9-s 
 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Theological Seminary, 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 BV 665 .S6 
 
 Snodgrass, William Davxs 
 
 1796-1886. 
 
 Discourses on the 
 
 .^4-^1 4 /-oT «"^ 
 
 tm^*i O "• i^*^ 
 
DISCOURSES 
 
 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 
 
 BY W. D. SNODGRASS, D. D., 
 
 PASTOR OF THE SECOND-STREET PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, TROY. 
 I 
 
 TROY, N. Y.: 
 
 STEDMAN & REDFIELD, 225 RIVER-STREET. 
 
 N. TUTTLE, Printer, 
 
 1844. 
 
Entered according' to Act of Congress, in the year 1844, by 
 
 STEDMAN & REDFIELD, 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Northern District of New-York. 
 
m 
 
 TROY, February 19, 1S44. 
 Rev, W. D. Sxodgrass, 
 
 Bear Sir, — The undersigned, members of your Session, Board of 
 Trustees, and Congregation, have listened with attention to the able 
 and interesting series of discourses which you have recently delivered 
 on the Apostolical Succession. This subject has, from recent occur- 
 rences, become one of deep interest to all evangelical denominations 
 of christians. And fully believing, as we do, that you have, in those 
 discourses, clearly and satisfactorily shown from the Word of God, 
 what it is that constitutes an authorized christian ministry ; and. enter- 
 taining the opinion, that their publication, with a view to a more ex- 
 tended circulation, would be useful in contributing to establish in the 
 public mind, enlightened, sound, safe, and scriptural views of this im- 
 portant subject — we most respectfully request, that they may be pre- 
 sented to the public, through the medium of the press, in such form as 
 you may prefer, and as early as may suit your convenience. 
 
 Sessioji. 
 GEOR,GE VAIL, 
 DANIEL AVIGHT, 
 L. J. RUNDELL, 
 EDWARD AVILSOX 
 ROBERT WASSON, 
 ABRAHAM BROWER 
 WILLIAM NO YES, 
 LE ROY MOWRY, 
 G. W. FRANCIS. 
 
 Trustees. 
 BENJAiVnN MARSHALL, 
 ABRAHA^I HOWLAND, 
 T. M. VAIL, 
 Jr., N. SAGE, 
 
 J. L. VAN SCHOONHO\T^N, 
 
 D. T. VAIL, 
 JOHN T. M'COUN, 
 WILLIAM C. RICE, 
 
 E. THOMPSON GALE. 
 
 J. VAN SCHOONHOVEN, 
 E. PROFDFIT, 
 B. P. LEARNED, 
 JOHN C. MATHER, 
 WILLIAM W. WIGHT, 
 MIC AH J. LYMAN, 
 EBENEZER CLARK, 
 WAITE LOWRY, 
 CHARLES MOORE, 
 SETH H. TERRY, 
 SAMUEL G. HUNTINGTON, 
 
 VAN WYCK WICKES, 
 DANIEL GARDNER, 
 T. W. BLATCHFORD, 
 A. SEASON, 
 
 A. VAN TUYL, 
 JESSE PATRICK, 
 
 B. S. LYMAN, 
 
 THOS. W. LOCKWOOD, 
 RICHARD H. FITCH, 
 MOSES BROWNELL. 
 
IV 
 
 TROY, February 2^1, 1844. 
 
 To THE Session, Trustees, and others, 
 
 Of the Second-street Presbyterian Church, Troy: 
 
 Christian Friends^ — The discourses, referred to in your communi- 
 cation, are in the form of short notes, which were prepared from week 
 to week during- the course of their delivery. In yielding to your re- 
 quest, therefore, I cannot promise that you will be able, at all times, to 
 recognize the exact language in which you heard them, nor precisely 
 the same arrangement as to the matter. It may seem expedient, also, 
 in preparing them for the press, to amplify the discussion on some 
 points, as well as to make some addition to the list of authorities. The 
 general course of the argument, however, shall remain the same. 
 
 It is known to you all, that any thing like fondness for controversy 
 has been far from the tenor and spirit of my ministry among you. In 
 the present case, there was a demand, on the part of yourselves and 
 others, for a temperate discussion of the High Church doctrine of 
 Apostolical Succession, which it would have been wrong for me to 
 resist. And nothing but a disposition to meet the wishes of those, 
 who listened to the argument with so much patience and respectful 
 attention, could have induced me to consent to its publication. 
 I remain yours. 
 
 With sincere respect and affection, 
 
 W. D. SNODGRASS. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The foregoing correspondence will sufficiently account for the ap- 
 pearance of the following pages. 
 
 Things which are very absurd in themselves, are sometimes forced 
 by circumstances into positions of great importance. This we believe 
 to be true of the modern doctrine of Apostolical Succession. Nothing 
 could save it from utter contempt, but the extent and respectability of 
 the denomination of christians with which it stands associated. Enor- 
 mous as its pretensions are, it gains currency from the stations and 
 influence of those who appear on its side ; and it will not die of itself. 
 Like other errors, it must be brought to the tests of reason and scrip- 
 ture ; and to subject it to the operation of these tests, is the appropri- 
 ate work of the pastors of the churches, who, in their respective places, 
 are set for the defence of the Gospel. 
 
 These are the views which governed the author, in the preparation 
 and delivery of the discourses which are contained in this volume. 
 His aim was to exhibit an outline of the plain reasons which exist for 
 rejecting the doctrine in question, not only as untrue, but as tending 
 directly to the ejectment of a large proportion of the christian world 
 from the inheritance of the people of God. Not a few, whose judg- 
 ment he is bound to respect, have supposed that a wider circulation of 
 the views presented might subserve the interests of the cause of truth. 
 And, in compliance with their wishes, he submits these views to the 
 candid consideration of the christian public. 
 
 1* 
 
vn 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 DISCOimSE I. 
 
 The Doctrine stated — its exclusive, and unchurching character — 
 reasons for discussing- it. — Judges xvii. 13 page 9 
 
 DISCOURSE 11. 
 
 The Doctrine brought to its proper test — no starling-point, in 
 scripture, for a line of succession by prelates — no name for a pre- 
 latical bishop among the scriptural titles. — Isaiah viii. 20 37 
 
 DISCOURSE III. 
 
 The SA3IE SUBJECT CONTINUED — prclatical bishops not kno\vn in 
 scripture, by character and office — are not successors to the Apos- 
 tles.— Acts svii. 11 Q5 
 
 DISCOURSE IV. 
 
 The nature of Ordination — the power of ordination not peculiar 
 to the apostolical office — prelatical bishops not their only succes- 
 sors in the exercise of this function. — I. Tim. ii. 7 105 
 
YIU 
 
 DISCOURSE V. 
 
 No TRACES OF A Prelatical Bishop in the Jewish high priest- 
 hood—in Timothy— in Titus— nor in the Angels of the seven 
 churches.— Phil. i. 1 143 
 
 DISCOURSE VI. 
 
 Testimony of the Fathers— no prelatical bishops during the first 
 two centuries— rise of prelac3^— Matt. xv. 175 
 
 DISCOURSE VII. 
 
 The Apostolical Succession brought to the test of History — 
 cannot be traced— neither in the line of the Pi,omish, nor of the 
 Anglican church.— Neh. vii. 64 211 
 
 DISCOURSE VIII. 
 The True Succession.— Matt, xxviii. 20 255 
 
DISCOURSE L 
 
 :^m 
 
 THE DOCTRINE STATED— ITS EXCLUSIVE, AND UNCHURCH- 
 ING CHARACTER— REASONS FOR DISCUSSING IT. 
 
 Judges xvii. 13. Now know I that the Lord will do me g-ood, see- 
 ing I have a Levite to my priest. 
 
 It occurs among the wise remarks of the wisest 
 of mere men, that " there is no neia thing un- 
 der the sun." " Is there any thing," he inquires, 
 " whereof it may be said, see, this is new"? And 
 he answers this inquiry, by saying, " it hath been 
 already of old time which was before us." — To 
 trace the evidences of the truth of this statement? 
 as they lie out to our view upon the general field 
 of history and observation, is no part of my pres- 
 ent purpose. I advert to it, only for the purpose 
 of reminding you, that one of the chief illustra- 
 tions of its truth, is to be found in the errors which 
 appear from time to time, in connection with the 
 progress of the church of Christ. Many of these 
 
10 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 errors seem, to the popular apprehension, to be 
 *'new"; and, in some cases, they are so, to the 
 generation who occupy the stage of hfe when they 
 arise. But, in going back over the history of the 
 past, we shall generally find, that, instead of be- 
 ing new in reality, they are merely the revival or 
 re-appearance of old errors, wiiich have prevailed 
 in other times — which have never, perhaps, been 
 entirely eradicated from the human mind — and 
 which, after lying dormant for years, and some- 
 times for centuries, break out afresh, and prevail 
 with equal, and not unfrequently with increased 
 activity and power. 
 
 In view of this fact, you will not be surprised, 
 if I invite you to accompany me, as far back in 
 the history of the past as to the words of the text, 
 for an example and illustration of an error, which 
 is re-appearing in our age and country, and the 
 revival of v/hich is attractinsr the attention and 
 awakening the solicitude of the friends of evange- 
 lical piety in this, and in other lands. It seems, 
 from the connection in which the passage is found, 
 that, " in those days in which there was no king in 
 Israel, but every man did that which was right in 
 his own eyes," there came a strolling Levite to 
 Mount Ephraim, to the house of a man whose 
 name was Micah. This latter individual, though 
 an unprincipled and wicked man, was yet of a re- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 11 
 
 ligious turrij according to his own views of what 
 rehgion required. He was an Israelite, by birth 
 and education : he believed in the existence and 
 character of the true God ; but his modes of wor- 
 ship were moddled, in many respects, after the 
 idolatrous practices of the heathen. The histori- 
 cal notice, in regard to this point, is, that he " had 
 a house of gods" : he had " a graven image and a 
 molten image," made of " two hundred shekels 
 of silver" ; and besides these, '' an ephod and 
 teraphim." And, to complete his arrangements, 
 he " consecrated one of his sons who became his 
 priest." With this latter item in the arrangement, 
 however, he seems never to have been entirely 
 satisfied. He chose a member of his own family, 
 to be the ofnciating Priest of his house, not be- 
 cause he preferred him above all others, but be- 
 cause he had no other material at hand, from 
 which to make the selection. And, therefore, 
 when the wandering Levite appeared at the door 
 of his house, it occurred to him at once, that an 
 opportunity for a better adjustment, in respect to 
 this point, was nov/ presented. He broached the 
 subject im.mediately, by inquiring, ^'Whence com- 
 est thou"? And the reply was, " I am a Levite 
 of Beth-lehem-judah, and I go to sojourn where I 
 may find a place. And Micah said unto him, 
 dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a 
 
12 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 priest, and I will give thee ten shekels of silver by 
 the year, and a suit of apparel, and thy victuals." 
 (Not a very flattering offer, it must be confessed 
 — amounting to an annual consideration of some- 
 thing less than six dollars, with boarding and 
 a suit of clothes ! — Nevertheless, in the ab- 
 sence of any thing better, it was accepted.) '' So 
 the Levite went in. And the Levite was content 
 to dwell with the man ; and the young man was 
 unto him as one of his sons. And Micah conse- 
 crated the Levite ; and the young man became 
 his priest, and was in the house of Micah." Thus 
 far, the history. And, now, we come to Micah's 
 reflections upon the value of the acquisition he had 
 made. To his view, it was an acquisition which 
 connected him immediately and certainly with the 
 blessing of God. He knew, indeed, that the per- 
 son whom he had received into his house, was an 
 idle vagabond, who had wandered far from home 
 in search of a place, and who had no higher ob- 
 ject in view than to get a living, by making mer- 
 chandise of his Levitical character and relations. 
 And yet, in the mere circumstance that he ivas a 
 Levite, he regarded himself as furnished with eve- 
 ry thing that he needed, and sung out his super- 
 stitious confidence, by saying, " Now know I that 
 the Lord will do me good, seeing I have a Levite 
 to my priest." It mattered not to him, what he 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 13 
 
 was, in other respects : his moral and religious 
 character, as an individual, Avas not, for one mo- 
 ment, taken into the account : he might be as 
 wicked as Cain, and as wily and hypocritical as 
 Satan himself; but, because there was Levitical 
 blood in his veins, and he could prove a legitimate 
 descent by succession from the true priesthood, 
 there was no reason to doubt, that he would be 
 the means of securing, to those for whom he offi- 
 ciated, the favor and the benediction of God. 
 
