here, then, we see it is not " very clear," that the apostle did this by his sole autho- rity ; indeed, it is clear he did not. And if he did it not in the case of a private member, much less, we presume, did he do it in the case of a minister. There is one more pas- sage which 1 leave for Mr. Percevalto make " very clear" as evidence that the apostle could at any time, on his sole authority, depose ministers : " I would they were cutoff that trouble you," Gal. v, 12. If the apostle wished it, and could by his sole power do this, why were they not cut off? See Dr. Barrow on the Supremacy of the Pope, supp. 5, sec. ii, p. 187, 4to. edit., 1680. Mr. Perceval's charitable supposition, that they " who carp at the authority of bishops, will probably not be de- terred from carping at that of our Lord himself," shall be illustrated by that of another Oxford Tract advocate. ■■ 'In a' . work styled " The Oxford Tracts, the Public Press, and 316 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. the Evangelical Party," by G. P. (G. Perceval ?) de Sanc- ta Trinitate, the author says, " The evangelical party in the Church are only restrained from the accident of their position from the destructive power of Rationalistic and Socinian principles : the spirit is already there, only its fuU development is restrained." If such be their charity toward their brethren, what can a heathenish Dissenting teacher expect? Having made these miscellaneous remarks on things for which it seemed probable we should find no more conveni- ent place, we now proceed to a more regular examination of Mr. Perceval's Apology. He begins by laying it down as a fundamental position, that none are to minister in holy things, " in the name of God, without eocpress warrant and commission from him, or from those whom he has impowered to grant such com- mission," p. 3. This we fully concede. But when he says "nineteen-twentieths of the Christian world" hold this to be by "episcopal succession" — that "none who have not received episcopal ordination are lawful minis- ters of the church, or warranted to perform any acts in the name and with the authority of God," pp. 4 and 5, we deny it. Even Mr. Perceval shall disprove it. At pp. 7. and 8, he says, the power of presbyters to confer orders " equally with bishops" is both the " doctrine and practice of the Lutherans in Germany and Holland, the Presbyterians in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and North America ; and the Wesleyan Methodists." Mr.. Perceval has the confidence to assert that the Church of England maintains his scheme, page 9 ; but he that reads the seventh section of the Essay will require something more than assertion on this subject. His first chapter he entitles " Congregationalism," and professes to examine the Scriptural evidence alleged to support it. He has amused himself with imputing to the Congrega- tionalists certain Scriptural precedents as "tt/g-ec? in behalf of Congregationalism," page 11. I believe Mr. Perceval is conscious that the Congregationalists have more sense than to " urge" any such things as he mentions " in behalf" of their scheme. He hipiself intends the introduction of several of these instances as a caricature of Congrega- ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 317 tioiialism. But what honesty is there in such a misrepre- sentation of facts ? However, the instance of Jeroboam will find its best parallel in the conduct of Henry VIII. The case of the seven sons of Sceva (Acts x, 14) would rather belong to Mr. Perceval, as they were sons of " a chief of the priests." Probably, as being in the succession, they were mortified to see the heretic and schismatic Paul cast out devils, and supposed that surely they were the only divinely commissioned persons for such a work. He makes little out in the matter of Apollos ; of Aquila and Priscilla. They were, indeed, all lay persons ; Apollos was an emi- nent lay preacher of the gospel ; and Aquila and Priscilla were lay " fellow-helpers" of the apostles. Such proceed- ings now would shock our high priests. On the case of the man mentioned Luke ix, 50, Mr. Perceval assumes that he who opposes the succession scheme, opposes Christ. An easy way of answering difficulties, to beg the question ! But we have many gentlemen writers now-a- days : " dig they cannot ; and to beg," or confess the poverty of their information, " they are ashamed." His second chapter is on " Ecclesiastical authority for Congregationalism." It contains only three lines and a half, " From ecclesiastical antiquity," he says, " I am not aware that a single precedent is, or ever has been alleged in fa- vour of the Independent or Congregational scheme." This only proves how little Mr. Perceval knows about the sub- jects on which he writes. There is abundant evidence that primitive churches consisted of only one congregation each. It was against the rule of all antiquity for one bishop to have the government of more than one church or congregation. And that these bishops and their churches were considered to be, by divine right, each in their go- vernment independent of all other bishops and churches in the earliest times, is too evident to need any proof. It is maintained by Dr. Barrow on the Supremacy of the Pope, that " the ancients did assert to each bishop a free, abso- lirte, independent authority, subjected to none, directed by none, accountable to none on earth, in the administra- tion of affairs properly concerning his church," Suppos. 5, sec. V, page 220, 4to. edit., 1680. Cyprian mainta,ins it, as Dr. Barrow there shows : and see Vitringa de Syn, Vet., lib. 3, cap, 17, p. 857, &c. : Mosheim de Reb. ante 318 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. Constant., page 152, and Burnet's Reformation, vol. ii, anno. 1559. Mr. Perceval entitles Ms third chapter " Presbyterian- ism." He first very pr9perly takes up the Scriptural evi- dence, as this, and this alone, can decide the question. The first passage he selects is from Numbers xvi, as to " Korah and his company." This, indeed, is not original ; most high Churchrnen exult in this example as death to presbyterianism. It is an old saying, that a man may make " more haste than good speeds The breathless haste with which such writers appear to run to this passage for weapons against presbyterianism, that is, every thing but high Churchism, may possibly be the reason of their blind- ness when they arrive at it. The rebellion of " Korah and his company" is analogous, say these gentlemen, " to the rebellion of presbyters against bishops." — Indeed! Now who were "Korah and his company?" Who ? — Who 1 Yes, Mr. Perceval, were thev priests or laymen ? What does this mean — " Seek ye the priesthood also ?" If they were priests',:'ha-vr could they seek the priesthood ? Dathan and Abiram were Reubenites, and could not be priests. They none of them were priests at all I Fie ! fie ! ye queen's chaplains and Oxford Tract-men, to trifle thus with the public mind ! But your violation of truth will return upon your own heads. The case is plain enough, it was the Levites and the people rebelling against the priests ; and not the priests against the high priest. Mr. Perceval has the same sort of egregious trifling about the false apostles mentioned 2 Cor. xi, 12; and about Diotrephes, page 23. He professes to bring these Ks; Scripture grounds for presbyterianism. Of course he would insinuate that presbyterians urge them as such. However censurable this conduct may be in itself, yet possibly it may be excused in Mr. Perceval. He can be- lieve things without evidence : why should he not go a step further in his opinionof presbyterians, as he calls them, and persuade himself that they are foolish enough to sup- pose that an argument from false apostles and the ministers of Satan, will be good grounds for presbyterian ministers being true apostles and ministers of God ! ! He just refers to the angels of the Apocalypse. He does not, however,- need to prove that these angels were prototypes of high ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 319 Church bishops : his authority implying this is enough, and therefore he wisely spares all proof — proofs to some peo- ple are troublesome things. At page 26, the subject of the names of bishops and presbyters being used in common, is introduced. He acknowledges they were so " at the first, but have since been, by common usage, appropriated to distinct offices." Very well. Are we then to correct our Lord and his apostles by common usage since those times? "But," says Mr. Perceval, " our Lord himself is sometimes desig- nated as an apostle, 1 Pet. ii, 25 ; sometimes as a deacon, Rom. XV, 8. The apostles are not only designated by that title, Luke vi, 13, but their office is called a deaconship, Acts i, 18, 25, and a bishopric. Acts i, 20, and they themselves frequently styled presbyters, 1 Peter v, 1 ; 2 John i ; 3 John i ; and deacons, 1 Cof. iii, 5 ; 2 Cor. iii, 6 ; and vi, 7. Again, the pastors at Ephesus whom St. Paul addresses are called indiscriminately bishops and presbyters. Acts xx, 17 and 28, and the same indiscrimi- nate use of terms is observable in St. Paul's First Epistle to Timothy and in that to Titus." All this we grant is true : but then are deacons as indiscriminately called Christ ? — are ' deacons as indiscriminately called apostles as presbyters are indiscriminately called bishops, and as bishops are indiscriminately called presbyters ? Mr. Per- ceval knows they are not. Then what solemn trifling is all this ! The reader will see the subject further treated at pages 83-86 of the Essay. The names thus indiscrimi- nately common between bishops and presbyters, inevitably proves that their powers were common, that they were one and the same office. The following is the best piece of reasoning in the whole book, and therefore we will give it respectful atten- tion. " But, say the presbyterians, in St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, he sends salutation to the bishops and deacons, Phil, i, 2, with no allusion to any other officer, therefore there were only these two instituted by the apos- tles, and any thing beyond this is of~ human origin. An- swer 1st. So do the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, uniformly designate the Jewish ministry as priests and Levites, with no allusion to any other office ; and a man might as well argue, that therefore, at that time, there 330 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. was no superior office, no high priesthood among the Jews, as that there was no superior office, no chief episcopate, among the Christians when St. Paul wrote," pp. 27, 28. The reader is requested first to turn to pages 50, 51, 52, 69, 70, and 80 of the Essay. Besides what is said in the above pages, especially the two points ; first, that in. case of the pollution of the high priest, a common priest was appointed to officiate for him ; and, second, that all the ordination he had was necessarily by common priests ; we further remark, that the above argument is really a fallacy. The fallacy is found in putting a part for tft& wliole. We do not build our argument upon any one passage of the New Testament, but upon the whole : we say that there is no proof in the whole of the New Testament, not that there are no more than two , orders of ministers of the gospel ; for, by the New Testament, deacons, as such, are not minis- ters of the gospel at all ; but we say, there is no proof in the whole of the New Testament of more than one stand- ing order of ministers of the gospel. To make the argu- ment about the high priest, therefore, a just one, it must be assumed that there is no allusion in the whole of the Scriptures to any other office than that of priest in general. Let this be done, and we declare that, supposing the premises just, the conclusion would inevitably folloWj that, by divine right, there was no really and essentially distinct office of the high priest