 Nor was the man of Mount Ephraim, Avho rea- 
 soned thus, the only one of his time who embraced 
 and rested on the same views. It was then, and 
 for ages afterwards continued to be, the received 
 and favorite doctrine of the Jewish nation, that a 
 divine virtue was deposited for them in a particu- 
 lar priesthood ; and that all who could say, with 
 truth, " we have Abraham to our father," were 
 secure as to their hope of acceptance with God. — 
 When their Messiah came, he labored to dissipate 
 the mists of this delusion ; and characterized the 
 persons who, without personal piety, were thus 
 depending upon their priesthood for salvation, as 
 a " generation of vipers," who were not likely to 
 *' escape the damnation of hell." A leading ob- 
 ject of his teaching was, to establish the hopes of 
 the human soul upon other and different grounds. 
 He made repentance for sin, and faith in himself, 
 2 
 
14 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 as " the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin 
 of the world," the only door of admission into the 
 kingdom of heaven ; and declared all, who entered 
 by this door, to be the true sheep, without stopping 
 to inquire, by what ministry their admission was 
 procured. Of the same tenor, were all the in- 
 structions of his apostles, after his ascension, both 
 by word and epistle. Their constant effort was, 
 to draw away the minds of men from all external 
 grounds of hope towards God, and to fix their re- 
 liance exclusively upon faith, as appropriating the 
 righteousness of Christ, and leading by conse- 
 quence to a life of holy activity in the service of 
 God. These instructions were not without their 
 effect, at the time ; and, for a while afterwards, 
 their fruits were visible, in the eminently spirit- 
 ual character which the church maintained, and 
 exhibited to the surrounding Avorld. But, although 
 the old leaven was thus restrained in its operation 
 for a time, it was not destroyed ; and, very soon 
 after the death of the Apostles, it began to show 
 itself, in the prevalence of the same sentiments re- 
 specting the christian ministry, which had before 
 prevailed in reference to the Jewish priesthood. 
 Spiritual piety was again lost sight of, while the 
 religion of forms was unduly exalted. A change 
 obtained, in this respect, which increased from 
 century to century, until it became the received 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 15 
 
 doctrine over more than half the world, that the 
 only authorized hope of salvation Avas in connec- 
 tion with a ministry constituted in a particular way 
 — that, of this ministry, the occupant of the Papal 
 throne was the visible and supreme head, upon 
 earth — and that, beyond the pale of its influences 
 and virtues, men had reason to expect nothing, but 
 the curse of God, both in this world, and the 
 world to come. 
 
 During the period of the Reformation, the prin- 
 ciple of this error was again searched out, and ex- 
 posed. The light of truth was made to shine up- 
 on it, revealing its deformities and dangers ; and 
 the minds of men were called back to the true na- 
 ture of religion, as consisting in immediate person- 
 al intercourse with God, through the atonement 
 and intercession of Christ. Over extensive regions 
 of Christendom, the influence of this reformation 
 extended, with the rapidity of light : the system of 
 formality and superstition, which had been gather- 
 ing strength for ages, was assailed with success : 
 and, in general, the march of improvement has 
 been onward, from the days of Luther until now. 
 In the mean time, it is true, the symptoms of a re- 
 lapse have been often seen, to a limited extent, in 
 particular places. The tendency in human na- 
 ture, to rely more upon the forms than the spirit- 
 ualities of religion, has never disappeared entire- 
 
16 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 ly. And the signs of the times now are, that, un- 
 der the guidance and propelling force of this ten- 
 dency, another retrograde movement is about to 
 be witnessed on a large scale — that the old error of 
 connecting the hope of salvation exclusively with 
 a particular ministry, is destined to reign else- 
 where than within the visible limits of the Papal 
 dominion — that its dark shadow, and its bhghting 
 influence, are likely to extend over an important 
 branch of the Protestant Church — and its work of 
 mischief upon the souls of men, to form a conspi- 
 cuous feature of the times, through w^hich we are 
 now passing. 
 
 To CHARACTERIZE this crror, in the form in 
 which I propose to examine it — to furnish you 
 with some evidence of its existence, and increas- 
 ing prevalence — and to exhibit some of the rea- 
 sons why its examination seems to be called for, 
 under existing circumstances — is all that I pro- 
 pose, farther, to accomplish, at the present time. 
 
 In setting forth the doctrine of Apostolical 
 Succession, as involving the error to which I have 
 just referred, I shall rely, mainly, upon the state- 
 ments of its own advocates. They shall speak 
 for themselves. And, from their exposition of 
 their own views, it will appear — that membership 
 in the church of Christ, together with a scriptur- 
 al hope of salvation, depends upon a mere forma- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 17 
 
 lity. Their scheme is, that there cannot be a 
 church of Christ, excepting in connection Avith a 
 Hierarchy, the orders of which are Bishops, 
 Priests, and Deacons — that Bishops, who are the 
 superior order, are the only persons who have the 
 power of perpetuating a christian ministry — that 
 this power belongs to them, by virtue of their de- 
 scent from the Apostles, by an unbroken line of 
 succession — that a true ministry and church are, 
 therefore, to be found, only in connection with the 
 Prelatical Episcopacy of this, and of other coun- 
 tries — and, of course, that none, who have not re- 
 ceived Episcopal ordination, have any right to re- 
 gard themselves as called by the Head of the 
 Church, either to preach his gospel, or to admin- 
 ister the ordinances of his house. "Our Bishops," 
 they say, '' are successors of the Apostles ; and 
 we, as ordained by them, share in the succession, 
 and are therefore the authorized teachers of God's 
 word, and the administrators of his sacraments." — 
 " The only ministrations to which the Lord has 
 promised his presence, are those of the Bishops, 
 who are successors of the first commissioned Apos- 
 tles, and the other clergy, acting under their sanc- 
 tion, and by their authority." — " The sacrament 
 of the Lord's Supper can only be administered, 
 by ministers duly ordained ; and, therefore, it is 
 needful to continue in a church, professing an 
 2* 
 
18 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 Apostolical succession." — " Bishops, Priests, and 
 Deacons, alone, can administer Christ's sacraments 
 and ordinances." — " The real ground of our au- 
 thority, is our apostolical descent." — "An unin- 
 terrupted series of valid ordinations, has carried 
 down the Apostohcal succession, in our churches, 
 to the present day" ; and " we must necessarily 
 consider none ordained, who are not thus ordain- 
 ed." 
 
 These declarations are selected from different 
 authors ; and they are sufficiently explicit, not on- 
 ly, as presenting the true notion of the succession 
 scheme, but, also, as exhibiting its exclusive, and 
 unchurching character. As this is a point, how- 
 ever, of great importance, in the discussion on 
 which we are entering, and, as I am anxious that 
 no doubt should remain upon your minds in rela- 
 tion to it, you will bear Avith me, in the recital of 
 some other testimonies, from the same, or from 
 kindred sources. And, that you may not regard 
 me, as calhngup from the dead, the narrow-mind- 
 edness and bigotry of other and darker ages, I 
 shall confine myself, mainly, to the writings and 
 sayings of persons, who are now living, or whose 
 memory is still fresh, in the minds of the intelli- 
 gent and reading public : — in the first place, to 
 authors of other countries ; and, in the second 
 place, to those of our own. 
 
X 
 
 APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 19 
 
 In the far-famed series of publications, known 
 as the Oxford Tracts, we find such language as 
 the following : " Episcopal authority, is the very 
 bond which unites christians to each other, and to 
 Christ." — " Christ never appointed two ways to 
 heaven ; nor did he build a church to save some, 
 and make another institution to save other men. 
 There is no other name, given under heaven a- 
 mong men, whereby we may be saved, but the 
 name of Jesus ; and that is no otherwise given 
 under heaven, than in the church." — " It is not 
 merely because Episcopacy is a better, or more 
 scriptural form than Presbyterianism, (true as this 
 may be in itself,) that Episcopalians are right, and 
 Presbyterians are WTong, but because the Presby- 
 terian ministers have assumed a power, which was 
 never intrusted to them. They have presumed 
 to exercise the powxr of ordination, and to perpe- 
 tuate a succession of ministers, without having re- 
 ceived a commission to do so." — " A person, not 
 commissioned from the Bishop, may use the 
 words of baptism, and sprinkle, or bathe, with 
 the w^ater on earth ; but there is no promise from 
 Christ, that such a man shall admit souls to the 
 kingdom of heaven. A person, not commission- 
 ed, may break bread, and pour out wine, and pre- 
 tend to give the Lord's supper, but it can afford 
 no comfort to any to receive it at his hands, be- 
 
20 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 cause there is no warrant from Christ, to lead 
 communicants to suppose, that, while he does so 
 here upon earth, they will be partakers in the Sa- 
 viour's heavenly body and blood. And, as for 
 the person himself, who takes upon himself, with- 
 out warrant, to minister in holy things, he is, all 
 the while, treading' in the footsteps of Korah, Da- 
 than, and Abiram, ivhose aivful punishment you 
 read of in the Book of Number s^ No. 35, 
 p. 2, 3. 
 
 In an article in the British Critic, for October, 
 1839, the conductors of the work say, — " We are 
 of THE Church — not of the Episcopal Church — 
 our bishops are not merely an order in her organi- 
 zation, but the principle of her continuance ; and 
 to call ourselves Episcopalians, is to imply, that 
 we differ from the mass of dissenters mainly in 
 church government and form ; whereas the dif- 
 ference is, that we are here, and they are there : 
 we in the church, and they out of it." 
 
 From a work, entitled, A Doctrinal Catechism 
 of the Church of England, &c., the following 
 questions and answers, as bearing upon the same 
 point, are extracted. " Who appoints dissenting 
 teachers ? They either wickedly appoint each 
 other, or are not appointed at all ; and so, in eith- 
 er case, their assuming the office is very wicked. — 
 But, are not dissenting teachers thought to be very 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 21 
 
 good men? They are often thought to be such, 
 and so were Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, till God 
 showed them to be very wicked. — But, may we 
 not hear them preach? No ; for God says, ^ De- 
 part from the tents of these luicked men.'' "* 
 
 Palmer, in his Treatise on the Chnrch, speaking 
 of the Presbyterians of Scotland, and of their re- 
 jection of Episcopacy, says, " All the temporal 
 enactments and powers of the whole world could 
 not cure this fault, nor render them a portion of 
 the Church of Christ,'''' Again, he says of non- 
 episcopal churches generally, " Of these com- 
 munities, whether collectively or individually con- 
 sidered, I affirm, that they are no part of the 
 Church of Christ^ — '' They are human societies. 
 The will of man makes them, regulates them, un- 
 makes them. They are, in a word, purely volun- 
 tary associations, and, therefore, cannot be any 
 part of that church, which is formed by the divine 
 command." — " They, and their generations, are 
 AS THE HEATHEN ; and, though we may have rea- 
 son to believe, that many of their descendants are 
 not obstinate in their errors, still, it seems to me, 
 that ice are not warranted in affirming absolutely 
 that they can be saved.'' Vol. i. pp. 110, 399, 407. 
 
 Dr. Hook, the present vicar of Leeds, discour- 
 ses, in this manner — " Unless Christ be spiritual- 
 
 * See Smyth on Ap. Sue. : p. 128. 
 
22 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 ly present with the ministers of religion, in their 
 services, those services will be vain ; but the only 
 ministrations, to which he has promised his pre- 
 sence, are those of Bishops, who are successors to 
 the first commissioned apostles, and to the other 
 clergy, acting under their sanction, and by their 
 authority." 
 
 And now, that you may not suppose, that these 
 unchurching views prevail, exclusively, on the 
 other side of the Atlantic, I invite your attention 
 to some specimens of the style of writing, on the 
 same subject, which is becoming every day more 
 common, in our own country. Dr. Howe says, 
 in his Vindication of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church — "Well, the supposition is, that Christ 
 established distinct grades of ministers, and con- 
 ferred upon the highest grade the exclusive pow- 
 er of ordaining. When a minister of the highest 
 grade, then, ordains, Christ ordains ; Avhen a min- 
 ister of the second grade ordains, it is not Christ 
 that ordains, but man. Thus Episcopal ordina- 
 tion confers the sacerdotal office ; Presbyterial or- 
 dination does not. If, therefore, the former or- 
 dination be laid aside, and the latter be substitut- 
 ed in its place, the sacerdotal office must cease to 
 exist ; and, as there can be no church without a 
 ministry, the church must cease to exist also." — 
 P. 354. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 23 
 
 Bishop Hobart, in his Companion for the Altar, 
 says — " The Judge of the whole earth, indeed, 
 will do right. The grace of God quickens and 
 animates all the degenerate children of Adam. 
 The mercy of the Saviour is co-extensive with the 
 ruin into which sin has plunged mankind. And, 
 * in every nation, he that feareth God, and work- 
 eth righteousness, is accepted of him.' But, where 
 the gospel is proclaimed, communion with the 
 church, by the participation of its ordinances, at 
 the hands of the duly authorized priesthood, is the 
 indispensable condition of salvation,^'' P. 202. 
 
 In an address on unity, delivered not long since 
 by the Bishop of the Eastern Diocese of New 
 York, we are told, that " none but the Bishops can 
 unite us to the Father, in the way of Christ's ap- 
 pointment ; and these Bishops must be such, as 
 receive their mission from the first commissioned 
 Apostles." 
 
 In a Treatise on Apostolical Succession, pub- 
 lished and circulated by the Episcopal Tract So- 
 ciety, tiiere is a passage, which runs thus — " The 
 Church of England holds, that the commission 
 and authority for ministering in the name of God, 
 has been transmitted from the Apostles, by what 
 is called Episcopal Succession : that is to say, 
 that the Apostles left the power, which they had 
 received from Christ, to govern the churches, and 
 
24 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 to preach the gospel, and to administer the sa- 
 craments, and to ordain other clergy to assist in all 
 these duties, in the hands of a certain class of 
 chief pastors (to whom in very early times the 
 term Bishop was appropriated ;) that this power 
 and commission has been handed down in the 
 church, from their time till now, by Bishops or- 
 daining Bishops ; and that none, ivho have not re- 
 ceived Episcopal ordination are laivful ministers 
 of the church, or ivarranted to perform any acts, 
 in the name, or with the authority of God^ 
 
 In a sermon, recently delivered and published 
 in the city of New York, the author speaks in the 
 following manner. He refers to the Church of 
 England, as having given to the world our accept- 
 ed version of the Bible ; and, in the progress of 
 his remarks concerning her, says — " She must 
 preach to you the Word, and nothing else — she 
 must administer to you, according to the record 
 of her own testimony, which you hold in your 
 hands. Within these prescribed boundaries, her 
 power is absolute over you, so long as you re- 
 main in her communion — a commiinion ivhich 
 you cannot renounce, excepting' at the peril of your 
 salvation.''^ 
 
 The following passages are extracted, from a 
 work by Rev. Palmer Dyer of Whitehall. " No 
 religious society, or communion, of whatever de- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 25 
 
 nomination or character, is a church of Christ, 
 unless it be Episcopal." — " We cannot be brought 
 into the holy covenant, except in an Episcopal 
 church, or by the agency of an Episcopal minis- 
 try.' — " Those who profess to be ministers of the 
 Gospel, without having received Episcopal ordi- 
 nation, possess no more ministerial authority 
 than any private christian." — '' Their supposed 
 commission is a nullity. And, still farther, it is 
 worse than a nullity : it involves the guilt of 
 schism and rebellion." — " Those who separate 
 from the Episcopal church, reviling and opposing 
 it, and connecting themselves with anti-Episcopal 
 sects, are, in fact, fighting against God." — " We 
 can have no felloivship ivith non-Episcopal sects, 
 nor ever pretend to receive christian sacraments 
 from them : they have no real sacraments to give.''' 
 If it were necessary, I might occupy your atten- 
 tion, for hours, in producing extracts of a similar 
 kind. These are but specimens of, what are now, 
 the every-day productions, both of the pulpit and 
 the press. And they are surely enough, to satis- 
 fy the most sceptical, that, in one point at least, 
 we are fast falling back upon the times of popish 
 bigotry and intolerance. I shall indulge in no 
 comments upon the language of these quotations, 
 for the purpose of showing, that the views which 
 they express are exclusive, and do unchurch the 
 3 
 
2Q DISCOURSES ON 
 
 non-Episcopal denominations of this, and of other 
 countries. This is so plain, that any attempt to 
 prove it, would be an insult to your understand- 
 ings. I may remind you, however, that, in full 
 conformity with the spirit of the foregoing decla- 
 rations, the Episcopal Church is now called, ex- 
 clusively, THE CHURCH. We read, both in 
 official communications, and in newspaper para- 
 graphs, of "the Bishop of New Jersey," "the 
 Bishop of Pennsylvania," &c.; and, in the Church 
 Almanac, of the " Dioceses of the Church of the 
 United States.^^ True to the import of these ti- 
 tles, we also find, that the use of the word 
 " Church," as applied to other denominations, is 
 carefully avoided. They are called dissenters, 
 schismatics, sectaries, societies, communions, but 
 never Churches — the clear import of which is, that 
 those, who are thus designated, have no fellow- 
 citizenship with the saints, and no connection with 
 the household of God. And yet, it is a fact, that 
 we are gravely told, by some of the advocates of 
 these High-Church claims, that thei/ do not un- 
 church us — that we unchurch ourselves. ' The 
 door of the Church,' they say, 'is open, and you 
 are not only at liberty, but are invited, to enter — 
 we are so far from having no charity for you, that 
 we should be glad, at any moment, to receive you 
 —if you are excluded, therefore, it is not by us-you 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 27 
 
 are shut out by an act of your own.' Most kindly 
 and compassionately spoken ! So reasons the 
 Man of Sin, while ''drunk with the blood of the 
 saints." It is the very essence of the charity of Po- 
 pery to say, 'We are the Church-out of the Church 
 there is no salvation — we open our arms to em- 
 brace you — and, if you will enter our fold, and be 
 submissive to our claims, all will be well. If you 
 resist and rebel, we do, indeed, pronounce our 
 anathema upon you — we send your body to the 
 stake, and your soul to perdition '.—but remember, 
 this is your work and not ours ! — yoa die by your 
 own hand — and the sin of your perdition must lie 
 upon your own head !' Whether such charity is 
 "from above," or whether it is " earthly, sensual, 
 and deviUsh,^^ is a question, which, in your pre- 
 sence, I need not discuss. 
 
 Having thus defined the doctrine of Apostolical 
 Succession, and the position taken by its advo- 
 cates, with respect to other denominations of 
 christians, I regard it as proper, to advert to some 
 of the REASONS, for calling your attention to it, in 
 the public manner in which I propose to examine 
 it. 
 
 And, here, allow me to say, that I am not urg- 
 ed to this examination, by any feeling' of jealousy , 
 or wikindness, towards the Episcopal Church. 
 With those who belong to this communion, con- 
 
28 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 sidered as one, among other denominations of 
 professing christians, we have no controversy. 
 In the case of those Episcopalians, v\^ho are w^il- 
 ling to meet us on the ground of a common Chris- 
 tianity, instead of casting us out of the church of 
 Christ, on account of a difference in external forms, 
 we had rather strengthen, than do any thing to 
 weaken, the bonds of union. For all such, we 
 have the right hand of an undissembled and cor- 
 dial fellowship ; and their preferences for Episco- 
 pacy, above other forms of church polity, we 
 should never feel ourselves called upon to assail. 
 "We have no sympathy Avith those, who are ever 
 active in disturbing others in the quiet and peacea- 
 ble enjoyment of their christian liberty and rights. 
 We accord to all men the same privilege, in this 
 respect, which we claim for ourselves ; and can 
 sincerely rejoice, in all the success which attends 
 the efforts of those, who differ from us in modes 
 and forms, in promoting the general interests of 
 the kingdom of Christ. We beg you, therefore, 
 to understand and remember, throughout this 
 discussion, that we wage no aggressive war- 
 fare upon the territory and rights of the Episcopal 
 church. Our concern is not with this denomina- 
 tion as such, but only with the unwarrantable as- 
 sumptions of a part of those who belong to it. And, 
 even with respect to them, we propose to do noth- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 29 
 
 iiig more than stand on the defensive. They have 
 excluded us from the Chm'ch of Christ ; and we 
 ask the privilege of showing, that this sentence of 
 exclusion is without authority. They have said, 
 *' the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord 
 are?^e;" and we wish to prove, that we have 
 some right to a place in this temple, as well as 
 themselves. 
 
 I pass, now, to remark, 
 
 1. That we find a sufficient reason for engag- 
 ing in this discussion, in the character of the doc- 
 trine, which we propose to examine. It proceeds, 
 as we have seen, upon the assumption, that all 
 professing Christians, who are unconnected with 
 Prelatical Bishops, considered as the lineal de- 
 scendants of the Apostles, areas widely separat- 
 ed from the Church of Christ as the heathen — 
 have no interest in the covenanted mercy of God 
 — and are, therefore, in such a situation, that ''we 
 are not warranted in affirming, absolutely, that 
 they can he saved.^^ And this, we alledge, is al- 
 together, and without qualification, a monstrous 
 assumption — involving a breach of Christian cha- 
 rity, too outrageous, to be tolerated in silence. 
 " To unchurch" — says a late eloquent writer of 
 our own country — "with a dash of the pen, all 
 the non-Episcopal denominations under heaven ; 
 and cast their members, indiscriminately, into a 
 3* 
 
30 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 condition worse than that of the very heathen, is, 
 to say the least of it, a most dreadful excommuni- 
 cation ; and, if not clearly enjoined by the author- 
 ity of God, as criminal as it is dreadful. That 
 all those glorious Churches, which have flourished 
 in Geneva, Holland, France, Scotland, England, 
 Ireland, &c., since the Reformation; and all 
 which have spread, and are spreading, through 
 this vast Continent — that those heroes of the truth, 
 who, though they bowed not to the mitre, rescued 
 millions from the Man of Sin, lighted up the lamp 
 of genuine religion, and left it burning with a 
 pure and steady flame to the generation following 
 ■ — that all those faithful ministers, and all those 
 private christians, who, though not of the hierar- 
 chy, adorned the doctrine of God their Saviour, 
 living in faith, dying in faith ; scores, hundreds, 
 thousands of them going away to their Father's 
 house, under the strong consolations of the Holy 
 Ghost, with anticipated heaven in their hearts, 
 and its hallelujahs on their lips — that all, all were 
 without the pale of the visible Church ; were des- 
 titute of covenanted grace; and left the world 
 without any chance for eternal life, but that un- 
 pledged, unpromised mercy, which their accusers 
 charitably hope may be extended to such as labor 
 under involuntary or unavoidable error ; and this, 
 merely because they renounced Episcopacy — are 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 31 
 
 positions of such deep-toned horror as may well 
 make our hair stand up, ' like quills upon the fret- 
 ful porcupine;' and freeze the warm blood at its 
 fountain."* 
 
 And who is there, here, that does not respond 
 from the heart, to the sentiment expressed, in this 
 elevated and glowing language ? Is there one, of 
 all the large audience which I address, who is not 
 prepared to say, in the outset, that the system 
 which draws after it such consequences as these, 
 must be unscriptural and false ; and deserves to be 
 held up, publicly and formally, to the universal 
 abhorrence and execration of the christian mind ? 
 
 2. It seems proper, that pubKc attention should 
 be turned to the revival of this exclusive spirit, as 
 being a most remarkable feature of the present 
 times — a feature too prominent and peculiar, to 
 be overlooked, or regarded with indilTerence. If 
 there is any hope for the world, in reference to 
 the spread of evangelical piety, it must certainly 
 rest, in a great measure, so far as the instrumen- 
 tality is concerned, upon the Christians of Great 
 Britain, and America. These are the main foun- 
 tains, from which the streams of civilization and 
 Christianity must be expected to flow. They are 
 the nations, that come into most frequent contact 
 with the barbarous parts of the earth, in the pur- 
 suits of trade and commerce ; and they are doing 
 
 * Dr. J. M. Mason. 
 
32 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 a large proportion of all that is now in progress 
 — in circulating the word of God — in sending 
 missionaries to the heathen — and in keeping all 
 the kindred influences in operation, that have the 
 best interests of the world in view. Now, that a 
 large and influential portion of the professedly 
 Christian community of these two countries, un- 
 der the advancing light and liberty of this age, 
 should revive and rally around the assumption, 
 that they alone are the Church of Christ — that all 
 ministries, differently constituted from theirs, are 
 essentially irregular and invalid — and that all who 
 attend upon them, however circumspect and god- 
 ly their lives may be, are not in possession of a 
 scriptural hope of salvation — is so entirely aside 
 from any thing, that might naturally have been 
 expected, that we may well inquire. What can it 
 mean ? We can account for it, that an inhabi- 
 tant of the Celestial Empire should look upon all 
 other nations as outside barbarians : because the 
 education of his country has never taught him a 
 diff'erent lesson. And we can account for it, in a 
 similar way, that a follower of the false Prophet 
 should look with disdain upon those whom he re- 
 gards as Christian dogs, and turn away from them 
 as unfit to be associated with him in the hope of 
 future felicity. But that men, brought up in the 
 lap of Christianity, in the purest state in which 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 33 
 
 it is known to exist, and called m the providence 
 of God to take so prominent a part in the further- 
 ance of its interests, should so far mistake its true 
 genius and spirit, as to think of confining it with- 
 in the frame-work of a particular external organi- 
 zation and of casting out all who are beyond 
 this inclosure from any fellowship with them in 
 the faith and comfort of the gospel, is indeed 
 worthy of being contemplated as a moral wonder. 
 It savors, too much, of the spirit of the darkest 
 age the world ever saw, to have a fit place iu the 
 century, through which we are passing. And, 
 considered as clogging the wheels of that chariot, 
 which is carrying life and salvation to the ends of 
 the earth, it deserves, not only our deliberate no- 
 tice, but our intelhgent and decided condemnation. 
 3. We find a reason for this discussion, in the 
 fact, that it never can be right to submit^ untliGut 
 resistance^ to attempts that are made, from any 
 quarter, to deprive us of our dearest rights and 
 privileges. In respect to social and civil immuni- 
 ties, we all understand this principle, sufficiently 
 well. Let an attempt be made, even by the pub- 
 lication of a theory, to undermine the founda- 
 tion of our title to the property we possess, or the 
 places of trust and influence we occupy, and we 
 are ready, at once, to meet the aggressor, with 
 the keenest weapons of truth and argument we 
 
34 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 know how to employ. But, what are the inter- 
 ests endangered in such a case, when compared 
 with what I, and most of you^ must lose, if the 
 lofty claims, involved in the succession scheme, 
 are admitted ? The consequence must be, that I 
 am a usurper of the place which I occupy, and 
 that you are fightmg against the institutions of 
 God, in giving countenance to those ministrations, 
 on which you attend. And is all this to be borne, 
 without a word to show that this disfranchising 
 and merciless system is as entirely unsupported 
 by evidence, as it is extraordinary in its charac- 
 ter ? If our immunities, as those who have ab- 
 jured the authority of all hierarchies, both in 
 Church and in State, are worth having, they are 
 worth defending; and if we suffer them to be 
 wrested from us, without a struggle, we incur the 
 same reproach, which was due to him, '' who, for 
 one morsel of meat, sold his birthright." 
 