above that of the priests in general. There is, however, frequent mention of the high priest in other parts of the Scriptures, though not by Isaiah, Jere- miah, and Ezekiel. What Mr. Perceval says about the prophets so uniformly neglecting, with very few exceptions, to make any men- tion of the high priest, as distinguished from the other priests, is well worth attention. The writer has no quarrel with episcopacy, simply as such, yet the following particu- lars are remarkable. None of the prophets excepting Zechariah, it seems, ever mention the high priest distinct- ly. How striking the difference between the sacred writers and episcopalian writers ! In the word of God, we have a series of inspired writers, addressing both church and state by the authority of God for centuries, and yet they never mention the high priest, but .only as included among the priests and Le rites; while episcopalian writers, ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 321 addressing the church and state, seldom mention presby- ters and deacons at all ; but bishops — bishops — bishops ! No episcopalian dare professedly claim a higher authority for bishops over presbyters than what they suppose the high priest had over the other priests ; yet, in very deed, they claim ten times a higher authority. Where the pro- phets mention the high priest once, they mention bishops a thousand times. When the high priest was ceremonially incapable of duty, a common priest was considered capa- ble of performing it for him : a thing impossible for a pres- byter to do for a bishop, according to high Churchmen. The consecration of the high priest was always by ordinary priests, ot by Moses, who was no priest according to the law ; but the consecration of a bishop hy presbyters, a thing which the reformers maintained to be lauful by the word of Godi our high Churchmen consider as destroying Chris- tianity itself ! Mr. Perceval says their system is accused of Judaizing ; but the reader will see, that, on these points, Judaism was mildness itself compared with such a system. His observation about Timothy's being admitted by the apostles to their own order, page 29, is completely refuted in sec. iii, sub-sec. 4, of the Essay : we refer therefore to that place, and pass on. Mr. Perceval tries to say something about the apostle Paul's address to the presbyters or bishops of the church of Ephesus, in Acts xx, 17, &c. His opinion is, that Ti- mothy was with Paul at the time ; that Paul " had already committed the superintendence of these very pastors to Timothy," and that having Timothy with him, Paul gave " this pastoral charge to the pastors at [of] Ephesus, be- cause their chief pastor Timothy" was with him on his journey, page 39. All this is mere conjecture, and evi- dently contrary to the scope of the whole address. These presbyters are charged to take heed to the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers or bishops : but, according to Mr. Perceval, this charge ought to have been given to Timothy ; and Paul should have taught these presbyters that Timothy was the bishop to whom the Holy Ghost had committed the government of the flock, and of themselves also ; and that they should take heed to be obedient to his lordship Timothy. But other absurdi- ties follow Mr. Perceval's interpretation. First, on this 14* 322 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. '■^ scheme, here are the bishops of Ephesus : this the sacred penman settles beyond dispute. Secondly, here is Timothy, a bishop of bishops, a thing utterly repugnant to the first ages of the church : so Cyprian and eighty-six other bishops in council declare, " Neque enim quisquam nostrum episcopum se esse episcoporum constituat — Neither does any one among us constitute himself a bishop of bish- ops." They account it tyranny to attempt it. Thirdly, here is an apostle making another grade of ministers. Now high Churchmen contend only for three standing orders in the church, including apostles as one, and deacons as another. However, Mr. Perceval can multiply orders with a dash of his pen. Here, according to Mr. Perceval, would be, first, deacons ; second, presbyters, except he fully grants, which he does not, that bishops and presby- ters were one and the same office in the apostles' days ; third, bishops ; fourth, Timothy, a bishop of bishops ; and fifth, apostles. Five standing orders of ministers of the gospel ! The Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy, as pleaded by presbyterians, next come under Mr. Perceval's examina- tion. His first argument makes Timothy a bishop of bishops ; the absurdities of which scheme have just been exhibited. As to the presbyters who ordained Timothy, all he has to say is, that commentators of the fourth and following centuries say they were' bishops. We say so too ; be- cause presbyters and bishops were then one and the same. But suppose they were bishops of a high Church stamp, and that high Church bishops are their successors ; then it follows, that they are successors of Scripture bishops only, and not of the twelve apostles. But this conclusion his more initiated brethren would tremble to hear mentioned. However, Chrysostom, the principal commentator on whom he depends, says, on the very place, " the difference between the presbyter and the bishop is almost nothing." Admit the utmost, then, that they say, it will not do for Mr. Perceval's episcopacy. But we do not admit them as authority ; we admit nothing as such but the Scriptures ; and the Scriptures clearly show that they who ordained Timothy were presbyters. " Moreover," says Mr. Perceval, " in the Second Epistle, ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 323 St. Paul ascribes Timothy's ordination to his own act, 2 Tim. i, 6. The presbyterians [the author of the Essay he means] would represent this last passage to relate to miraculous gifts ; but as there is nothing in the context to warrant such a supposition, but the contrary, it cannot be urged," pp. 33, 34. The passage is, " Stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the laying on of my hands." Now an Engjish reader will perhaps be surprised to hear it said, that there is nothing relating to miraculous gifts in a passage the pith of which is, " Stir up the gift of God that is in thee." His surprise will be increased when he learns that the word " gift" in this passage is the very word Xaptofia, which the sacred writers use for miraculous gifts, in 1 Cor. xii, 4, 9, 28, 30, 31. The phrase, the " gift of God," never means an office in the New Testament. The expression " stir up," is never applied to an office, and seems incapable of such an application. Stir up thy bishopship, thy presbytership, &c., would be strange phraseology. All these objections would also' apply to the interpretation which would suppose the gift to mean not Timothy's office, but his ordination. The phrase, " the gift of God," never means ordination in the New Testa- ment. To say, " Stir up thine ordination," is as absurd as to say, "Stir up thy bishopship." The passage, therefore, cannot mean, by the " gift of God," either Timothy's office, or his ordination. It evidently means spiritual gifts, gifts of the Holy Ghost. Accordingly, it immediately follows — " For God hath not given unto us the spirit of fear : but of power, dvvafieug, and of love, and of a sound mind." The phrase, the " Spirit of power — rcveviia Swaneug," most properly means the *' power" of miracles ; as the word dwafuq, when referred to spiritual matters, mostly means miraculous power. Chrysostom thus inter- prets the phrase, " the gift of God," that is, says he, " the gift of the Holy Ghost which thou hast received, to qualify thee for superintending the church, for working mm. kchss, and for the whole service of the church." We have shown in the Essay, page 55, that the gift of working miracles was conferred by^the laying on.of the apostles' hands, as a pre- rogative of their apostleship. Now are we to suppose that these gifts were conferred in this maimer on so many inferior individuals, (as the Scriptures show they were,) 324 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. and that so eminent an individual as Timothy should not be favoured with them 1 This would be strange. I still think, therefore, that the peculiar force of the passage principally refers to this gift of God. That all other rich endowments of the Spirit for the ministry would accom- pany it, we need no more doubt than that others, who had these miraculous gifts, were also favoured with rich endowments of the Spirit for the personal performance of every Christian duty. -Understanding the passage in this manner, the exhortation has great beauty and force : " Stir up. the gift of God that is in thee by the laying on of my hands," — I, as an apostle, having been honoured as the instrument in conferring upon thee this " gift of God," these gifts of the Spirit, presume I may use some authority in exhorting thee to exert them to the uttermost in governing the flock, in miraculous operations, and in the whole ser- vice of the church. In his fourth chapter, Mr. Perceval proceeds to examine . the arguments of presbyterianism from ecclesiastical an- tiquity. He first properly notices the testimony of Clemens Ro- manus. In answer to the argument from the fact that Clemens only mentions two orders, (suppose we count deacons an order,) viz., bishops and deacons, or presbyters and deacons, he refers to what he has said about the pro- phets only speaking of priests and Levites, with no mention of the high priest ; and vne refer to the answer to what he has there said. But he finds it convenient to pass over the fact that Clement expressly says, that the sedition in the church was against the " presbyters," sec. 47 ; that they were " presbyters" who had " tlje rule over them," sec. 54 ; that he speaks of "presbyters" as having finished THEIR episcopacy, sec. 44 ; and that in conclusion he ex- horts the church to "be subject to their presbyters," sec. 57. He never says half so much about bishops. Clemens, indeed, does occasionally use the word bishop, as synonymous with presbyter, for he never uses them to- gether and distinctly ; but all his authority and exhorta- tion are applied to bring the church to submit to the go- vernment of the presbyters. All these points Mr. Perceval forgets. However, like a drowning man, he catches at a straw. He says, " The unsoundness of the presbyterian ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 325 inference," from Clemens in favour of presbyterianism, " is beyond redemption, when we find St. Clemens ex- pressly ascribing to divine appointment, obligatory in his time, the triple order of the ministry. These are his words : ' It will behoove us, looking into the depths of divine knowledge, to do all things in order whatsoever our Lord has commanded us to do. He has ordained, by his supreme will and authority, both where and by what persons they [the sacred services and oblations] are to be perform- ed. For the chief priest has hi& proper services ; and to the PRIESTS their proper place is appointed ; and to the Levites appertain their proper ministries : and the lay- man is confined within the bounds of what is commanded to laymen,' " page 38. Here he leaves the passage, as though it proved his point without a doubt. I was per- fectly aware of the passage when I wrote the Essay, but thought it too trifling to occupy space and attention ; .except one wished for materials to make up a book. But Mr. Perceval should have gone on. Clemens proceeds : " Let every one of you therefore, brethren, bless God in his proper station, with a good conscience, and with all gravity, not exceeding the rule of his service that is ap- pointed to him. The daily sacrifices are not offered every- where ; nor the peace offerings, nor the sacrifices appoint- ed FOR SINS and transgressions ; but only at Jerusalem — they, therefore, who do any thing which is not agreeable to his will, are punished with death. Consider, brethren, that by how much the better the knowledge God has vouch- safed unto us, by so much the greater danger are we ex- posed to." Now Mr. Perceval considers, that, because Clemens says, the Lord appointed the Jews a high priest, priests and, Levites, this proves that we are to have bishops, . priests, and deacons. But Clemens also says, that the Jew- ish church had, by divine appointment, "daily sacrifices, peax:e offerings, and sacrifices for sins and trangressions." By his argument, therefore, we must have " daily sacri- fices, peace offerings, and sacrifices for sins and transgres- sions." It will not do to say, that spiritually we must; for, spiritually, KLi. God's people are a royal priesthood, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable - to' God by Jesus Christ. 