 4. Some notice of tlie doctrine, which we pro- 
 pose to discuss, is demanded, by the jjresent pos- 
 lure of the public mind in relation to it. The 
 christian community, of all Protestant denomina- 
 tions, are in the attitude of inquiry. Various 
 events, of recent occurrence, both at home and 
 abroad, have awakened their attention — their ears 
 are open — and many, even of those who are too 
 well established to be in danger of yielding to the 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 35 
 
 claims of the unchurching system, would like, nev- 
 ertheless, to see its absurdity exposed, the argu- 
 ments against it presented inform, and the grounds 
 of a contrary belief made plain, from such sources 
 of evidence as are accessible, but which, a large 
 proportion of the community, are not likely to 
 seek and obtain for themselves. This demand, 
 it is the duty of the pulpit, as well as of the press, 
 to supply. A work is thus assigned to the pas- 
 tors of the churches, which they cannot, in faith- 
 fulness, refuse to perform. There is a call for 
 information, to which it is their duty to respond. 
 
 5. Once more, it is meet that the bold preten- 
 sions of this system should be discussed, in our 
 popular christian assemblies ; because, if fre- 
 quently 7' ep eat ed in the public ear, without being 
 contradicted.) there is real danger, that many loill 
 receive and embrace them. A story often told, es- 
 pecially if told with an air of sincerity and confi- 
 dence, is likely, for this reason alone, to be believ- 
 ed, however slender the evidence on which it 
 rests. And who can doubt, that we are, and have 
 been for years, exposed to the operation of this 
 principle, as connected with the present subject? 
 The pulpit, in certain quarters, is the constant 
 vehicle of discussions, which are intended to show, 
 that the existence of the Church of Christ depends 
 upon a particular form of ministerial ordination, 
 
36 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 while, from those who are banished, by this doc- 
 trine, from all visible connexion with the family of 
 God, there comes no voice of objection, of remon- 
 strance, or of self-defence. You may sit, for 
 years, under the preaching of a non-Episcopal 
 ministry, without hearing a word in opposition to 
 this assumption, or in maintenance of the contra- 
 ry truth. And, if there must be an extreme, this 
 is undoubtedly the one to be preferred. If others 
 err, in saying too much about the forms of reli- 
 gion, let it be our distinction, that we dwell, main- 
 ly, on its doctrinal substance, and its practical 
 power. But still, it is not right, that this un- 
 churching process should go on, forever, without 
 being noticed, in the way of refutation and rebuke. 
 If it does, there is good reason to apprehend, that 
 some will suppose Ave are silent, because we have 
 nothing to say, in justification of our own position. 
 And this, I am persuaded, will absolve me, in 
 your estimation, from the charge of over-stepping 
 the line of my official duties, while engaged in 
 the present discussion. The subject to be exam- 
 ined, is one which involves my authority to preach 
 the gospel ; and, at the same time, the safety of 
 your course, in consenting to receive it from the 
 lips of one, on whose head the hands of a spirit- 
 ual hierarch have never been imposed. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 37 
 
 DISCOURSE II. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE BROUGHT TO ITS PROPER TEST— NO 
 STARTING-POINT, IN SCRIPTURE, FOR A LINE OF SUCCES- 
 SION BY PRELATES— NO NAME FOR A PRELATICAL BISH- 
 OP AMONG THE SCRIPTURAL TITLES. 
 
 Isaiah viii. 20. To the law, and to the testimony : if they speak not 
 according to this word, it is because there is no lighi in them. 
 
 In approaching the settlement of disputed ques- 
 tions, the first thing to be done, is, to fix upon the 
 tribunal, to which the appeal is to be made — the 
 judge, before whom the cause is to be carried — 
 the umpij'e, whose opinion is to decide the case. 
 In matters, involving the social and civil rights of 
 men, there may, sometimes, be a choice, between 
 one tribunal and another. The selection may de- 
 pend upon circumstances ; and, especially, upon 
 consent of parties. But, in religious controver- 
 sies, there is nothing, here, to be determined by 
 man — the only infallible umpire is the word of 
 God: "To the law and to the testimony: if 
 4 
 
38 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 they speak not according to this word, it is be- 
 cause there is no light in them." 
 
 In theory, it is not often, that the truth and just- 
 ness of this position are called in question. Al- 
 most all who accept the Bible as a revelation from 
 God, profess to regard it as the authoritative rule 
 of faith and practice. And yet, even among them, 
 there are ways of so trenching upon this rule, in- 
 directly, as, in a great measure, to nullify it in 
 practice. — The Jew, for instance, will not deny, 
 that, in determining all questions between him 
 and others, the appeal should be, to the Old Tes- 
 tament scriptures. And, if this position were ad- 
 hered to, without quaUfication, the controversy 
 between Christianity and Judaism, might soon be 
 brought to a satisfactory issue. But, in practice, 
 he brings with him such unmingled veneration for 
 the Apocryphal and Rabbinical writings of his 
 nation, and lays so much stress on "the traditions" 
 received from his fathers, that the testimony of 
 scripture is rendered "void," and becomes " of 
 none effect." — In like manner, the Romish 
 Church are free to profess, that the Bible is the 
 rule of faith, and that its declarations, when right- 
 ly understood, are to be received as conclusive 
 and final. But, in the application of this rule, 
 they so insist upon passing the Bible through the 
 crucible of the Church's interpretation, and upon 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 
 
 ^ 
 
 adding, by the authority of the Church, to its doc- 
 trines and institutions, that, in effect, the meaning 
 of scripture is perverted ; and, in many cases, its 
 judgment reversed. — And, so it is, with the advo- 
 cates and supporters of the scheme, which makes 
 a prelatical succession essential to the existence 
 of a Church. They are willing to enter with us 
 into the temple of divine revelation, and to have 
 the question considered and determined there ; 
 but they insist, at the same time, upon our inviting 
 the uninspired christian fathers to accompany 
 us, and submitting our views, as to the meaning 
 of scripture, to their correction and control — so 
 that, when their opinions conflict with what may 
 seem to us to be the plain import of the language 
 of the sacred writers, we must surrender our pri- 
 vate judgment into their hands and alloAv them to 
 be our guides to the knowledge of the truth. In 
 this way, another rule of faith than the word of 
 God is introduced, and becomes, in effect, the 
 main ground of dependence; because, on this 
 principle, the controversy must be decided, not by 
 the infallible authority of inspiration, but by the 
 fallible opinions and teachings of men. 
 
 Now, to a tribunal constituted in this way, we 
 cannot consent to go — although, as you shall see 
 hereafter, we are entirely willing that the testimo- 
 ny of the early Christian writers should be receiv- 
 
40 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 ed, on this, as on all other questions of fact and 
 doctrine, for what it is worth. As true Protest- 
 ants, we cannot permit any human interpreter to 
 stand between us and the voice of God, as speak- 
 ing in the scriptures. In all matters, essential to 
 salvation, they speak, in plain language, to the 
 understandings of plain men. And, as Ave expect 
 to show, the person who goes to uninspired tradi- 
 tion to find out their meaning, resorts to a com- 
 mentary, which is far more difficult to be under- 
 stood than the text. We adopt, therefore, as de- 
 fining our position, in respect to this point, the im- 
 mortal declarations of Chillingworth, as contained 
 in the following eloquent passage. Speaking of 
 ''the Bible," and " the Bible only," as '' the reli- 
 gion of Protestants," he says — '' I, for my part, 
 after a long and (as I verily believe and hope) im- 
 partial search of the true way to eternal happi- 
 ness, do profess plainly, that I cannot find any 
 rest for the sole of my foot, but upon this Rock 
 only. I see plainly, 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 fathers of 
 one age against a consent of fathers of another 
 age, the Church of one age against the Church of 
 another age. Traditive interpretations of scrip- 
 ture are pretended, but there are few, or none, to 
 be found '. no tradition, but only of scripture, 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 9$. 
 
 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 brought in. In a word, there is no 
 sufficient certainty, but of scripture only, for any 
 considering man to build upon. This, therefore, 
 and this only I have reason to believe : this I will 
 profess : according to this I will live : and, for 
 this, if there be occasion, I will not only willingly, 
 but even gladly, lose my life — though I should be 
 sorry, that Christians should take it from me. 
 Propose me any thing out of this book, and re- 
 quire whether I believe it or no ; and, seem it 
 never so incomprehensible to human reason, I 
 will subscribe it with hand and heart, as knowing 
 no demonstration can be stronger than this — God 
 hath said so : therefore, it is true. In other things, 
 I will take no man's liberty of judgment from 
 him ; neither shall any man take mine from me. 
 I will think no man the worse man, nor the worse 
 Christian : I will love no man the less, for differ- 
 ing in opinion from me. And what measure I 
 mete to others, I expect from them again. I am 
 fully assured, that God does not, and, therefore, 
 that men ought not, to require more of any man 
 than this — to believe the scripture to be God's 
 word, to endeavor to find the true sense of it, and 
 to live according to it." 
 4* 
 
42 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 Bear in mind, one other preliminary considera- 
 tion ; and we shall, then, be prepared, to submit 
 the claims of that hierarchy, which embosoms the 
 doctrine of Apostolical Succession, to the decision 
 of the word of God. I refer to what, it seems to 
 me, no candid mind can be unwilling to concede ; 
 and that is — that we may expect to find every 
 thing' J essential to salvation, clearly revealed 
 in scripture. Indifferent things, may be left in 
 comparative darkness ; but, that God should have 
 given a revelation to man, in which, but little is 
 said, and that very obscurely, in regard to things, 
 which lie at the very basis of the hope of salvation, 
 is not, for a moment, to be believed. — Consider, 
 then, that, according to the scheme, of which we 
 are now to speak, an uninterrupted succession of 
 prelates, is an essential element in the Christian 
 system. Its advocates say, that those, who de- 
 cline or renounce the authority of bishops, are 
 guilty of "renouncing the Church of Christ" — of 
 ''renouncing her ministers"; and, through them, 
 of renouncing " Christ himself" — that they cannot 
 therefore " expect to be considered as Christians ; 
 but, according to the command of Christ, as 
 heathens and publicans" — that they are " not in 
 the Church, but out of it" — and are slighting that, 
 which is " the indispensable condition of salva- 
 tion." Now, if this is the case, we surely have a 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 
 
 43 
 
 right to expect, that nothing will be set forth in a 
 clearer light on the pages of inspiration, than the 
 name, character, and office of prelatical bishops ; 
 together with the necessity of such an order to the 
 constitution of the Christian ministry. 
 
 On this point, I cannot refrain, from introduc- 
 ing to your notice, a passage from Dr. Barrow, 
 in which this idea is strikingly presented, as ap- 
 plied to the supremacy of the Pope. He says — 
 " If God had designed the bishop of Rome to be 
 for a perpetual course of times sovereign monarch 
 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 administration of his king- 
 dom 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, excusa- 
 bly may refuse compliance ; and, in all equity, 
 promulgation is requisite, to the establishment of 
 any law, or exacting obedience. But, in all the 
 pandects of divine revelation, the bishop of Rome 
 is not so much as once mentioned, either by name 
 or by character, or by probable intimation. They 
 cannot hook him in, otherwise than by straining 
 hard, and framing a long chain of consequences, 
 each of which is too subtle for to constrain any 
 
44 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 man's persuasion." — Expunge, from this passage, 
 the bishop of Rome, and insert prelatical bishops ; 
 and you then have the argument, in the very form 
 in which I desire to present it. If God has " de- 
 signed" such bishops to be the perpetual mon- 
 archs of his Church, so that the Church cannot ex- 
 ist without them, we may look, with confidence, 
 for an express declaration of "his mind in the 
 ease." He would not have established such a 
 law, without '' promulgating" it, in clear and con- 
 vincing terms. And if, " in all the pandects of 
 divine revelation," prelatical bishops are not so 
 much as once mentioned by name, or by charac- 
 ter, or by probable intimation — if we " cannot 
 hook them in, otherwise than by straining hard, 
 and framing a long chain of consequences" — we 
 shall certainly be entitled to conclude, that this 
 peculiar constitution of the christian ministry has 
 no exclusive warrant from the word of God ; and, 
 therefore, that the doctrine of succession, which 
 depends upon it, must fall to the ground. 
 
 "To the law," then, "and to the testimony." 
 "What do the scrijitures say, in regard to the na- 
 ture and constitution of the christian ministry ? 
 Do they represent it as a hierarchy, consisting of 
 three orders, the superior one of which are prela- 
 tical bishops ? And do they promulgate it, plain- 
 ly, as a law, to the operation of which there can 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 45 
 
 be no exception, that this order, alone, have the 
 power of perpetuating the sacred office — so that, 
 neither a church, nor a ministry, can exist, except- 
 ing on the line of this particular succession ? 
 
 My first position, in answer to this inquiry, is, 
 that thej'e is no such functionary, knoivn to the New 
 Testament at all, as a prelatical bishop : he is 
 not to be found, there, either by ''name," by 
 ''character," or by " probable intimation": and, 
 therefore, there is no hook, at the superior end, 
 on which the chain of this boasted succession can 
 bans:. 
 
 If there is such an officer, in connection with 
 the ministry, as established by the Saviour and 
 his apostles, where are we to look for him ? That 
 he cannot be easilf/ iound, I may, surely, be justi- 
 fied in affirming, since quite as much as this is 
 confessed, by some of the most distinguished ad- 
 vocates of prelacy themselves. — The following is 
 the language of Bishop TomHne — " Though I 
 flatter myself, that I have proved episcopacy to 
 be an apostolical institution, yet I readily acknowl- 
 edge, that there is no precept, in the New Testa- 
 ment, which commands, that every church should 
 be governed by bishops." — " As it has not pleas- 
 ed our Almighty Father, to prescribe any partic- 
 ular form of civil government, for the security of 
 temporal comforts to his rational creatures, so, 
 
46 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 neither has he prescribed any particular form of 
 ecclesiastical polity, as absolutely necessary to 
 the attainment of eternal happiness." — Palmer 
 says, "We do not find the origin of episcopacy 
 exactly recorded." — In Tract No. 8 of the Oxford 
 series, the author remarks, '' there is no part of 
 the ecclesiastical system, which is noX faintly tra- 
 ced in scripture ; and no part, which is much more 
 than faintly traced." Again, in No. 85, it is said, 
 " every one must allow, that there is next to noth- 
 ing, on the surface of scripture, about them" — re- 
 ferring to episcopacy, succession, the power of 
 the church, &c. — '' and very little, even under the 
 surface^ of a satisfactory character." — Dr. Ham- 
 mond, in the preface to his Avork on the Power of 
 the Keys, thus inquires — " "Who were the apos- 
 tles' successors, in that power, which concerned 
 the governing the churches, which they planted"? 
 And his answer is, " 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 theiice ; but Avill, 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." — Dodwell, admits the same thing, when 
 he says, — " They (i. e. the sacred Avriters) 720- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 47 
 
 tvhere professedly 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 dura- 
 tion."*^ — And, to these, I shall only add the testi- 
 mony of Bishop Beveridge. He says, — '' Noth- 
 ing can be determined, from what the Apostles 
 did, in their early proceedings, in preaching the 
 gospel, as to the establishment of any certain 
 form of church government for perpetual dura- 
 tion."! 
 
 Now, in the review of such concessions, coming 
 from such men, what shall we say ? If they, in 
 their zeal for episcopacy, could discover no dis- 
 tinct and infallible features of the system in scrip- 
 ture, who else shall be expected to find them ? 
 " What can the man do," says Solomon, " that 
 Cometh after the king"? These are the kings and 
 princes, among the writers who have espoused 
 episcopal claims ; and any one, who comes after 
 them, and proposes to find an explicit warrant for 
 prelacy in the word of God, may well be suspect- 
 ed of having obtained the imaginary sight of that, 
 which does not exist. 
 
 But, without deferring to the judgment of oth- 
 ers, on either side of the question, let us examine 
 the scriptures, briefly, for ourselves. And let us 
 
 * See Powell, p. 26. f See ibid. p. 27. 
 
48 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 endeavor to approach this examination, uninflu- 
 enced by any thing, that we have ever read, or 
 heard, on the subject. Let us suppose the New 
 Testament, especially, to be placed in our hands, 
 for the first time ; and that we are called upon to 
 examine its statements, for the single purpose of 
 ascertaining what it teaches, in regard to the men, 
 who are to preach it to their fellow men. 
 
 Entering upon its perusal, with this view, we 
 find, that, immediately after the commencement 
 of his OAvn ministry, Jesus " ordained twelve" 
 disciples — " whom, also, he named apostles" — 
 " that they should be with him, and that he might 
 send them forth to preach." It is related, also, 
 that, at a subsequent time, he " appointed other 
 seventy also, and sent them before his face, into 
 every city, and place, whither he himself should 
 come." And, finally, it is recorded, concerning 
 '' the eleven," who remained, of the first class, af- 
 ter the death of Judas, that, before his ascension, 
 he spake unto them, saying — " All power is given 
 unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go ye, there- 
 fore, and teach all nations, baptizing them, in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things, 
 whatsoever I have commanded you ; and lo, I 
 am with you, always, even unto the end of the 
 world. Amen."-— These passages, brief as they 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 49 
 
 are, contain the sum of our Saviour's teaching, 
 on the subject of the ministry, as appointed and 
 organized by himself. And, having recited them, 
 we stop, at once, to inquire — In what part of this 
 account are we to find the office, and features, of 
 a prelatical bishop ? What evidence, does it fur- 
 nish, of a superior order in the ministry, exercising 
 authority over two others, and by the imposition 
 of whose hands, alone, a true ministry can be con- 
 tinued ? Does it trace the lines of such an order, 
 even •' faintly"? And, is it credible, that the no- 
 tion of such a hierarchy, as that to which this or- 
 der belongs, could ever have entered the human 
 mind, through the medium of such statements 
 alone ? They speak of ''twelve," and, afterwards 
 of '' seventy," who were called to preach the gos- 
 pel of the kingdom ; but they say, not a word, 
 about either of these, as possessing the sole power 
 of ordination, and government. And, if an up- 
 per grade, among his ministering servants, hold- 
 ing this power exclusively, was to be essential to 
 the being of a church, who can believe, that the 
 Great Teacher would have left the world, without 
 announcing the doctrine in explicit terms ; and, 
 thereby, affording such evidence of its truth as 
 none could overlook, or evade ? 
 
 The answer to this, on the part of those who 
 contend for episcopacy, as of divine right, is, — 
 5 
 
50 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 that, although the doctrine was not taught by the 
 Saviour, expressly^ the elements of the system 
 ivere in force, under his own administration. And 
 this is made out, by assigning the^r^^ order, in 
 the ministry, to himself — the second, to the twelve 
 apostles — and the third, to the seventy disciples. 
 To say nothing of the fact, that this distribution is 
 unsanctioned by Christ himself, there are many 
 and cogent reasons, Avhy no unprejudiced mind 
 can embrace it, as justified by the circumstances 
 of the case. — In the first place, that must be a 
 weak cause, which cannot be supported, without 
 bringing down the Head of the church, from his 
 high and exclusive position, so as to make him 
 aji order, among his own servants I And, even 
 if this could be done, without absurdity, of what 
 advantage would it be ? How could one infalli- 
 ble, universal Bishop, who could have no equals, 
 represent an order, Avhich may be extended in- 
 definitely ? This might answer to the constitu- 
 tion of the Papal hierarchy, but not to that, of 
 which we are now speaking. — In the second place, 
 if the twelve apostles belonged to the second or- 
 der in the ministry, the system of prelacy contra- 
 dicts itself. Its fundamental position is, that the 
 apostles were of the first order, and that prelati- 
 cal bishops are their successors. To be consist- 
 ent, in the argument now under consideration, 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 51 
 
 they must regard themselves as the successors of 
 Christy and not of the apostles. — And, in the third 
 place, there is no authority whatever for saying, 
 that the twelve apostles and the seventy, sustained 
 towards each other, the relation of a higher, and 
 a lower order in the ministry. They were call- 
 ed, to the same work — they were sent out, in the 
 same way, " two and two" — and their commis- 
 sions were the same, both in form and substance, 
 and, to a great extent, in the very language em- 
 ployed. They were both reminded, that the 
 '' harvest" was '' great," and the '' laborers" 
 " few"; and were commanded, while going forth 
 themselves, to " pray the Lord of the harvest, that 
 he would send forth more laborers into his har- 
 vest" — they were both forbidden, to provide any 
 means of support for themselves, remembering 
 that " the laborer is worthy of his hire" — they 
 were both commanded to proclaim the nearness 
 of the kingdom of God, and to shake off the dust 
 of their feet, against those, who would not receive 
 their message — and they were both addressed, in 
 the encouraging language, '' he that receiveth 
 you, receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, re- 
 ceiveth him that sent me." — That there was a dif- 
 ference between them, in the purpose of their call- 
 ing, in some respects^ we do not, indeed, deny. 
 Christ chose the twelve apostles, to be " with 
 
52 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 him" — to be the members of his family — to live 
 near to his person — to receive instruction, from 
 his own lips — and, in various things, of which we 
 shall speak hereafter, to do an extraordinary work, 
 in establishing the church, and completing the 
 volume of divine revelation. But, that they dif- 
 fered from, and were superior to, the seventy, in 
 such a sense as to form a distinct and higher 
 grade, in the ordinary and permanent ministry of 
 the gospel, is a position, unsupported by any one 
 declaration, or fact, which the history of our Sav- 
 iour's life and teaching contains. 
 
 From the commencement of the New Testa- 
 ment history, then, till the ascension of Christ, 
 we may confidently say, there is not the shadow 
 of a prelate to be seen, even in the remotest dis- 
 tance : he is not known, to the evangelical record, 
 either by name, or by the office, which he is sup- 
 posed to fill. 
 
 Pursuing our way, we now inquire, whether 
 any traces of the prelatical character and office 
 are to be found, among the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles, or, in any of the Epistles, written by them 
 for the instruction of the churches ? If there is a 
 single passage, in either of these departments, 
 which represents the christian ministry as consist- 
 ing essentially of three grades, and which attaches 
 the powers of ordination, and government, exclu- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSIOxV. 53 
 
 sively to the superior one, let the advocates of 
 this system produce it. That any thing can be 
 found, in the way of direct teaching, to this effect, 
 no one pretends. There is no passage in which, 
 three orders of ministers are mentioned, together 
 — there is no passage, which speaks of any one 
 order, as being superior to any other order — there 
 is no passage, which teaches that there are orders 
 in the ministry, at all. All the proof, bearing up- 
 on these points, which the friends of prelacy at- 
 tempt to produce, is indirect; and consists of in- 
 ferences drawn from historical facts. Though the 
 matter to be proved is fundamental, it is granted, 
 on all hands, that, if established, it must rest, not 
 upon the positive instructions or commands of the 
 apostles ; but, only, upon things Avhich occurred, 
 incidentally, in the establishment and govern- 
 ment of the primitive churches. And to what 
 does the evidence, arising from this source, 
 amount ? We take the position, in ansAver to 
 this inquiry, in the first place, that, in all the no- 
 tices of ecclesiastical rulers, which are to be found 
 in the Acts, and Epistles, there is not so much, 
 as an appropriate name, for a prelatical bishop ! 
 Be not startled, at the apparent boldness, and te- 
 merity, of this proposition ; for the fact, as we 
 shall endeavor to show you, is precisely so. And 
 we ask your candid attention to it, as going, in 
 5* 
 
54 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 our view, to the foundations of the whole subject ; 
 and, as deciding the question, to every consider- 
 ate and unprejudiced mind. If there is such an 
 officer, in the church of Christ, as a prelatical 
 bishop, he is ivithout a name, in the scriptural 
 vocabulary. According to the pretensions of the 
 system, we are examining, he constitutes the chief 
 order in the ministry — he, alone, possesses the 
 power of ordaining other men to preach the gos- 
 pel — and, without him, a church cannot exist. 
 And yet, no appellation was assigned to him, by 
 the sacred writers, by which he was distinguished, 
 in their day ; or, by which he might be known, 
 in subsequent times. — If there is a scriptural name 
 for him, what is it, and where are we to find it ? 
 The proof rests with those, who say that it exists, 
 and not with us. Were I acquainted with it, I 
 should not hesitate to pronounce it : but, having 
 never met with it, in my own reading of the New 
 Testament, and knowing nothing of its discovery, 
 by others, I may be justified in saying, that it is 
 not to be found, and therefore cannot be produced. 
 But, though the burden of proof, here, does not 
 rest with us, allow me to occupy your attention, 
 for a few moments, in showing, how the case, in 
 reference to this particular, stands. And, for the 
 purpose of placing the truth, in regard to it, be- 
 fore you, I renew the inquiry, — If there is a name, 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 55 
 
 in the New Testament, for a prelatical bishop, 
 what is it ? Is it to be found, in the ivord bishop, 
 as this word is used, in either of the connections 
 in which it occurs ? The cases, in which this 
 name is applied, are only five in number. And, 
 having examined them, briefly, in their order, I 
 shall leave it with you, to judge, whether, in ei- 
 ther, it can signify what is claimed for the office 
 of bishop, in the scheme now under consideration. 
 We meet with it, fi?'st, in Acts xx. 28. " Take 
 heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the 
 flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you 
 over seer s^^ (bishops.) The question to be deter- 
 mined, here, is, who are the persons, to Avhom 
 the name overseer, or bishop, is here applied. 
 By going back to verse 17, we ascertain that they 
 were " elders," or presbyters. — "From Miletus, 
 he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the 
 church. And, when they were come, he said un- 
 to them," &c. The same persons, therefore, 
 who are called " elders," in the language of the 
 historian, were addressed by Paul, as bishops — 
 proving, incontestably, that, in the judgment of 
 scripture, the words bishop and bresbyter, instead 
 of pointing to different orders in the ministry, are 
 names for one and the same order ; and showing, 
 at the same time, that a bishop, in the true sense, 
 is not the ruler of ministers and churches, but the 
 
56 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 immediate pastor of the flock of God, whose busi- 
 ness it is, to feed them with the spiritual food, 
 imparted in the direct and ordinary ministrations 
 of the word. 
 