1 Peter ii, 5, 9. Therefore lite- rally and really, without a figure, on his principles, we must 326 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. have daily sacrifices, &c. This is absurd : his argument, therefore, proves nothing. The simple meaning of Cle- mens is, that Christians are to follow God's rule for them- selves under the Christian dispensation, as the Jews were to follow God's rule for themselves under the Mosaical dispensation. What this rule for Christians is, he goes on to explain in the following sections ; and clearly shows that God had appointed "presbyters to be over the church, to RULE it, and that the people were to be subject to the presbyters." In the very Epistle to Evagrius in which Jerome expli- citly declares bishops and presbyters to be the same, he mentions the chief priest, priests and Levites, and laymen, as Clemens does. Grotius says, " Clemens's statement about' the high priest, Levites, and laymen, does not per- tain to the Christian church, but to the temple at Jerusa- lem ; whence he infers, that as all things were to be done in a certain order by the Jews, much more should all things be done with decency and order among Christians." Grotii Epistol., p. 347, fol. Amstel., 1687. Mr. Perceval, p. 38, &c., tries his skill on the case of the church of Alexandria, where, Jerome testifies, the pres- byters made the bishops for abouttwo hundred years : see the Essay, pp. 1 30-1 33 . Archbishop Usher and Stillingfleet both understood Jerome as there explained. "Mr. Perce- val says nothing on the subject of Jerome's statement that invalidates its testimony to the equality, by divine right, of bishops and presbyters. However, he makes an unusual stir about Eutychius. There may be some skill in this proceeding. Jerome was an untractable fellow, bearing a blunt, stubborn testimony against Mr. Perceval's scheme ; so he dismisses him as quickly as he can, since he can make nothing of him. Eutychius seemed a little more manageable ; he lived in a darker age ; his writings are incomparably less known and esteemed than Jerome's : so in this case it is easier to raise a dust about nothing. Now, in the first place, no stress was laid on Eutychius's authority in the Essay. It was only said that Stillingfleet had quoted him to prove the truth of Jerome's statement. The learned Selden had urged his authority for the same end. " But," says Mr. Perceval, " Abraham Echellensis has proved that Eutychius has been misunderstood." Now UN APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 327 what does the authority of Abraham Echellensis weigh against the authority of these profound scholars ? " This Abraham Echellensis," says the biographer of Selden, was " a Maronite priest, in the pay of the Roman pontiff; and he employed so much personal abuse in an attempt to refute Selden, that he injured his own reputation more than that of him whom he attacked."* Mr. Perceval speaks of the apostolical canons as evidence against Je- rome's statement a,bout the presbyters of Alexandria mak- ing the bishop ; he forgets, however, to prove that these canons existed at the time to which Jerome refers. There is no sufficient proof of the existence of the canon, to which he appeals, for the first three hundred years after Christ ; nor perhaps for five hundred years after Christ : but thi# is no great difficulty with Mr. Perceval. He refers to the question of the ordination of Ischyras, but this was about one hundred years after the latest time of which Jerome speaks. Mr. Perceval says the council connected with the matter " denied the power" of a presbyter to ordain. When he offers proof of this, it will be time enough to examine it. We deny that the council made this de- claration. It is not to be found in the place of Athanasius to which he refers. Councils pronounced ordinations null for " a bare contempt of ecclesiastical canons. This ordi- nation was done out of the diocess, in which case ordina- tions are nulled by council," Arel., c. 13 : see Stillingfleet's Irenicum, p. 381, &c. Presbyterians do not depend on the case of Ischyras to help their cause ; and Mr. Perce- val cannot prove it injures it. The next authority for presbyterianism, which Mr. Perceval examines, is that of Columba and his fellows, in lona, &c., as mentioned by Bede, and brought forward in the Essay, section xi. The purport of his first remark is, that as Bede mentions bishops under the authority of Columba, who was no bishop, but a presbyter, it would be want of sense to suppose there was " no such thing" as episcopacy among his followers, p. 45. So we think too ; but we think it would equally display want of sense to suppose that that which might be called episcopacy among them, was at all like high Church episcopacy. As epis- copacy, it seems to have greatly resembled Lutheran epis- * Memoirs of Selden, by W. G. Johnson, London, p. 288, 8vo., 1835. 328 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. copacy, where Luther, the presbyter, ordained their first bishop. It is doubtless convenient to Mr. Perceval to con- found the different kinds of episcopacy; (1.) the Scrip- tural episcopacy, in which bishops and presbyters were the same; (2.) Lutheran superintendendy or episcopacy ; (3.) the episcopacy of the English reformers ; and, (4.) high Church episcopacy. But such discourse confounds every thing, and settles nothing. He says, moreover, that " we know from a letter of Pope John, in Bede, that there were five bishops in Scotland at that time," p. 46. It seems Mr. Perceval does not know that Scotland then meant Ireland. He should read Archbishcfp Usher, to whom he there refers. He could not have made this mis- take, if he had ever read that work of the archbishop's — De Primodiis. " But," says he, " the superiority of the abbot of lona over the bishops of his house, turns out to be of the same nature with that which the dean of Westminster exercises over the bishop of Gloucester, one of the prebendaries of that chapter ; or which the dean of Exeter, as such, exer- cises over his own diocesan, as treasurer of that chap- ter," p. 47. Now, in the first place, Bede does not only say that all the bishops of " his house''' were subject to the presbyter abbot ; but that this house was the head " of all the houses both in Britanie, and also in Ireland ; and that to this presbyter abbot, always, both the whole coun- trey, and also the bishops themselves, ought, after a strange and unaccustomed order, to be subject." Dr. Stapleton's translation. But, let us examine these cases of the bishop of Gloucester being, as " prebendary of Westmin- ster, subject to the chapter," &c. Is it " a strange and unaccustomed" thing for a prebendary to be subject to the chapter of that cathedral to which his prebend belongs 1 and for a dean to have authority over the treasurer, " as treasurer," of the chapter of which the dean is the head 1 Would a historian sagely report that as a strange and. unaccustomed thing, when every body knows that it is the universal custom? And it is a mere fallacy to say the bishop is subject, when they mean the prebendary, or the treasurer, " as the treasurer," is subject. Let the reader ao-ain peruse Bede's statement, and he will see that his nieaning clearly is,- that the bishops, as bishops, were ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 329 " always" subject to the presbyter abbot. That all these bishops had only presbyterian ordination is shown in the Essay, section xii. ■ The case of the Waldenses, as favouring presbyterian- ism, he yields up to our argument, so far as to grant that any other view does " not admit of a plain and easy refutation," p. 47. He says it is " certain they are now presb3rterians." If they are now presbyterians, they always were so : all the evidence establishes this conclusion. The only remaining matter worth attention in this chap- ter, is, his assertion, that Jerome " denies to presbyters the power of ordination :" easily asserted, but never to be proved : see the Essay, section vi. The fifth chapter pretends to prove the presbyterian scheme " suicidal." The argument he uses is, that sup- pose presbyters, as bishops, after the apostles' times, ordained others to be ministers of the gospel, that is, pres- byters in the church, and did not commit to them the power of ordaining ; then, these last had no divine right to ordain. This is an easy supposition with Mr. Perceval and his friends, viz., that man can alter God's institutions. It is the essence of Popery. We say, " What God hath joined together," no man, by human authority, " can put asunder:" but God hath joined the power of ordination with the office of a presbyter : no man, therefore, can by human authority put them asunder. Bishops or presbyters who ordain presbyters have no power to luithhold an iota of divine right from the office. Presbyters, therefore, have still a divine right to ordain. Here he finishes his answer to the arguments for what he pleases tq denominate presbyterianism ; that is, for all that is not high Church episcopacy. And this writer, who cannot distinguish priests from Levites and laymen, in the case of " Korah and his company ;" v^ho knows not the difference in argument between the whole and a part ; who makes Timothy a bishop of bishops, axi&five orders of min- isters of the gospel ; who can quote apostolical canons as evidence at a time when he cannot prove they were in existence ; whose suppositions make Bede incapable of writing common sense ; who quotes works which he had never examined on the subject for which he quotes them, as Usher's Primordia ; who never meets fairly one single 330 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. argument of the Essay : — this is the writer who, as Dr. Hook's CHOSEN CHAMPION, has given " a complete answer" to the " Essay on Apostolical Succession ! !" Well, but having vanquished the presbyterians, Mr. Perceval's way is clear, he supposes, to display irresistible evidence for high Church episcopacy ; and his first won- derful axiom is this — " I will commence," says he, " the episcopalian section by showing, that its utter failure to make good its claim to a divine origin, will not avail to clear the presbyterians of guilt," p. 57. Well done, Mr. Perceval ! It is wise for a person, who is conscious of an " utter failure," to provide for the case. They say it requires as much generalship to conduct a good retreat, as it does to gain a victory. But then there is an old book which true Protestants hold as the only and sufficient rule of faith, which says, '' Where there is no law, there is no transgression ;" that " sin is not imputed where there is no law :" hut Mr. Perceval can prove that where there is an " utter failure" to make good a divine lavv, yet there is guilt. And, what is the best of all, he says, " Mr. Powell, the latest writer on the other side, and John Calvin, both say the same. Mr. Powell, speaking of a passage of St. Ignatius, says, that it ' signifies that where a superintendent had been appointed for the sake of order,' (by human authority, as a human arrangement, by custom, &c., these expressions