 The second mst^Liice, in which the name occurs, 
 is in Phillippians i. 1, — where the Apostle, in his 
 salutation to the church at Phillippi, addresses 
 them as " the saints," " with the bishops and dea- 
 cons.*' — It is not credible, neither is it supposed 
 by any, that there could have been, at this early 
 period, a plurality of prelates in Phillippi, each 
 one exercising the authority which is claimed for 
 this office. And, if not, the conclusion is una- 
 voidable, that here, as in the former case, the 
 name is applied to the ordinary pastors, in the 
 character of overseers of the flock. 
 
 The tJiird and fourth cases, in which the name 
 occurs, are in parallel passages, and may be taken 
 together — one in I. Tim. iii. 2. " A bishop 
 then must be blameless, the husband of one wife," 
 &c. ; and the other in Titus i. 7. " For a bishop 
 must be blameless, as the steward of God," &c. 
 The object here is to exhibit, in detail, the need- 
 ful traits of the ministerial character. And who 
 the ministers referred to are, the context clearly 
 shows. The apostle is giving directions in re- 
 spect to the ordination of '' elders." — " For this 
 cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 57 
 
 in order the things that are wanting, and ordain 
 elders in every city," &c., verse 5. These elders, 
 he insists, shall possess certain moral qualifica- 
 tions; and the reason assigned is, that a bishop 
 must be " blameless," &c. — which brings us back 
 to the position, that a bishop and an elder, in the 
 language of the New Testament, are identical. 
 They are one in office ; and the different names 
 are taken, from the different aspects in which that 
 office may be contemplated. 
 
 The fifth J and only remaining passage, in which 
 the word bishop is found, is I. Peter ii. 25. 
 " For ye were as sheep going astray ; but are 
 now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your 
 souls." But, as the name is applied, in this in- 
 stance, to Christ, and not to the incumbent of any 
 office among men, it cannot be regarded as hav- 
 ing any bearing upon the results of the present in- 
 quiry. 
 
 It is plain, then, from this reference to the 
 scriptural applications of the name, that the bishop 
 of New Testament times was not a bishop, in the 
 prelatical sense. He occupied no superior place, 
 as compared Avith other ministers, in the exercise 
 of government and discipline, but was himself a 
 presbyter, brought into immediate connection 
 with an individual church, as its spiritual instruc- 
 tor and guide. On this point, however, we do 
 
58 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 not dwell, because the position we have taken in 
 relation to it is not, now, denied. There have 
 been writers on episcopacy who have denied it ; 
 but their day is past. The truth has finally pre- 
 vailed, and it stands confessed, that, according to 
 scriptural usage, a bishop and a presbyter are the 
 same. Dr. Bowden says, in reference to this 
 usage, '' that presbyters were called bishops, I 
 readily grant." And Bishop Onderdonk, in his 
 Episcopacy tested by Scripture, has the following 
 language — " The name ' bishop,' which now de- 
 signates the highest grade of the ministry, is not 
 appropriated to that office in scripture. That 
 name is there given to the middle order, or pres- 
 byters ; and all that we read in the New Testa- 
 ment concerning 'bishops' — including, of course 
 the words, overseers, and oversight, which have 
 the same derivation — is to be regarded as pertain- 
 ing to that middle grade." 
 
 Having reached this conclusion, we advance a 
 step, and press the inquiry — If there is no prelati- 
 cal bishop to be found in the name " bishop," as 
 used in scripture, under what other name shall we 
 find him? Shall we say, that his character and 
 office are designated by the word apostle ? His 
 claims to a share in the apostolical office^ will be 
 considered hereafter. At present, we are con- 
 cerned with the name, only. And w^e challenge 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 59 
 
 the advocates of the system we are opposing, to 
 produce any one respect in which the name, in 
 this application of it, would be appropriate. Is 
 there a bishop of any diocese, in this or any other 
 country, who would be willing to assume it ? 
 And, if he were to assume it, would any thing 
 more be wanting to expose him to a degree of ridi- 
 cule from which he could never recover ? The 
 Apostle of New- York ! The Apostle of New- 
 Jersey ! Would not the bare announcement of 
 the title carry with it, to the public ear, a sufficient 
 exposure of its arrogance and absurdity ? 
 
 Remember, moreover, that prelatists them- 
 selves being judges, the name " apostle" Avas giv- 
 en by Him who conferred it, not to the fii'st order 
 in the ministry, but to the second. We have al- 
 ready seen, that according to their views of the 
 hierarchy, as existing in the time of Christ, the 
 superior office was filled by Christ himself, while 
 the apostles belonged to the next inferior. It 
 was while they occupied this inferior position that 
 they were called " apostles" — '' the twelve whom 
 he named apostles." This Avas the appellation 
 assigned to them by their Bishop, who was above 
 them in rank and station. He belonged to the 
 upper, and they to the middle grade. And from 
 this, it follows, that prelates have no more right 
 to the name ^'apostle," than to the name ''bishop." 
 
60 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 On their own principles, it was given in scripture 
 to an order below that to which they belong; or, 
 in other words, if the name " apostle," as origin- 
 ally given and used in scripture, is the appropri- 
 ate name of an order in the ministry, it must, ac- 
 cording to this system, be the order of priests^ 
 and not the order of bishops. 
 
 Failing, then, to find a name for a prelatical 
 bishop, either in the word '' bishop," or the word 
 " apostle," the question returns — What shall we 
 call him ? If there is a name for him in the Bi- 
 ble, what is it ? Shall we call him a " prophet"? 
 or shall we style him an "evangelist"? or shall 
 we give him the appellation of a '' pastor" or 
 "teacher"? or shall we look for him in any of 
 the " helps" or "governments," which are refer- 
 red to as connected with the primitive church ? 
 None of these names would be appropriate — there 
 is not one in the entire list which would answer. 
 And so strongly does this circumstance press upon 
 the minds of candid prelatical writers, that we 
 begin to hear it confessed, in high places, that the 
 fact is as we have stated it — that there is no 7iame, 
 in scripture, for a minister of the superior grade 
 in the episcopal scheme. Hear Bishop Onder- 
 donk on this point ; and then say, whether I do 
 not tell you the truth. He says, — "when we 
 find in the New Testament the name " bishop,'' 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 61 
 
 we must regard it as meaning the bishop of a pa- 
 rish, or a presbyter ; but the bishop of a diocese, 
 or the highest grade of the ministry, we must there 
 seek, not under that name, and INDEPEND- 
 ENTLY OF ANY NAME AT ALL."* 
 
 Here, then, we arrive at an important point — 
 let us look around, for a moment, and see how 
 the case now stands. If prelacy is taught in scrip- 
 ture, we have come to a most remarkable phe- 
 nomenon ! The church of Christ — the most im- 
 portant society on earth — is established in con- 
 nection with proper officers, and with proper 
 rules for its government. The officers named, 
 are "bishops," or ''presbyters," and "deacons." 
 These names occur frequently, and we read of 
 no others. And yet we are soberly called upon, 
 and expected to believe, that there is another offi- 
 cer, who is NAMELESS, — morc important than either 
 — essential to the being of a church — " not mere- 
 ly an order in her organization, but the principle 
 of her continuance'^ — whose authority none can 
 decline, Avithout being guilty of rebeUion and 
 schism — who alone " can unite us to the Father, 
 in the way of Christ's appointment" — and whose 
 administration we cannot renounce, " excepting 
 at the peril of our salvation^^! ! ! Is this credi- 
 ble ? Has any thing like it ever occurred in the 
 
 * Episcopacy Examinedj p. 13. 
 6 
 
62 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 organization of any associated body of men ? Is 
 it consistent with what is most obviously demand- 
 ed, by the nature and circumstances of the case ? 
 '' That official titles," says Dr. Mason, '' should 
 be conferred upon every grade of officers in the 
 church except the highest ; that this officer should 
 have no place in the official catalogue ; that he 
 should wander up and down among the churches 
 without so much as a name" — "so far surpasses 
 all the powers of belief, that the proof of his ex- 
 istence is almost, if not altogether, impossible." 
 
 The conclusion, then, to which Ave are urged 
 by this reasoning, is, that no such person as a pre- 
 latical bishop was known to the minds of inspired 
 men, when the New Testament was written. If 
 he had occupied as Avide a place in the field of 
 their mental vision, as he does in that of the ad- 
 vocates of prelacy now, beyond a doubt they 
 would have said something concerning him — they 
 Avould at least have given him a name. But the 
 truth is, that they knew nothing of him, or his 
 office, as existing by divine authority, and there- 
 fore they have left him loithout a name. This 
 omission, ^^?^inspired men have undertaken to sup- 
 ply — they have found a name for the upper grade 
 of the hierarchy Avhich has come into existence 
 since — and they have done it, no otherwise, than 
 by an act of usurpation. They have seized up- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 63 
 
 on one of the names of the scriptural presbyter — 
 robbed it of its original meaning — and made it 
 signify something, which, by the inspiration of the 
 Holy Ghost, it was never intended to express. 
 A BISHOP, by human authority, is a prelate — 
 A BISHOP, by divine authority, is a parochial pastor. 
 At this point, I propose to relieve your atten- 
 tion, for the present. But, before closing, allow 
 me to remind you, in this as the proper place — 
 that, lohen non-episcopal denominations call their 
 jjarochial ministers bishops, they are guilty of 710 
 perversion, or misapplication, of the name. On 
 the other hand, they are using it in its original and 
 authorized sense. It means, in scripture, the 
 overseer of a particular flock ; and it never means 
 any thing else, excepting m the one case in which 
 it is applied to Christ. This is granted, by the 
 advocates, as well as by the opponents, of episco- 
 pacy. They all acknowledge, that the applica- 
 tion of the name to a higher order than that 
 of presbyters, was begun after the inspired wri- 
 ters had finished their work. " It was after the 
 apostolic age,''^ says Bishop Onderdonk, "that 
 the name ' bishop' was taken from the second or- 
 der and appropriated to the first." The usurpers 
 in this case, therefore, are not those who call 
 themselves bishops, according to the system of 
 presbyterian parity, but they are the prelatical or 
 
64 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 diocesan bishops, who claim for themselves what 
 the sacred writers never intended that this name 
 should import. Yet the title is borne by the lat- 
 ter, with the most undisturbed and serene self- 
 complacency, — as if there could be no doubt in 
 regard to its authority and fitness — while its as- 
 sumption by the former provokes, upon the coun- 
 tenances of many, a smile of incredulity border- 
 ing on derision. 
 
 So much for the influence of usages, which are 
 contrary to scripture, even upon the minds of 
 those who have the scriptures in their possession. 
 No man ever read the word "bishop," on the 
 pages of the Bible, as signifying any thing higher 
 than a presbyter. And yet the sound of its appli- 
 cation to such an individual now, falls upon the 
 public ear as something which is strange, unau- 
 thorized, and even presumptuous. For names, 
 in themselves considered, it is not worth while to 
 contend ; but it often happens, in the progress of 
 human affairs, that names become things. And, 
 therefore, it is of some importance to adhere to 
 the phraseology of the scriptures, as a means of 
 preserving unimpaired the system of faith and du- 
 ty which they were intended to reveal. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 65 
 
 DISCOURSE III. 
 
 THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED— PRELATICAL BISHOPS 
 NOT KNOWN IN SCRIPTURE, BY CHARACTER, AND OF- 
 FICE—ARE NOT SUCCESSORS TO THE APOSTLES. 
 
 Acts xvii. 11. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, 
 in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and search- 
 ed the scriptures daily, whether these things were so. 
 
 The value of this passage to us, in our present 
 position, consists in this — that, by divine authori- 
 ty, it pronounces a commendation upon those, 
 who adhere exchisively to the scriptures as the 
 rule of their faith. The persons to whom it refers, 
 were attending upon the instructions of no less 
 an individual than the apostle Paul. He had 
 come to Berea, in the prosecution of a missionary 
 journey, in company with Silas ; and, entering 
 into the synagogue of the Jews, according to his 
 custom, he preached the messiahship and mission 
 of Jesus to the children of Abraham. Contrary 
 to his experience, in most other places, he was 
 6* 
 
66 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 heard, not only with respectful attention, but with 
 deep interest. The views of truth which he pre- 
 sented, struck the minds of the Jews as plausible 
 in a high degree ; and how these views were fi- 
 nally disposed of, it is the object of the text to in- 
 form us. They did not receive his teaching, 
 merely because it was plausible in itself, or on 
 account of the channel through which it was con- 
 veyed ; but they brought it to the test of their in- 
 spired writings. They '' searched the scriptures, 
 daily," with a view of ascertaining how far the 
 preaching of the Apostle coincided with the in- 
 structions of Moses and the Prophets — determin- 
 ed to receive so much of his teaching, as would 
 stand the test of this rule of faith, and no more. 
 And, in view of their course in this respect, they 
 have been set up on the page of sacred history, as 
 "a lamp" to the "feet" and "a light" to the 
 '• path" of all the succeeding generations of men. 
 It is on the platform of this example, that we 
 take our stand in the present discussion. We are 
 willing to be tried by the word of God, and to 
 stand, or fall, according to the verdict which it 
 renders. Point us to any place in the scriptures, 
 where prelacy is represented as an essential ele- 
 ment in the constitution of the christian church, 
 and we yield at once. But tell us not of fathers 
 and councils, of tradition and of church authority, 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 67 
 
 of apostolical bishops and lines of succession, 
 until we have found something, in this one 
 and only rule of our faith^ which will serve as a 
 basis on which the system may rest. '' To the 
 law and to the testimony," w^e again say ; " if 
 they speak not according to this word, it is be- 
 cause there is no light in them." 
 
 Adhering to this principle, we proceed in our 
 endeavor to show, that " there is no such function' 
 ary, knoiun to the Neiv Testament at all, as a pre- 
 LATiCAL BISHOP." Wc liave seen, that no traces 
 of his character and office are to be discovered 
 in the evangelical history ; and that no name for 
 him is to be found, in the lists of official titles 
 which occur, either in the Acts of the Apostles, or 
 in any of the Epistles. The incidents recorded 
 in these subsequent parts of the New Testament, 
 occurred while the primitive churches were in 
 their forming state ; and frequent reference is had, 
 not only to " the saints" in their associated state, 
 but also to their spiritual helps and rulers. We 
 read of " pastors," ''teachers," "elders," ''bish- 
 ops," " deacons," &c. — but, among them all, 
 there is no name for a prelate. So that we must 
 seek him there, as one of his staunchest advocates 
 has said, "independently of any name at all." 
 
 This, to our minds, is perfectly conclusive as 
 to the fact, that no such superior officer exists in 
 
68 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 connection with the church, by divine authority. 
 For who, that has not a favorite system to sup- 
 port by such an assumption, can believe, that the 
 Great Head of the church would have left the 
 most important official character in all his house- 
 hold without an appropriate appellation, by which 
 he might be known distinctly, and unchangeably, 
 till the end of time ? "Who ever heard of a gov- 
 ernment, either great or small, established, with 
 such an omission as this ? A greater omission, it 
 would not have been, if the framers of the Consti- 
 tution of the United States had finished their 
 work, without giving a name to the Chief Magis- 
 trate of the Union ! They might have given ti- 
 tles to all the inferior officers, and heads of de- 
 partment — assigning to each his appropriate 
 sphere, and specifying his particular duties — and 
 then have separated, without fixing upon any title 
 for Mwi, who was to exercise a controling influ- 
 ence over them all ; and not have committed a 
 greater absurdity than the sacred writers have 
 committed, if a prelate is to be sought for in their 
 acts and instructions independently of a name. 
 
 But we are here met by the plea, on the part 
 of the advocates of prelacy, that iicmies are noth- 
 ing — " we are inquiring for the thing — the name 
 is not worth a line of controversy." We beg 
 leave, however, to remind those who urge this 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 
 
 69 
 
 plea, that things so important as a prelatical Bish- 
 op is supposed to be, are not generally to be 
 found without names. In our world, there are 
 names for all things that have a real existence, so 
 far as they come within the sphere of our know- 
 ledge. We have an appellation at hand for eve- 
 ry object and being, both in the natural and moral 
 world, to which we sustain any relation. And, 
 for this reason, where there are no names., either 
 good, bad, or indifferent, Ave generally conclude 
 there are no things. 
 
 Dismissing the matter of the name, however, 
 we now inquire, whether '• the thing" is to be 
 found in scripture, luithout a name ? And, on 
 this part of the subject, the ground which we 
 must occupy, is marked out for us — we must go 
 where the friends of prelacy lead us — we must ac- 
 company them to those parts of scripture, which 
 they regard as forming the strong holds of their 
 own system — and see whether the bishop of their 
 superior order is really to be found, in those 
 places in which they profess to discover the traces 
 of his character and office. 
 
 Their first position, is, that the rank and office 
 of their prelates is to be found in the rank and 
 office of THE Apostles. And, as this is a main 
 point, in its relations to the whole discussion, we 
 solicit your patient attention, while we examine it 
 somewhat in detail. 
 
70 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 The first thing to be observed in regard to it, 
 is, that it furnishes a striking specimen of the man- 
 ner in which prelacy shifts its ground, and even 
 contradicts itself, as new emergencies and difficul- 
 ties arise. We have already seen, that the advo- 
 cates of this system, in order to make out a triple 
 order iw the ministry from the beginning, find it 
 necessary to place the apostles in the second or- 
 der, assigning the^r^^ order to the Saviour him- 
 self. This, according to their views, Avas the 
 state of things, when the apostolic office was crea- 
 ted, and characterized by its appropriate name. 
 But noAv, Avhen the object is to find the character 
 and office of a prelatical bishop in particular, the 
 apostles are brought before us, with their rank 
 and character entirely ahered — they are no longer 
 in the second order of the ministry, but belong to 
 the first! This unceremonious change in their 
 position is, no doubt, very convenient. But the 
 candid inquirer after truth, will be Hkely to ask 
 for the authority on which it is made. If an apos- 
 tle, by the call and appointment of Christ, was 
 one who belonged to the middle grade in the min- 
 istry, then it is impossible that, by the same au- 
 thority, and without any transmutation either of 
 name, or of office, he can belong to the superior 
 grade. And if, to cover the ground of this ab- 
 surdity, it should be said, that the apostles were 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 71 
 
 transferred, after their first vocation, from the 
 second grade to the first, we mquire — u'hen were 
 they transferred ? Wlw transferred them ? And 
 in what manner was the transfer made ? If these 
 questions can be answered, by pointing iis to any 
 record or notice of the change, we shall be satis- 
 fied. But this has not been done, and it never 
 can be. It is easy to say, that, before the ascen- 
 sion of Christ, they received a new commission — 
 conferring upon them new power, and elevat- 
 ing them to a higher office — but we want the 
 proof, and not the naked assertion. There is no 
 record, either of the fact itself, or of any thing, 
 from which it can be fairly inferred. 
 
 Besides, if the apostles ever were transferred 
 or ordained from a second, order in the ministry to 
 a superior one, where Avould be the propriety of 
 still calling them by the same name ? Does not 
 a change of name follow a change of rank, and 
 office, by a necessary consequence ? In the pre- 
 latical system, is a deacon still called a deacon, 
 after he becomes a priest ; and a priest still call- 
 ed a priest, after he becomes a bishop ? And if 
 not, why should an apostle — if this was his proper 
 title, when he belonged to the second order — be 
 still called an apostle, after he has entered upon 
 the first order ? Such are the strange incon- 
 
72 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 sistencies, to which it is necessary to resort, in 
 supporting this unscriptural and proofless scheme. 
 Nevertheless, it is still asserted and attempted 
 to be proved, that the apostles luere the highest 
 of three grades in the ministry, and that modern 
 prelatical bishops are their successors in office. 
 *' The real ground of our authority," say the Tract 
 writers, ^^ is oux apostolical descent^'' — "our bish- 
 ops are successors of the apostles.'''* Bishop On- 
 derdonk speaks of " the bishops, who succeed the 
 apostles.''^ And to these, I shall add a somewhat 
 extended passage, from Dr. Hicks on the Dignity 
 of the Episcopal Order — which will not only ex- 
 hibit the position taken, on this point, by the ad- 
 vocates of high-church episcopacy, but also illus- 
 trate the spirit, which this lofty claim is adapted 
 to engender — " Bishops are appointed to succeed 
 the Apostles; and, like them, to stand in Christ's 
 place, and exercise his kingly, priestly, and pro- 
 phetical office over their flocks. Can you, when 
 you consider this, think it novel, or improper, or 
 uncouth, to call them spiritual ^nVice^, and their 
 dioceses principalities, vv^hen they have every 
 thing in their office which 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, and 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 73 
 
 power to coerce them, if they will not obey." — 
 *' 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." — '' The successors of the apostles^ the bish- 
 ops, like sph'itual^rmces, exercise the same coer- 
 cive 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 corrected their dis- 
 obedience. 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 forbade to come farther than 
 the church doors, and those whom they did not so 
 degrade, they often suspended from the sacra- 
 ment. 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 enor- 
 mous, 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 APOSTOLIC ROD in the hands of their bishops^ 
 especially of excommunication, which they look- 
 ed upon as the spiritual ax and sword to the soul, 
 7 
 
74 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 and thought more terrible than death. "^ Here 
 is the true genius and tendency of the system ! 
 The fruit is in keeping with the nature of the tree ! 
 Establish the fact, in regard to any individual, 
 that he is a veritable successor of the great apos- 
 tles, and what degrees of prerogative and power, 
 in spiritual things, may he not be expected to 
 claim? You have put him on a level immeasura- 
 bly above that which is occupied by ordinary 
 men ; and before his high authority, Avho should 
 hesitate to bow with humble and unresisting sub- 
 mission ? 
 
 We proceed, however, to an examination of 
 the grounds, on which this enormous claim is sup- 
 posed to rest. — It is not maintained, of course, 
 that prelatical bishops are like the apostles in all 
 respects ; because, in this unqualified and naked 
 form, the claim would refute itself. They had 
 prerogatives and powers of certain kinds, which 
 none, since their day, have pretended to exercise. 
 And the first efl'ort of those, who advocate the 
 doctrine of an identity between them and modern 
 bishops is, to set aside, as not essential to the na- 
 ture of the apostolic office, all those things in re- 
 spect to which it is clearly impossible that other 
 persons could be supposed to resemble them. 
 The argument is, that the characteristic nature of 
 
 * Quoted by Powell, fr. Lond. ed. 1707, pp. 191, &c. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 75 
 
 their office is to be learned exclusively from their 
 commission; and their whole commission is sup- 
 posed to be contained in the following words — 
 " 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 observe 
 all things, whatsoever I have commanded you ; 
 and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end 
 of the world." Referring to this passage alone, 
 a distinguished defender of the system says — 
 " The authentic voucher of office is the commis- 
 sion. To the commission of the apostles, then, 
 we must refer you for the distinctive peculiarities 
 of their office. Whatever is not contained there- 
 in^ either expressly, or by necessary inference, 
 must be considered as not pertaining to the cha- 
 racteristic duties and powers of the apostles." 
 
 Now, if leave were granted to deal with the 
 apostolical office in this way, it is not denied, that 
 some portion of the absurdity, which must other- 
 wise attach to the claim in question, might be 
 avoided. Allow an individual to construct a pat- 
 tern to suit himself, and he may have no difficulty 
 in producing a likeness between one thing and 
 another. But where is the authority for dispos- 
 ing of the apostolical character, and office, in this 
 way ? We grant, if you please, that "the authen- 
 tic voucher of office is the commission'''' ; but the 
 
76 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 question arises here — Does the passage above re- 
 ferred to contain the only commission which was 
 given to the apostles ; or their commission, in 
 such a sense, as to exclude every thing else which 
 was said to them, in the way of indicating their 
 powers and duties ? Here lies a fallacy, to which, 
 it is important, your attention should be directed. 
 The word '' commission'''' is not a scriptural Avord, 
 in this relation ; and, in its technical sense, has 
 no application to this subject at all. The same 
 thing may be said of the word " office.'''' In their 
 unrestricted or popular meaning, there can be no 
 objection to the use of either. But, if we insist 
 upon confining the former to any one item of the 
 Saviour's directions to his apostles, as distinguish- 
 ed from others ; and the latter, to any particular 
 portion of the duties, or services, which he called 
 them to perform, we take liberties Avith the sacred 
 record which are unauthorised and unfair. Let the 
 word " commission" be understood so as to cover 
 all the declarations of Christ as to what his apos- 
 tles were to do, ivherever they are found ; and 
 the word " office," so as to include all the duties 
 and services Avhich, as his messengers, they were 
 expected to perform : and then we shall be in no 
 danger of going astray. 
 