occur in almost every page of the Essay,) ' that order ought to be kept ;' and then adds, ' Very right : so say all churches where a superintendency has been established, though making no pretensions to divine right for it.' " Mr. Perceval quotes another passage from the Essay, which says, that " when ministers violate the law of their commission, their authority so far ceases, and the people are in that proportion free from obligation to obey them." " Whether, therefore," says Mr. Perceval, " the origin of episcopacy be divine or human, yet this is clear from the above ; namely, that seeing the British churches were and are actually" (by a human arrangement, says Mr. Powell) " governed by bishops, the presbyterians can no otherwise avoid the condemnation of heresy — nor the testimony of Mr. Powell of open violation of the written lavv of God against those who break that established order, than by proving that the British bishops either are not ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 331 truly Christian bishops, or have violated the law of their commission ; a totally different question from that under consideration." Marvellous reasoning ! Mr. Powell says that the episcopacy of the English Church is a human arrangement, for the sake of order ; therefore Mr. Perceval says, that he, Mr. Powell, proves that the violation of this human arrangement is the violation of the " written law of Gcd." Again, Mr. Powell says, that the British bishops never had a divine commission for that established order — ^that it is established by nothing but the authority of the sovereign, and the ratification of the English parliament. Yet Mr. Perceval states, that Mr. Powell makes it clear that it is heresy not to submit to it ! Mr. Powell is an extraordinary man to be able to prove that a thing is divine because it is human ; and that heresy is the breach of human regulations ! Mr. Perceval then meets the objections of uncharitahle- ness, exchisiveness, dfc, and finds out that these are recom- mendations of his system — proofs that it is divine ! ! see pages 61 and 63. Then he comes to the objection of the Popery of this high Church scheme. He says this objec- tion " is an old device of the Papists," p. 64 ; and tells a tale of " one Cummin, a friar, who contrived to be taken into the Puritans' pulpits," &c. " The pope," he says, " commended him, and gave him a reward of two thousand ducats for his good behaviour." The practices of Popery are bad enough, I have no doubt, for all this : still Mr. Perceval is unfortunate in his example. Dr. Wells ob- jected this case of Cummins against the Dissenters above a hundred years ago. His talented and learned answerer, Mr. Pierce, referred him to Dr. Collins's Answer to Dr. Scott's Case of Forms of Prayer, for proof that " the whole story is such a notorious forgery, that no man can lay stress upon it, without exposing the reputation of his judgment or his honesty." Pierce's Remarks on Dr. Wells's Letters, p. 15, 12mo., London, 1710. And in Mr. Pierce's Vindi- cation of the Dissenters, a masterly work, part ii, chap, i, he tells us, that " Dr. Wells only replied, that he did not before know of any such writing, and never attempted to vindicate those foolish forgeries." A good example for Mr. Perceval. Mr. Perceval thinks, that because Christ has an eternal 332 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. priestiood in heaven, gospel ministers must be priests upon earth. When he shows the law for it, we shall believe it. But Mr. Perceval belongs to a party who are nearer to Popery than to Protestantism. He is consistent, therefore, in wishing to establish a priest- hood upon earth, " daily sacrifices, offerings for sin," &c. He quotes our Lord's sayings to his apostles and disciples about not being " called masters," as though we urged these sayings against " all claims on the part of the Christian ministry to authority and degree." Mr. Perce- val is expert at answering objections which were never made. We never urged his sayings for any such purpose. He is right (p. 70) in saying " that the only way author- ized by Christ to dignity and exaltation in his church, is, by discharging the offices of the ministry, and thus serving the people :" therefore it follows that episcopal consecra- tions, '&c., are matters of ceremony, and not essential. To the objection made in the Essay, that the high Church doctrine " was unknown to, or unnoticed by, our Protestant forefathers, [that is, the divines who in the sixteenth century opposed the Church of Rome,] and therefore we Protestants need not concern ourselves about it," pp. 71, 72 ; he properly replies, " The divines of the sixteenth century were neither the founders of the Chris- tian church, nor the writers of the sacred Scriptures ; and, therefore, neither the Scriptures nor the Church are to be tried by them, but they and their doctrines are to be tried by the testimony of the Scriptures and by the voice of the Church." That the reformers' doctrine, and the doctrine of all uninspired teachers is to be tried by the Scriptures, and not the Scriptures by their doctrine, we glory to main- tain, as the great distinguishing principle of Protestantism, in opposition to all Popery and semi-popery. But the reader must not suppose that Mr. Perceval and his party maintain it; they hate it with a perfect hatred. The " voice of the church,"— the voice of the church ! Here is their hiding place and their glory. However, should the reader wish to know what is meant by " the voice of the church," he might as soon expect to know where infallibility resides in the Popish Church, as to know what, these persons mean by " the voice of the church," and where he is to find it. The best illustration of the case. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 333 that strikes me, is the reported conversation said to have taken place between two distinguished statesmen on the subject of orthodoxy and heterodoxy. " What is the dif- ference between orthodoxy and heterodoxy V said one to the other. "Orthodoxy," the reply was, "is my doxy, and heterodoxy is your doxy." Ask Mr. Perceval, or any Papist or semi-papist, what ig " the voice of the church 1" the answer would substantially be, " That is the voice of the church which says as ice say; and all which the fathers say contrary to this, -we explain away either as heresy, particular opinion, or not of faith." There is no more common sophism among such writers than this play upon the term church, always assuming that their particu- lar party is the " catholic church." As to the authority of the fathers. Bishop Taylor himself says, — " It is not hon- est for either side to press the authority of the fathers, as a concluding argument in matters of dispute, unless them- selves will be content to submit in all things to the testi- mony of an equal number of them, which I am certain neither side will do."* Bishop Jewel, an incomparably better authority, says, — " There is no way so easy to beguile the simple, as the name and countenance of the fathers."! " I see plainly," said the renowned Chilling- worth, " and with mine own eyes, that there are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fa- thers of one age against the consent of fathers of another age, the church of one age against the church of another age. Traditive interpretations of Scripture are pretended, but there are few or none to be found : no tradition but only of Scripture can derive itself from the fountain, but may be plainly proved either to have been brought in in such an age after Christ, or that in such an age it was not in. In a word, there is no sufficiency but of Scripture only, for any considering man to build upon.":j: But these high Churchmen are pretty good imitators of their Popish breth- ren, who, above all things, love " a packed jury." When any of the fathers will speak for them, or any thing like it, they parade them in the court as though the fathers * Lib. Prophesying, sec. viii. t Preface to his Reply to Harding. t Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants, chap, vii, sec. Ivi. S34 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. were infallible : they will even bring acknowledged forge- ries into court aatrue witnesses ; as Bellannine and others have done with the Decretal Epistles ; but if the fathers say a word against them, they kick them out of court as individual testimonies, private opinions, not of faith, and the like. Mr. Perceval and his party smart incurably imder the correction of the great English reformers. Dr. Hook, indeed, has the boldness to assert, that by the reformers the " episcopal succession was assumed as a necessary doctrine of the Church of England ;" and that " one of the falsehoods propagated in these modern days is, that the reformers did not hold the divine right of episcopacy :" see that queer thing, " A Call to Union on the Principles of the Reformation, a Visitation Sermon, by the Kev. W. F. Hook, D. D., price 3s. 6d." Appendix, pp. 140, 141 . " The principles of the Church," says he, " as we have seen, form an insurmountable harrier between us and the Dissenters, and render union with those parties IMPOSSIBLE," p. 41. A glorious call to union! It is a call, indeed, to Churchmen to unite to persecute Dissenters ; that is, all who presume to differ from these lordly priests. Did the reformers proclaim such sentiments to Calvin, to Peter Martyr, Bucer, John Knox, &c. ? Let the reader carefully examine section seventh of the Essay, for a refutation of all such libels on the reformers. Mr. Perceval comes to the objection that " there is no sufficient historic evidence of a personal succession of valid episcopal ordinations :" we have noticed his reply before — see the place. But after " yielding at once" that this is the case, he thinks that " if it be a moral impossi- bility that any man, who had not been duly consecrated, could be accounted a bishop of the Church of England at the present time, then the onus rests upon the objectors to say how that which is morally impossible now, could have been morally possible at any other period,^' p. 89. That is, what is morally impossible now, in times of order, is, according to Mr. Perceval, by the same rule, morally \m- 'possihle in times of confusion : that what is morally impos- sible in the light, is, by the same rule, morally impossible in the dark! Fine reasoning! But facts are stubborn things. And though it is a mere subterfuge to pretend, that the onus of proof lies upon us ; yet, as these boasters ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 333 of tlie proof of their scheme being " evident to every one," ■were chary of their production of that evidence, we have done what our argument needed not, we have produced proofs from unexceptionable testimony against the validity of the episcopal consecrations through which these men trace their succession. Mr. Perceval has invalidated none of them : see sections x and xiii of the Essay. Indeed Mr. Perceval himself furnishes us with proofs of the same kind. He says, at p. 110 of the Appendix, that there are " many instances to be found in church history qf persons consecrated to the episcopate from the laity." Now we shall be glad to see Mr. Perceval prove that these were " duly consecrated bishops." On his principles he never can. On Scriptural principles, which admit that bishops and presbyters are one and the same office, there is no difficulty ; but then this cannot help Mr. Perceval, as he rejects these principles. Mr. Perceval's " moral impossi- bility," therefore, is contradicted by plain facts, and, on his own showing, " many instances are to be found in church history of persons" not " duly consecrated to the episcopate." For " a bishop ordained per saltum," that is, " that never had the ordination of a presbyter, can neither consecrate and administer the .lacrament of the Lord's body, nor ordaine a presbjrter."