 And is not this rule of interpretation obviously 
 and undeniably just ? Who has a right to single 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 7? 
 
 out one passage, from the multitude that bear on 
 the prerogatives and powers of the Apostles, and 
 dignify it with the name of their '' commission," 
 to the exclusion of all others ? If any distinction 
 is allowed, here, it should rather be in favor of 
 what was said, when they were first appointed. 
 Surely, the time of their ordination was the prop- 
 er time, for announcing the nature of the office to 
 which they were ordained. And yet, if we ad- 
 mit this, we are compelled to allow, that some 
 important things are included in their office, which 
 are not referred to, in the language uttered by 
 the Saviour immediately before his ascension. 
 The record states, that "He ordained twelve, that 
 they should be with him, and that he might send 
 them forth to preach, and to have power to heal 
 sicknesses and to cast out devils,''^ According to 
 this, to heal sicknesses, and cast out devils, were 
 things which they were expressly ordained to do ; 
 and, if they were ordained to do them, were they 
 not commissioned to do them ; and, if they were 
 commissioned to do them, were they not things 
 which formed a part of their office ? To acknow- 
 ledge this, would be fatal to the succession 
 scheme ; because these are prerogatives, in refer- 
 ence to Avhich, no hkeness could existheiween the 
 apostles, and any successors. And hence the 
 7* 
 
78 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 effort to restrict their commission and office to 
 such limits, as may suit the emergency. 
 
 In farther investigating the apostleship of pre- 
 latical bishops, then, we shall proceed, luithout 
 restriction, to set before you the various things 
 appertaining to their character and calling, as 
 they are referred to in the New Testament histo- 
 ry ; and shall show you, in relation to each in its 
 turn, that, in the nature of the case, they can have 
 no successors. 
 
 Bear in mind, as Ave enter upon this investiga- 
 tion, that the word " apostle" signifies a messen- 
 ger, or one who is sent. This is its general mean- 
 ing ; and, as applied to "///e tivelve,''^ it is re- 
 stricted by the expression, ''the apostles of 
 Christ.^^ With this restriction, it is never applied 
 to any others. Any one who is sent, may be 
 properly denominated an " apostle," without re- 
 gard either to the errand on which he is sent, or 
 the 'person who sends him. But an apostle of 
 Christ, is one who derives his character from the 
 fact, that he is sent by Christ himself, or that 
 Christ is the person who calls him to the service, 
 which he is directed to perform. 
 
 "We commence, then, by remarking, that no 
 one can be an apostle of Christ, who has not re- 
 ceived AN IMMEDIATE AND PERSONAL CALL FROM 
 
 Christ himself. This was the actual fact, in re- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 79 
 
 gard to every individual who belonged to the 
 apostolical college. There was no intervention 
 of any human, or angelic, agency in the matter — 
 no ordination by the imposition of hands — no ris- 
 ing through inferior grades by the performance of 
 any visible ceremony. The whole truth is stated 
 by Paul, when he calls himself " an apostle, not 
 of men neither by man, but by Jesus Christ,'''' 
 This carries us back to the account of the transac- 
 tion, as related by himself. Acts xxvi. He was 
 on his way from Jerusalem to Damascus, in the 
 character of a persecutor. A light shone around 
 him, at mid-day, above the brightness of the sun. 
 And he heard a voice speaking to him — which 
 was none other than the voice of Jesus whom he 
 was persecuting — and saying, '• I have appeared 
 unto thee /or this purpose^ to make thee a minis- 
 ter, and a witness, both of these things which thou 
 hast seen, and of those things in the which I Avili 
 appear unto thee ; delivering thee from the peo- 
 ple, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now / 
 send {d'jroffrs/iZu) thee.^^ Here is a distinct recogni- 
 tion of the fact, that he was made an apostle by 
 Christ, and that this was the one purpose for 
 which Christ appeared to him in this extraordina- 
 ry manner. Without this, he might have been 
 an apostle of soine other individual, but he could 
 not have been an apostle of Christ, — Similar to 
 
80 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 this, as to the source from which it came, was the 
 vocation of all the rest. Christ appeared to them 
 in person — spake to them with his own voice, 
 and said, " Come, follow me. And they arose, 
 left all, and followed him." 
 
 Here, then, we find, in the outset, a wide and 
 irreconcilable difference between the apostles of 
 Christ, and the superior order in the episcopacy 
 of modern times. The mode of introduction to 
 their work is not, and never can be, the same, un- 
 less the age of miracles should return. The for- 
 mer were called by Christ in pej'son, and were 
 raised to their station immediately ; but nothing 
 of this occurs in the appointment of prelatical 
 bishops. They have never heard the voice of 
 Christ, designating them to their office ; nor would 
 such a designation be consistent with the indis- 
 pensable requirements of their system. No pro- 
 ceeding could be more fundamentally uncannoni- 
 cal, than to appoint and consecrate as Bishop, 
 one who had not been previously both a Deacon, 
 and a Priest. And therefore, there is not only 
 the want of a perfect likeness, here, to the mode 
 of constituting the apostleship, but a dissimilarity 
 which extends to the most important and essential 
 feature. 
 
 The next thing we notice, as characterising the 
 apostles of Christ, is, that they received their 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 81 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS DIRECTLY FROM HIM, and wcrc there- 
 by qualified to speak with a degree of authority, 
 to which no other teachers could lay a reasonable 
 claim. Paul, in referring to the source from 
 which he derived his knowledge of the gospel, 
 says — "I neither received it of man, neither was 
 I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.'^'' 
 And this was equally true of those who wxre in 
 the office before him. What he received in a 
 more miraculous way, after the Saviour's ascen- 
 sion, they had learned from their personal inter- 
 course with him during his ministry upon earth. 
 They were called to be '^ tvith him,^^ before he 
 ^' sent them forth to preach"; and this implied, 
 that he was to be their instructor immediately and 
 personally. They were hence called emphatical- 
 ly " his disciples''^ — learners in his schoo] — per- 
 sons whom he had undertaken to teach, with a 
 view of qualifying them for the work on which 
 they were to enter, after his departure. And 
 this was the circumstance which prepared them 
 to speak with so much confidence, in delivering 
 the truth to their fellow men. " We have seen,^ 
 says the apostle John, " and do testify^ that the 
 Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the 
 world." None others had been furnished with 
 their opportunities of knowing the truth, and 
 therefore none could bear witness to it, with that 
 
82 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 air of assurance with which they were entitled to 
 speak. 
 
 And this presents another peculiarity, in respect 
 to which no likeness can be found to the charac- 
 ter and calling of modern bishops. They have 
 no means of access to the mind of Christ, which 
 are not free to all w^ho possess the scriptures. 
 The days of personal intercourse between men 
 and the Great Teacher are past. — He has taken 
 his departure from the earth — and the heavens 
 have received Him, " until the times of the resti- 
 tution of all things." 
 
 As in keeping with the source from which they 
 derived their instructions^ the apostles of Christ 
 were infallible as public teachers. They were 
 sure that what they communicated, in this capaci- 
 ty, was the truth of God ; and therefore they had 
 no hesitation in saying, in regard to the person 
 who should preach " any other gospel" than that 
 which they preached — though he should be "an 
 angel from heaven" — " let him be accursed^ If 
 they had been liable to the errors into which ordi- 
 nary men are prone to fall, they would have lack- 
 ed the necessary qualification for an essential part 
 of their work. Tliey were appointed to act " in 
 Chrisfs stead" — to carry out what he had begun, 
 in reference to the establishment of his church in 
 the world — to deliver to mankind such views of 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 83 
 
 truth as were to be the rule of faith and practice 
 till the end of time — or, in other words, to make 
 such additions to the Saviour's personal teaching 
 as were needful to complete the volume of that 
 *' scripture," which was to be appealed to forever, 
 as " given by inspiration of God." This was a 
 leading design of their calling — they were the 
 messengers, or missionaries, of Christ for this 
 purpose — and, faihng in this, they Avould not have 
 answered, either to their name, or to the end of 
 their appointment. 
 
 How, then, can any be regarded as their suc- 
 cessors in office, who are neither called to the 
 same work, nor possess the essential qualification 
 for its performance. If modern bishops would 
 establish their claim to an identity with them, let 
 them produce the proof of their infallibility as 
 teachers, and show that their instructions are en- 
 titled to be regarded as the word of God to all 
 the generations of men. Nothing short of this 
 can suffice, because nothing below this would fill 
 the place which was occupied by the apostles of 
 Christ. 
 
 Another thing, which the Apostles were "or- 
 dained" to do — and which must therefore have 
 been a part of their office — was to work mira- 
 cles; or, as expressed in the language used at 
 the time of their appointment, '' to heal sicknesses 
 
84 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 and to cast out devils,'^^ An office, embracing 
 this prerogative, was all imporant to the first esta- 
 blishment of the gospel. Miracles were needed 
 to prove, that its teachers were divinely sent. 
 They were visible evidences of the presence and 
 approbation of God; and, as furnishing proof that 
 no one unattended by such evidence could be 
 properly regarded as a true apostle, we find Paul 
 referring expressly to his miraculous works, as the 
 SIGNS of his apostleship. To the Corinthians he 
 says — '' Truly the signs of an. apostle were 
 wrought among you, in all patience, in signs, and 
 ivonders, and mighty deeds.'''' Those, therefore, 
 who claim a share in his office, are bound, in all 
 consistency, to produce the same signs. Let 
 them do this, and their claim will not be rejected; 
 but, failing to produce the signs, there surely can 
 be no cause of complaint, if the thing signified 
 should not be awarded upon the mere ground of 
 their unsupported pretensions. 
 
 It is no answer to this, to say that miraculous 
 powers were not pecidiar to the Apostles, but 
 were possessed and exercised by others, as Ste- 
 phen and Phillip, to whom the name " apostle" 
 was not given. This may be admitted, without 
 at all affecting our argument. The question is 
 not, whether such powers belonged to the Apos- 
 tles alo7ie, but whether an individual, who did not 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 85 
 
 possess them, could be an apostle ? Our position 
 is, that they Avere inseparably connected with the 
 office ; and that none, who could not appeal to 
 them, in proof of their mission, had any reason to 
 expect, that they would be received as apostles 
 of Christ. This, it is presumed, will not be de- 
 nied. And we therefore insist upon it, as fair 
 and scriptural, that, if prelatical bishops are unen- 
 dowed with miraculous power, the conclusion is 
 inevitable, that they have not succeeded to the 
 apostolical office. 
 
 In connection with miraculous power, as put 
 forth by themselves, they had also the prerogative 
 of conferring these powers upon others. Paul 
 laid his hands on certain disciples at Corinth ; 
 and, receiving the Holy Ghost, they " spake with 
 tongues and prophesied." And Peter and John 
 are represented, as having done the same, in the 
 case of those who received the word of God in 
 Samaria. — To this endowment, modern bishops 
 can make no pretensions ; and this interposes an- 
 other line of dissimilarity between their office, 
 and that of the Apostles. 
 
 Advancing another step, we find it to be a 
 prominent feature of the apostolical office, that 
 those who bore it were to be witnesses of the ^) 
 RESURRECTION OF Christ. This is declared, ex- 
 pressly, to have been the purpose for which they 
 8 
 
86 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 were '' chosen of God." And there is no other 
 end of then appointment so frequently and em- 
 phatically referred to. " Him," says the Apos- 
 tle Peter, " God raised np the third day and 
 showed him openly ; not to all the people, but 
 unto ivitnesses chosen before of God, even to us, 
 who did eat and drink with him after he rose from 
 the dead." Nothing could be more explicit than 
 this. And, after reading this passage, we may 
 well be surprised, that the ground should ever 
 have been taken, that, to bear witness to the re- 
 surrection of Christ, is no part of the office to 
 which the Apostles were called. 
 
 That the Apostles themselves understood this 
 to be the main thing to which they were set apart, 
 is sufficiently evident from the language of Peter 
 at the election of Matthias. He spoke, on that 
 occasion, of the apostacy and death of Judas, 
 who had been one of their number ; and of the 
 propriety of filling the vacancy, by the choice of 
 another. It was a fit occasion for showing who 
 were eligible to the office, as well as for pointing 
 out the true nature and desigyi of the office itself. 
 And, in reference to these points, his words are 
 these — "Wherefore, of these men which have 
 companied with us, all the time that the Lord Je- 
 sus Avent in and out among us, beginning from 
 the baptism of John, unto that same day that he 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 87 
 
 was taken up from us, must one be ordained to 
 be a witness avith us of his resurrection." This 
 is the same as to say — 'ive have been ordained, 
 to be witnesses of the resurrection of Christ — an- 
 other must now be ordained to this office, in the 
 room of Judas — and none are qualified^ but those 
 who companied with us, while Christ was among 
 us.' The clear import of this, in connection with 
 the former passage, is, that the apostles of Christ 
 were chosen to be '•^ ivith him'^ Avhile he lived, 
 and to " eat and drinkioith him after he rose from 
 the dead," that, after his ascension, they might 
 go forth into all the world, and testify, from their 
 personal knoivledge^ that he had risen from the 
 dead. 
 
 That this is the true interpretation, is farther 
 evident, from the circumstances attending the call- 
 ing of the Apostle Paul. He had not " compa- 
 nied" with those who had been the companions 
 of Christ, either during his life, or between the 
 events of his resurrection and ascension ; and, of 
 course, in the ordinary way, he could not be a 
 witness, from personal observatiou, to the fact 
 that he had risen. To supply what was wanting, 
 in this respect, therefore, a miracle must be 
 wrought. He must see the risen Jesus with his 
 own eyes, and