* Historic evidence failing, and moral impossibility failing, we see something of the " utter failure" for which Mr. Perceval ominously provided. He thinks, p. 82, that the fact of the contradictions of history about the succession of the first ministers of the Church of Rome is of no importance ; it is enough, he sup- poses, that the church was then governed by bishops : but what kind of bishops ? Irenaeus addresses thejn by the title of " presbyters ;" Clement, who is supposed to have been one of them, writing to the church of Corinth, knows nothing about any bishop but what was identical with, and more distinguished by, the title of " presbjrter." That, in the second century, the chief presbyter acted as a super- intendent by the consent and authority of the other pres- byters, may be granted : nothing more can be proved. But what will this episcopacy do for Mr. Perceval and his party 1 Nothing ! * Dr. Field, " Of the Church," b. iii, chap, xxxix, p. 157, fol. ed., 1635. 336 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. As a "forlorn hope," he takes to the case of Judas, the traitor: the reader will find this case settled to Mr. Perceval's satisfaction at pages 261, 262, of the Essay. Mr. Perceval, having cleared his system of the objec- tions above noticed, as exhibited in this revievi', now comes to display the full glory of evidence for his scheme of episcopacy. In noticing Congregationalism and presby- terianism, his method was to place what he represents as their Scriptural evidence first ; and then, in the second place, the ecclesiastical evidence : in displaying the evi- dence for episcopacy, he reverses this order, andv places ecclesiastical antiquity jfiwi ; and then, in the second place, the evidence from the Scriptures. This, in Mr. Perceval, IS consistent. Thus Papists and high Churchmen place the word of God under the authority, subject to the inter- pretation, of what they call the Church. However, after all, the reader who may not have the privilege of seeing Mr. Perceval's Apology, can hardly conceive what a mea- gre, miserable display, he makes of the evidence of eccle- siastical antiquity. A few trite passages from the fathers, Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, &c., are strung together, without hardly a single line to prove that they support his scheme. If it should be said that their evidence for his scheme is so clear as to need no explanation, we believe many of those who have candidly read the Essay will not be of this opinion^ A complete answer to that work from such men as Dr. Hook and his party, should by all means have answered this part of it. But no : Mr. Perceval is afraid of " tiring his readers' patience," p. 96. Very well : Mr. Perceval's kindness to his readers may pass, only he does not forget, that he has not answered the question.. In the conclusion of this chapter, after quoting what are called the apostolical canons — a number of canons or regulations collected nobody knows when, nor by whom — ^he says " the Nicene council vmiversally treats of bish- ops, and bishops only, as having power to ordain." That the canons of the Nicene council speak only about bish- ops ordaining bishops, we grant; but if Mr. Perceval intends his reader to understand that that council gave any decision that presbyters had not power to ordain presbyters, or even bishops, he misleads his reader: that council ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 337 made no such decision. Perhaps the reader may recollect that the Epistle of this council to the church of Alexan- dria was quoted section vi, of the Essay. In this Epistle, the council speaks of certain clergymen who " should have power to ordain," &c. Some reasoning is there employed against Valesius to prove that these clergymen were pres- byters — he supposing that they were bishops. That rea- soning is established as correct by the express statement of Athanasius, 0pp., vol. i, p. 732, B. C, edit. Paris, 1627. Here, then, this point of the power of presbyters to ordain is established by the council of Nice. They say that these presbyters were to have, that is, to continue to have, power to ordain ; which ordaining by presbyters, the Epistle states, was " according to the ecclesiastical law and sanction." So much for the council of Nice treating " of bishops only having power to ordain." The only diffi- culty in the passage is in the rendering of the word TTpoxsipi^ofiai. It sometimes seems to mean to propose for ordination, or to elect: this I admit. But then it also means to ordain ; and, what is important, it is indisputably used in the sense of ordaining in this Epistle only a few lines before, as to the bishop of Alexandria. The two acts of ordaining and electing are several times spoken of in this Epistle in varied phraseology — e^ovoiav ep^eiv ^sipodereiv, npoxetpi^eadai — e^ovaiav npoxeipi^saOai, rj VTTOjiaXXeiv ovofiara — s^ovaiav exeiv npoxsipi^eadai, icai ovofiara emXeyeadai. Here it will be noticed that ordi- nation is always spoken of first ; and invariably as the exercise of authority — e^ovaiav ; the latter clause of the two referring to the proposing of names, or electing. This authority of ordaining, is, injwo of these passages, accom- panied by the word we have rendered to ordain. The application of it to ordaining by the bishop of Alexandria is indisputable. These presbyters, then, are said to have e^ovmav TrpoxBipipeaOat, authority or power to ordain ; and this " according to ecclesiastical law and sanction." Such seems to me to be the legitimate meaning of the place. However, I do not wish to be positive, as there is some ambiguity in the language of the Epistle. But I am posi- tive that the council did not deny the power of presbyters to ordain : I think the above are strong reasons to believe that their Epistle affirmed it. 15 338 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. We now come to the Scriptural testimony for Mr. Per- ceval's scheme of episcopacy. But, alas ! for Dr. Hook, Mr. Perceval, and their party! the Scriptures have so little to help their case, that this champion of their cause occupied very nearly as much of his work with Eutychius and Abraham Echellensis, as he does with the whole of the testimony of the Scripture in behalf of their system. But it is better to be silent when we have nothing to say. The Scriptural testimonies which he produces, are, the angels in the Apocalypse ; the case of Timothy and Titus ; the apostles' superintendence of the churches which they founded — which nobody ever denied ; — the commis- sion of our Lord to his apostles : — these are the principal, and almost the only instances, which he notices ; but as he does not even attempt an answer to that part of the Essay which treats on these passages, we have a right to conclude that he felt it to be unanswerable. The highest, the supreme evidence, the evidence of the Holy Scriptures, against this high Church episcopacy, remains, therefore, in all its integrity and completeness. This is the all- deciding point. Speaking of the exhortations to unity to be found in our Lord's discourses, Mr. Perceval says, p. 106, " Our oppo- nents are ever fond of citing those passages in Tertullian, Jerome, and others, which affirm that episcopacy was necessarily instituted for the preservation of unity. But if unity be a necessary end in the church, and episcopacy the necessary means for attaining that end, then how can the inference be set aside, that the Lord of glory, who or- dained the end, must himself likewise have ordained the means necessary for attaining, that end 1" This statement is incorrect : those passages in the Essay which speak about the reasons assigned by the fathers for the institu- tion of episcopacy, do not say that the fathers " affirmed that episcopacy was necessarily instituted for the promotion of unity ;" but only that their opinion was that it was designed to promote this unity. But suppose they had affirmed this necessity for episcopacy as a means for the promotion of unity, still the argument is false : both the premises are false ; the conclusion, therefore, must be false also. The argument in full is as follows : What the fathers affirm is necessary as a means to the ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 339 unity of tlie church, Christ instituted as a necessary means to the unity of the church : But the fathers affirm that episcopacy is a necessary means to the unity of the church : therefore, Christ instituted episcopacy as a necessary means to the unity of the church. In the first, or major proposition, Mr. Perceval hegs the question; it is neither proved nor granted: it is false. The next step with this argument lands us in full-grown Popery. The authorities of that church say, that a uni- versal bishop is necessary for the unity of the church ; ergo, Christ instituted a universal bishop — the pope. The second, or minor proposition, is false also, in Mr. Perce- val's sense : the fathers never expre^ed an opinion, nor affirmed either, that the kind of episcopacy for which Mr. Perceval, Dr. Hook, and their party, contend, was neces- sary for the unity of the church. This is sufficiently shown in the Essay. The premises failing, the conclusion falls to the ground. Mr. Perceval concludes his Apology for Apostolical Succession with a long Appendix, employed in proving many things which nobody disputes. This no doubt was much the pleasantest part of the work to Mr. Perceval. Here we conclude this Critique on Mr. Perceval's task, enjoined by his friend Dr. Hook. He has " yielded" up the cause of historical evidence ; " utterly fails" to prove a divine origin of their system ; and ineffectually attempts an answer to the proofs that ecclesiastical episcopacy is a mere human arrangement. Such is this complete answer to the Essay on Apostolical Succession, by this chosen champion of Dr. Hook ! The reader is left to form his own judgment upon its completeness. AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING A REVIEW OF DR. HOOK'S SERMON ON "HEAR THE CHURCH." PKEACHED BEFORE THE QUEEN, AT THE CHAPEL KOYAL, IN ST. JAMES'S PALACE, JUNE 17, 1838. Dr. Hook is the apostle and high priest of the high Church scheme of the present times. If assertions were proofs, his writings would contain convincing evidence of the authority of his mission. I doubt his assertions ; and I controvert his scheme. His doctrine of the succession has been sufficiently refuted in the preceding Essay ; in- deed, the arguments in the Essay do, in their consequence, demolish his whole high Church building. But there is one topic upon which he evidently delights to dwell ; for he speaks and preaches it everywhere ; it is this — That the present Church of England was founded by the apostles, and has come down to the present day, with no greater difference, at any time, from that apostolic church, than the difference caused in the same man by having his face washed or unwashed ; see page 13 of his sermon. This is his favourite illustration. Speaking of the Church of this country before the Reformation, when sworn to Popery, the pope acknowledged as its head by all its authorities, when governed by bishops who preach- ed the doctrines, and were sworn to the government of Popery, when the Church itself was filled with idols and abominations ; with perfect and full-grown Popery, — and comparing that Church with the Church after the Refor- mation, he says, " The Church remained the same AFTER IT was REFORMED AS IT WAS BEFORE, juSt aS a man remains the same man after he has washed his face as he was hefore," page 12. The conclusions he draws from this argument, are, that the Church of England " maintains ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 341 those peculiar doctrines and that peculiar discipline, which have ALWAYS marked, and do still continue to mark, the distinction between the church of Christ, administered under the superintendence of chief pastors or bishops who have regularly succeeded to the apostles, from those sects of Christianity which exist under self-appointed teachers ; — that this Church is the only church of Christ in this kingdom : — that it possesses its original endowments, which were never, as ignorant persons foolishly suppose, taken from one church and given to another," page 12 ; — that her bishops have regularly succeeded to the apostles ; and that her ministers are the only divinely commissioned ministers in this kingdom ; all other denominations are SECTARIANS, SCHISMATICS, and left to the UNCOVENANTED mercies of God. On this ground he has the intolerable arrogance thus to insult the Christian churches in general in America : " When the United States of America were English colonies, the English Church was there established : at the revolution, the state was destroyed.* Monarchy has there ceased to exist ; but the Church, though depressed for a time, remained uninjured : so that there — among the American republicans — under the super- intendence of no fewer than sixteen bishops, you will find her sacraments and ordinances administered, and all her ritual and liturgical services celebrated, with noless of piety, zeal, and solemnity, than here in England ; there you may see THE Church, like an oasis in the desert, blessed by the dews of heaven, and shedding heavenly blessings around her, in a land where, because no religion is esta- * This attack upon the religious bodies of the United States he mixes up with a political philijipic. The writer is no advocate for a republic : indeed, he leaves politics in general to others. Yet there is a sentiment, on the page adjoining the last quotation, which de- serves remark. The doctor says, " Were all connection between Church and state to cease, we may be sure the monarchy would be destroyed." This was telling the queen that7wne are loyal to her, as the queen, ex- cept she pays them for it ; and the same to kings in general. Dr. Hook, and such as he, may speak from their own feelings, as to whut they would do for the queen if not p.iid by bee : but to affirm it of Chris- tians in general, is a vile slandee, and is calculated to disaffect the mind of the que.en toward all her Christian subjects who are not of the Establishment. All real Christians receive the Bible as the rule of their faith and practice. From the Bible they learn to " submit to the powers thatbe," equally as much under a monarchy as under a republic. The 342 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. blisljed, IF IT -WERE not for her, nothing but the ex- tremes of INFIDELITY 01 FANATICISM would prevail," pp.7, 8. The reader sees at once that this is the succession scheme a little modified. That scheme has been suffi- ciently refuted in the Essay. We intend in this review of the sermon, to expose the sophistry of this modification. Here, "the Church" is the topic : — "bishops" were the former topic. If Dr. Hook be the man he is said to be, it is hard to suppose that he is not conscious of the sophistry of his own argument : in which case he wx)uld be a public deceiver : if his reasoning powers be weak, he may possibly be en- tangled in his own net. Be these things as they mS.y, his argument is a tissue of sophistry : — we shall endeavour to untwist it, and break its force of deceiving. The GREAT FALLACY Or delusiou of the whole argument lies in using the expression " the Church," in different SENSES, in different parts of the argument ; that is, as lo- gicians would say, in changing the terms. The way in which he manages this, is, by giving only A general and imperfect definition of the terms in the be- ginning of his sermon ; and then, introducing" pariicuZar* into it in th£ progress, as is the most convenient for decep- tion. So, at pages 5 and 8, he says, " Now at the very outset, I must state that I refer to the Church, not as a mere national establishment of religion, but as the Church, a religious community, intrinsically independent of the state ; that is to say, I am about to treat the Church, not Wesleyan Methodists, for instance, yield not to the members of the Establishment in loyalty to the queen. But further — Was the Chris- tian church connected with the state for the first three hundred YEARS 1 Did not the state then persecute the church everywhere 1 The Roman republic had ceased to be when the Christian church began to exist. The emperor was more absolute than the king of England. Now, DID THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS RISE TO DESTROY THE THRONE 1 Hear Tertullian : " In all ohb prayers, we are ever mindful of all our emperors and kings wheresoever we live, beseeching God for every one of them without distinction, that he would bless ihem with length of days, and a quiet reign, a well-established family, a stout army, a faithful senate, an honest people, a peaceful world, and whatsoever else either prince or people can wish for." For Dr. Hook to go before the queen to propagate his libel upon all her Christian subjects, and upon Christianity in genei:al, deserves the severest rebuke. Such a man can cast "firebrandsj arrows, and death, and say. Am I not in sport ■?" ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 343 in its political, but simply and solely ira its religious charac- ter. And so you may perceive what is meant, when we say, that we wish to speak of the Church, not as an esta- blishment, but as the Church, a religious society, a PARTICULAR SOCIETY OF CHRISTIANS." Then, this "par- ticular society of Christians" becomes " our Church" — " the Church of England" — " the Church ;" and, at the last, on the last page, this "particular society of Chris- tians," becomes distinguished from all other " religious societies" by these specific properties, as " maintain- ing those PECULIAR DOCTRINES, and that peculiar disci- pline, which have always marked, and do still continue to mark, the distinction between the church of Christ, administered under the superintendence of chief pastors or BISHOPS who regularly succeeded to the apostles, from THOSE sects of Christianity under self-appointed teachers." Well, thanks be to the doctor for giving us, at last, a complete definition of the Church of England. This definition, as perfebted by himself, is, " That the Church of England is a particular society of Christians distinguish- ed from all other particular religious societies, by its pecu- liar doctrines, and its peculiar discipline." By discipline, he tells us, he means its church government, as adminis- tered by its bishops : their succession is another question, and has been fully treated in the Essay. Now let us try his main position : " Represent Church of England is the old Catholic Church of England, reform- ed, in the reigns of Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, of cer- tain superstitious errors ; it is the same Church which came down from our British and Saxon ancestors. The Church remained the same after it was reformed as it was before, just as a man remains the same man after he has washed his face ashe was before," pp. 11, 12. Here, then, let us examine the matter. The Church before the Reformation was " a particular religious society ;" and the Church after the Reformation was " a particular religious society." There is, then, this general agreement, that each was " a religious society." So a harlot* is a wo- * Some respectable persons have made a little objection to this illus- tration. The writer has duly weighed their observations, and thinks them groundless, for the following reasons : 1st. The authority of thp word of God, and of all the great reformers, justifies and authorizes the 344 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. man, and a virgin is a woman. There is this general agree- ment between them, that each is a woman. Now if we wish to know the difference that distinguishes t]ae harlot from the virgin, we should be told that ^t would be the peculiar principles, manners, and conduct of each. If, then, we wish to know the difference that distinguishes the Church before the Reformation, from the Church after the Reformation, the answer would be, " The peculiar doc- trines and the peculiar discipline of each Church." Each is a Church, that is, " a religious society ;" as each of the above persons is a woman : but were those Churches the SAME I This will be answered by another question — Are a harlot and a virgin the same ? Yes, according to Dr. Hook, if the harlot washes her face ! Let us look at the face of the Church before the Refor- mation, and at the face of the Church after the Reforma- tion : — at their peculiar doctrines, and their peculiar discipline. 1. Peculiar doctrines: Transubstantiation. — The Church, before the Refor- mation, maintained the doctrine of transubstantiation, and committed hundreds to the flames for disputing it : but The Church, after the Reformation, declares it " repug- nant to the plain words of Scripture, that it overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." Art. 28th of the Chusch of England. Masses. — The Church, before the Reformation, main- tained that the priests did offer Christ for the quick and dead to have remission oi pain and guilt : — The Church, after the Reformation, declares these positions to be " blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." Article 31st of the Church of England. Images. — The Church, before the Reformation, main- tained the worship of images, and the churches were full of images : — The Church, after the Reformation, declares this to be idolatry ; see homily on idolatry. Thus also the 33d application of the term harlot as the rrwst appropriate designation of a corrupt church ; so it is here applied to the Church of Rome. 2ndly. The contrast of the purity of the Church of England by the term virgin, pays a respect to that Church, as constituted by the reformers, and as a most important branch of the Protestant church, which, under this view, the writer has a pleasure in paying. ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 345 Article : " The Romisli doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration, as well of images as of religues, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God." Justification. — The Church, before the Reformation, maintained that a man was justified through the grace of God by works, and not by faith only : — The Church, after the Reformation, maintained that the doctrine " that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and veryfuU of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the homily of justification." Article 11. These points of doctrine may suffice — many more might be added. 2. Peculiar discipli.ve : The Church, before the Reformation, acknowledged the POPE as SUPREME HEAD OF THE ChURCH, aS ChRIST's yicAK, and that all were heretics who rejected him. A few passages from the canon law, as collected by Arch- bishop Cranmer, and given in the Collection of Records by Bishop Burnet, in his History of the Reformation, book iii. No. 27, will illustrate this point : " He that acknowledgeth not himself to be under the ^bishop of Rome, and that the bishop of Rome is ordained by God to have primacy over all the world, is a heretic, and cannot be saved, nor is not of the flock of Christ. " All the decrees of the bisJwp of Rome ought to be kept perpetually of every man, without any repugnancy, as God^s word spoken by the mouth of Peter, and whosoever doth not receive them, neither availeth them the Ca,tholic faith, nor the four evangelists, but they blaspheme the Holy Ghost, and shall have no forgiveness. " The see of Rome hath neither spot nor wrinkle in it, nor cannot err. " The bishop of Rome may excommunicate emperors and princes, and depose the.m from their states, and assoil their subjects from their oath and obedience to them, and so i,ons train them to rebellion" All the bishops in England, before the Reformation, SWORE OBEDIENCE TO THE POPE OF RoME : see section xii of the Essay : but The Church, after the Reformation, declared the pope to 15* 346 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. he antichrist, the son of perdition ; and the Church of Rome to be an idolatrous Church: see Essay, section xi;. And every bishop of the Church of England is bound to reject THE AUTHORITY of the pope and the court of Rome, under the PENALTY of PRAEMUNIRE. Thus we see that the "peculiar doctrines and the pecu- liar discipline" of the Church before the Reformation, and those of the Church after the Reformation, expressly CONTRADICT EACH OTHER: the Church after the Reforma- tion charging idolatry and blasphemy upon the Church before the Reformation. Yet, says Dr. Hook, " They are the same." And Dr. Hook can prove it — ^yea more — ^he can prove, by his principles, that black is white, and that two and two are five. Thus, too and two are numbers; aiiAJive is a number ; ergo, tivo and ttuo are the same as five, that is, they are both numbers : — black is a colour, and vi^hite .is u, colour ; ergo, black and lehite are the same, that is, they are both colours. Yes, replies the reader, but it was supposed you meant that two and two were the same in amount as five ; and that black was the same colour as white. True, but this is leaving the general nature of the things, and coming to the specific differences ; and I only spoke in generals. Dr. Hook only shows you the general nature of the thing at first : the Church before the Reformation is a religious society, and the Church after the Reformation is a religious society; ergo, they are the same, that is, they are both religious societies ; as black and white are both colours. True, says the reader, hut we supposed he meant that they had the same distin- guishing properties or qualities. "Whether Dr. Hook meant it himself or not, I cannot say ; but he doubtless meant Ms readers to think they had the same distinguishing proper- ties, that is, the same peculiar doctrines, and the same peculiar discipline : see p. 23 of his sermon as quoted above. However, it was neither convenient for him to say so " at the outset" of his sermon, nor was it agreeable to him to exhibit this their identity afterward: black would have been seen to be black, and white would have been white still : the virgin would have appeared a virgin, and the harlot would have appeared a harlot, after the doc- tor's perspiration in loashing her face. The doctor's position, then, is a mere fallacy, involving ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 347 the real absurdity, that two religious societies, distinguish- ed as societies by their "peculiar doctrines, and their pecu- liar diSMpline," and whose peculiar doctrines and peculiar discipline flatly contradict each other, are yet one and the same society, that is, that contradictory propositions are identical propositions! — They are, — just as much so as black and white are the same, and as two and two are five. The absurdity of the doctor's position being thus mani- fest, all his conclusions fall to the ground ; and the fol- lowing opposite conclusions become established : Conclusion 1st. — The Church before the Reformation, and the Church after the Refonnation, are two different churches, distinguished by directly opposite peculiar doc- trines, and peculiar discipline, or church government. Conclusion 2d. — The Church after the Reformation, as distinguished by its peculiar doctrine and peculiar disci- pline, was founded at the Reformation, as much so as the Scotch church, the Lutheran church, or any of those other sects toward which the doctor manifests such scorn. As to the succession of the bishops of the Church of England, through the Church of Rome, or. through the Church before the Reformation, we have shown in the Essay, that they have no more claim, on that ground, than bastards have to the inheritance of legitimate children. Conclusion 3d. — The Church of England, and the bishops of the Church of England, have no more just af- finity to the British or Saxon churches, than any other church that equally resembles them in peculiar doctrine and discipline. The doctor's assertibn, at page 9, that " the Church, as at the period of the Reformation, had ex- isted, as all parties admit, from the first planting of Chris- tianity in England," is one of his accustomed, hardy, fal- lacious, and baseless statements. Had that Church, as distinguished at the period of the Reformation by such " peculiar doctrines and peculiar discipline" as we have seen above, existed as always marked (p. 23) by those " peculiar doctrines and that peculiar discipline" from the first planting of Christianity in England 1 Yes ! the doc- tor says, "All parties admit" this!! Then all parties admit that full-grown Popery existed in England from the first planting of Christianity in this country ! ! The 348 ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. reader who believes this is worthy to be a disciple of Dr. Hook. Conclusion 4th. — The right of the present Church of England to those church endovmients, which existed before the Reformation, is merely statute right. The parliament has as much power to alienate as to appropriate. If the Church of 'England has a righteous claim to those endow- ments, any other church might, by another statute, have an equally righteous claim to them. The sum of the whole, is, then, that the Church of England, as a religious society, must establish its claim to affinity with apostolical churches, with the British and Saxon churches, and the Church before the Reformation, by the resemblance of its peculiar doctrines and its peculiar discipline to the peculiar doctrines and the peculiar disci- pline of those churches. - Her bishops, and her other ministers, must prove their claim to apostolicity by their likeness to the apostles in personal piety, a divine call to the ministry, and by the preaching of the faith as the apostles preached it. Whatever they possess besides is but as the chaff to the wheat. All other churches must do the same. Here is the divine rule. Here let all strive to excel : let all covet the best gifts. Above all, let them keep in min,d the more excellent way. What is true indi- vidually, is true of churches collectively : " Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal," &c., 1 Cor. xii. GENERAL INDEX. Abbots, though only presbyters, or- dain bisheps, 155, note. Aerius, 128. African church never maintained episcopacy jure divino, 169. Alasco, John, 192, &c. American churches, Dr. Hook's attack upon, 341. Ambrose, St., on bishops as apos- tles, 30, 45 — on the primus pres- byter, 96 — his Commentaries, 126 — on succession of faith, 284. Ancyra, council of, on presbyters ordaining, 133. ' Angels of the seven churches of Asia, 59-63, 141-143. Apostle, diiferent meanings of the word, 36, &c. — prerogatives of, 41, &c. — ^power of, 314. Apostleship of bishops examined, 29-50. Apostolical bishops, who 1 49. Arian bishops, ordination by, 257, 258. Athanasius on episcopacy examin- ed, 126. Augsburg confession on the identity of bishops and presbyters, 177. Augustine, bishop of Hippo, on the word apostle, 46 — on the au- thority of fathers and councils, 89 — on the' office of a presbyter, 133. Austin the monk, his treachery, 242. Baptism nullified by confirmation, 197, 198. Baronius on the election of the popes, 220,. &c. Barrow, Dr. Isaac, on the nature of proofs, 34 — on the apostolical office, 49 — his arguments destroy High Church episcopacy, 51 — on forsaking bad and heretical minis- ters, 79— remarks on Cyprian, 120, 121. Barrington, Lord, on Clemens Ro- manus, 98. Bede, on British bishops, 238, &c. Bellarmine on bishops having no part of true apostolical authority, 49. Bentley, Dr., on bishops being suc- cessors of the apostles, 32. Beveridge, Bishop, gives up Scrip- tural authority for any certam form of church government, 27 — on the term high priest, 50. Beza, on the identity of bishops and presbyters, 202 — on episco- pacy, 301. Bickersteth, Rev. E., his-Christian Student quoted, 277. ' Bilney, the martyr, on the inward call to the ministry, 73. Bingham's Origines Ecclesiastics quoted, 30 — on the authority of Jerome, 95. Bishop, £7r((7K07rof, meaning of, in the New Testament, 82-87. Bishops, how successors of the apostles, 29-50 — ^how they re- semble the Jewish high priests, 50, 5 1 — ancient British, account of, 237-242. Bishopric, 86. Blondel, David, on the identity of bishops and presbyters, 204. Bochart, on the identity of bishops and presbyters, 204. Bona, Cardinal, quoted, 90. Burnet, Bishop, quoted, 146, 149, 154, 192 — on the elections of the popes, 219 — on the nature of the Christian ministry, 265, 266. Cabassute quoted, 113, 120, 350. INDEX. Calderwood'a Altare Damascenwm quoted, 132. Calvin, on confirmation, 197 — on the identity of bishops and pres- byters, 202 — on Popish ordina- tions, 263 — letter to Archbishop, Cranmer, 269 — on apostolical' succession, 284, 385. ,-' Canon law quoted, 170. Carthage, fourth council of, quoted, 119, 120. Catholic Church, what 1 298. Cave, Dr., on the character of Epiphanius, 129. Chairs, apostolical, presbyters sit in, 113. Chairs, bishops', what ? 113,117. Charity of Papists and high Church- men, 22, 23. Chemnitius on the atrocity of the succession scheme, 19. Chillingworth, ondivine right, 25 — a fine passage from, 292. Church government, 32, 299. Church of England, as by the re- formers, 11, 144-169, 301, 340. Church and state, 144, 303-305, 341, note. Chrysostom, . on ordhiation, ex- plained, 129-132. Chof-episcopi, or village bishops, 133, 134. Claude, oathe absurdity of the high Church scheme20 — on the identi- ty of bishops and presbyters, 204. Clemens Alexandrinus on episco- pacy, examined, 114, &c. Clemens Romanus's Epistle com- mented upon, 97, &c., 324, 325. Clergy, English, general exclusiver riess'of, 11. CoUoga, term explained, 119, 120. Columba, the abbot of the monas- tery of lona, &c., governs bishops, 238-241, 328. Comenius quoted, 180. Comber, Dr., oh the baselgssness of succession, 217, &c. ■ Commission of Christ to the apos- tles, explained, 27, 28. Confession of Augsburg on the identity of bishops and presby- ters, 177. Confirmation examined, 196-200, Congregationalism, 316. Cox, Dr., the reformer, on the identity of bishops and presby- . ters, 150. Cosin, Bishop, on pfesbyterian or- dination, 48, 154. Courayer, Dr., on English ordina- tions, quoted, 137, 138. Cranmer, archbishop of Canter- bury, on episcopal consecration, 137, 138 — on the\ identity of bishops and presbyters, 150, 202. Cummin, the friar, 331;- Cyprian, on episcopacy, examined, 118, &c. — on genuine succes- sion, 282. Daille, the celebrated French Pro- testant divine, exposes the plea of Timothy's being bishop of Ephesus, 58 — on the identity of bishops and presbyters, 204. Damian, P., cardinal-bishop of Ostia, quoted, 254.. Dodwell, the Rev. H., on unity with bishops as necessary to salvation, 17 — gives up Scrip- tural evidence for any particular form of church government, 26, 32 — on the office of an apostle, 33 — on Judas, 33 — his arguments establish a popedom, 121. Edward VI. (King) on the high priesthood, 52. Elections of popes described, 220. Elfric, Saxon archbishop of Can- terbury, canons of, 92. England, king of, the vassal of the pope, 245. English bishops before the. Refor- mation, ordination and descent of, 243, &c. Enthronization of bishops, 137. Epapliroditus, a messenger of the church, his office explained, 40. Epiphanius's character, .&e., 128. Episcopacy of the New Testament, what? 82-88. INDEX. 351 Episcopacy, ecclesiastical, what^l 95, &c., 141-144. Episcopal consecration non-essen- tial, rt6-139. Erasmus, on the identity of bishops and presbyters, 202. Exclusiveness too general among the clergy of the Church of England, 11 — of the highChUrch succession scheme, 22, and genr etally through the Essay. Evangelist, whatl 55. Eusebius, on the word apostle, 45 — on the darkness and difiiculty of the succession, 215, 216. Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, quoted, 132, 326. Faber's work on the Vallenses, quoted, 190 — ^remark on, 190. Faith, succession of, the only essen- tial succession, 107-111, 281. Fathers, authority of, 89, &c. Field, Br., on the identity of bish- ops and presbyters, 162-166 — on genuine, succession, 287. Firmilian, bishop of Cesarea, on ordination by presbyters, 125. Flacius Illyricus, M., on the iden- tity of bishops and presbyters, 203. French reformed church, maintains the identity of bishops and presby- ters, 178 — on confirmation, 197. Froude, R.Hurrell,an Oxford Tract- man, hates the Reformation, 144 — is disgusted with Bishop Jew- el's Defence, 156. Fulke, Dr., on the nullity of Popish ordination, 265. " Gift of God," what 1 323. Gildas's account of the wickedness of the bishops in his days, 238. Godwin, Bishop, on the Lives of the English Bishops, 243, &c. Godwin, Dr., on the Jewish high priesthood, 51. Gradin, Arvid, quoted, 181. Greek church never maintained episcopacy jure divino, 170 — on confirmation, 199. Gregory Nazianzen, on genuine succession, 283. Grindal, Abp. of Canterbury, ap- proves of presbyterian ordination, 154. Grosthead, bishop of Lincoln, re- proves the pope, 244. Grotius, on the identity of bishops and presbyters, 205 — on divine right, 205. Hall, Bishop, on presbyterian ordi- nation and genuine succession, condemns this high Church scheme, 288. Hammond, Dr., gives up direct Scripture evidence for episcopa- cy, 26 — on Scriptural presbyters as governors of the church, 33 — on the succession of the Jew- ish high priests, 272. Hands, imposition of, 29, 138, 250. Haweis, Dr., Church History of, giving an account of the rise of Methodism, 278. Heber, Bp., remarks of, on Bp. Tay- lor's doctrine of confirmation, and on his use of authorities, 199. Hickes, on the dignity of the epis- copal order, 15. High Churchism, semi-popery, ex- clusiveness and intolerance of, passim. High priest, Jewish, 50, 51, 68, 80, 319, 320. Hilary, the deacon, quoted, 126. Hispala, council of, quoted, 172. Historic evidence for high Church succession, none, 212, &c., 312. Holland, Dr., the king's professor of divinity at Oxford, on the identity of bishops and presby- ters, 168. Holmes, Rev. J., of Fulnock, " His- tory of the United Brethren," quoted, 182, &c. Hook, Dr., vicar of Leeds, on high Church episcopacy and succes- sin, 15 — on episcopal ordination as essential to salvation, 18 — arrogance of, 24 — on bishops 353 INDEX. being apostles, 31 — his blunder- ing and bigoted scorn of the re- formed churches, 213 — his " Call to Union," 334— On Hear the Church, reviewed; 340. Hooker, on presbyters, 62, 159, 161 — on divine right, 64, 160, 161. Ignatius's Epistles examined, 100. Irenffius, on the identity of bishops and presbyters, 105, &c. — on genuine succession, 282. James, St., made bishop over the apostles ! ! 65. Jerome, on the word apostle, 46 — on the identity of bishops and presbyters, 93-95 — on ordination by presbyters, 131, &c. Jewel, Bishop, on the word presby- ter, 105 — hated by Froude, an Oxford Tract-man, 156 — on non- preaching prelates, 276 — on gen- uine succession, 286. Joan, Pope, history of, 229, &c. Johnson, Rev. Mr., translator of the Code of the Universal Church, quoted, 174 — on the monk Austin and the British bishops, 242 — on the bishop's pall, 249. Judas, his apostleship treated,, 261. Jurisdiction of bishops, what 1 166- 168, 330, 331. Justin Martyr's testimony to epis- copacy, examined, 104, &c. Korah and his company , high Church blunders upon, 318. Lapsed, the case of, in Cyprian,- explained, 122. Jjaud, Abp., the father of semi- papist Church of England di- vines, and jure divino men, 10. Lavington, on moral » preaching, 277. Leger, on the Waldenses, 190. Leslie, Rev. C, on episcopacy, 177. Jjloyd, bishop of Worcester, refer- red to, 241. Luther ordains the first bishop of the Lutheran church, 176. Lutheran episcopacy, 96. Martyr, Peter, on Popish vest- ments, 270 — on the succession of faith, 285. Mason, Archdeacon, on the power of wicked bishops to give true orders, 17 — on St Austin's con- nection with the slaughter of one thousand two hundred pres- byters, 242. Melancthon, on confirmation, 196 — on the identity of bishops and presbyters, 203 — on genuine succession, 285. Methodists, Wesleyan, rise of, 278, &c. — superintendency of, resem- bles primitive episcopacy, 62, 97,404, 211, 303. Ministers, gospel qualifications of, 71, &c., 352, 12mo. 63 ■ Baptism, Obligation, Mode, and Subjects of. By Rev. H. Slicer. 18mo. 50 Baptism, Sermon on. By Rev. P. P. Sandford. 8vo pamphlet 12 Bingham, Miss, Life of. ISmo. 38 'Bramwell, William, Memoir of the Life and Ministry of. By James Sigston. IS.'no. 50 Bunting, Miss Hannah S., Memoir,- Diary and Letters of Compiled by the Rev. T. Merritt. 2 vols. 18mo. ■ 50 Calvinistic Controversy, embracing a Sermon on Pre- destination and Election. By the Rev. Wilbur Fisk, D. D. 12mo. '75 Carey, William, Conversations on the Life of. ISmo. 31 Carvosso, Mr. William, Memoir of ; sixty years a class leader. ISmo. 50 Centenary of Wesleyan Methodism. By Rev. T. Jackson. 12mo. 75 Ceylonese Converts -^ 25 Choice Pleasures for Youth. ISmo. ' 31 Christian Biography, vol. 1, containing Lives of Isaac Watts, D. D., and Mr. Thomas Haliburton. 18mo. 50 GENERAL CATALOGUE OF BOOKS. Cox, Melville B., late Missionary to Liberia, Life and Remains of. By the Rev. 6. F. Cox. ISmo. $0 50 Daily Monitor. 72mo., muslin 31 Do, ' do morocco tucks, gilt edges 38 Dairyman's Daughter ; a new edition, with several ad- ditions. 18mo. 38 Deaf and Dumb, Recollections of. 18mo. 3i Defence of our Fathers. By Rev. John Emory. 8vo. 75 Deists, a Short and Easy Method with. By Charles Leslie. 06 Devout Exercises of the Heart. By Mrs. Rowe. 24mo. ■ 25 Dickinson, Rev. Peard, Memoir of. Written by him'- self. Revised and corrected by Rev. J. Benson. 18mo. 38 Dick's Christian Philosopher, abridged by H. D. Gos- ling. 18mo. ^ 50 Dick's Improvement of Society, abridged by do. i8mo. 'so Dick's Philosophy of Religion, abridged by do. 18mo. 50 dictionary, Biblical and Theological, explanatory of the History, Manners, and Customs of the Jews and neighbouring nations, &c. By Rev. Richard Watson. 1 vol. 8vo., with five maps, sheep plain 3 50 Do, calf plain 4 00 Do, calf gilt 4 25 Do, calf extra 4 50 Do, 2 vols., sheep 3 75 Do, 2 vols., calf 4 25 Dictionary of the_ Bible, for Sunday Schools and Fami- lies. By the Rev. J. Covel, jnn. ; with maps and fine engravings. 18mo. i 00 Discipline, Methodist. *"' 12mo., sheep plain 50 Do, calf plain 75 Do, calf gilt 87 Do, calf extra 1 00 Do, roan neat 1 00 Do, calf do, gilt leaves 1 25 Do, morocco, do do " 1 50 Do, 24mo., sheep plain 25 Do, calf plain 38 Do, 'g calf gilt 50 Do, roan neat 75 Do, calf extra 75 Do, roan neat, with tucks 75 Do, morocco, do I 13 GFNEEAL CATALOGUE OF BOOKS. Discipline, Administration of By Bishop Hedding. 24mo. $0 25 Doctrinal Tracts. 1 8mo. 50 Downing, Rev. J. W., A. M., Remains of, with a brief Memoir. Edited by Rev. E. H. Downing, A. M. 13mo. 75 Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebiiis, translated from the original by Rev. C. F. Cruse. 8vo. sheep 3 50 Ecclesiastical History. By Martin Ruter, D. D. 1 vol. 8vo., sheep plain 3 00 Do, calf plain 2 25 Do, calf gilt 2 50 Do, calf extra 2 75 Eloquence, the Principles of, adapted to the Pulpit and the Bar. By the Abbe Maury. Translated froni the French, with Additional Notes by John Neale Lake, A. M. ; to which are added Mr. Wesley's Directions concerning Pronunciation and Ges- ture. 18mo. 50 Emory, John, D. D., one of the Bishops of the Method- ist Episcopal Church, Life of By his Eldest Son. 8vo. sheep 1 50 Do, calf 1 75 Do, calf gilt 2 00 Do, calf extra ■• 2 25 Do, Life and Works of ; comprising his Defence of our Fathers, and Episcopal Controversy ; complete in one volume, sheep 3 50 Do, calf 2 75 Do, calf gilt 3 00 Do, calf e.i:tra 3 50 Episcopal Controversy Reviewed. By John Emory, D. D., with Portrait. 8vo., sheep 1 50 Episcopius, Simon, D. D., and Professor of Theology in the University of Leyden, Memoir of ; with a Brief Account of the Synod of Dort, &c., &c. By Frederick Calder. 13mo. 1 00 Errors of Socinianism. By Rev. Edward Hare. 12mo. '76 Evangelical Rambler, in 13 vols., 18mo. 4 06 Evangehcal Spectator, in 4 vols., 18mo. i 35 Experience of Several Eminent Methodist Preachers, with an Account of their Call to, and Success in, the Ministry. In a series of Letters, written by themselves, to the Rev. John Wesley. 12mo. • 75 Falkland, Lady, Life of. IBmo. 19 Farmer Goodall and his Friend. By the author of " The Last Day of the Week." 18mo. 37 Fatal Feud, the. By Rev. G. A. Raybold. 18mo. 31 Filial Duty Recommended. l8mo. 31 GENERAL CATALOGUE OF BOOKS. Fletcher, Rev. J., Life of. By Rev. Joseph Benson. 12mo. *0 75 Fletcher, Works of, in 4 vols., 8vo., plain sheep 7 50 Do, calf plain ' 8 50 Do, calf gilt 9 50 Do, calf extra 10 50 Fletcher's Checks, 2 vols. 8vo. 4 00 Fletcher's Appeal. 18mo. 50 Fletcher, Mrs., Consort of the Rev. J. Fletcher, Life of. By the Rev. H. Moore. 12mo. 75 Fragments for Young People. 72mo. cambric 25 Do, morocco tucks, gilt edges 38 Friendly Hints to the Youth of both Sexes, virith An- ecdotes. By Rev. J. Doncaster. 24mo. 25 Gardiner, Colonel, Life of. By Dr. Doddridge. 18mo. 31 Garrettson, Rev. Freeborn, Life of. By N. Bangs, D. D. 12mo. , 75 Germs of Thought, intended to promote the Mental and Religious Improvement of Youth. By Rev. Thomas Wood. ]8mo. 38 Guilty Tongue, or the Power of Instruction. By the author of " The Week." 18mo. 31 Harmonist ; being a Collection of Tunes and Anthems for the various Metres in the Methodist Hymn Book ; half bound, I 00 Do, full bound, sheep plain 1 38 Do, calf plain 1 63 Do, calf extra 2 13 History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, from 1766 to 1840. By N. Bangs, D. D., 4 vols. 12mo. 4 00 House of the Thief, or the Eighth Commandment prac- " tically illustrated. By the author of "The Week." 18mo. 38 Hyacinth, the Broken. > By Mrs. Sherwood. 18mo. 25 Index and Dictionary of the Holy Bible, designed to facilitate the Study of the Sacred Scriptures. By Rev; J. Barr. 12mo. 50 Indian Captivity, a Narrative of the Capture of the Rev. O.M. Spencer by the Indians. 18mo. 31 Inquirer after Salvation, the, affectionately addressed ; and the New Convert directed and encouraged. By Rev. R. Young 20 (Separate, in paper covers, each 6 cts.) GENERAL CATALOGUE OF BOOKS. Introduction to the Study of the Bible. By T. H. Home. 12mo. $1 00 Jane and her Teacher. 18mo. 25 Jerusalem, Destruction of, abridged from Josephus, by Rev. D. Smith. L8mo. ' '■ 38 Jones, JVIrs., Narrative of Wreck of Missionaries. 8vo. pamphlet 09 Josephus' Works, 1 vol. 8vo. sheep 2 00 Josephus' Works, a new and elegant edition, with plates, royal 8vo. 3 00 Juhana Oakley. By Mrs. Sherwood. IBmo. 25 Justification, Scripture Doctrine of. By Rev. Edward Hare. 18mo. 44 King, Grace, Life of. 18mo. 38 Lectures to Children. By Rev. G. Coles. 18mo. 31 Lectures on Proverbs. By Rev. G. Coles. Vol. L 18mo. 38 Letter to a Junior Preacher. By John Hannah, D. D. 24mo. 35 Longden, Henry, Life of : compiled from his Memoirs, Letters, Diary, &c. 18mo. 38 Love-Feast Tickets, per thousand 75 Love to the Saviour. By Rev. D. Smith. 18mo. 31 Magazine, Child's, in 20 vols., 18mo. 6 00" Magazine, Sunday School, in 13 vols. 4 06 M'Allum, Rev. Daniel, M. D., Remains of, with a Memoir. 12mo. ■ ■" 75 Mammon, or Covetousness, the Sin of the Christian Church. By Rev. John Harris. 18mo. 50 Manners and Customs of the Ancient Israelites. Translated from the French of Claude Fleury, by Adam Clarke, LL. D. 18mo. 50 Marriage Certificates, with Engravings, per dozen, without dis. 50 ~Mary, or the Young Christian, an authentic narrative. 18mo. - 25 Maxwell, Lady, Life of, compiled from her volum- inous Diary and Correspondence, by the Rev. J. Lancaster. 12mo. 1 00 Minutes of Conference, from 1773 to 1839. 2 vols 8vo. S 00 i''>ihiilii|iiJfi!S '"'viK?;i 1'. a lliiii ilililiilij!'!: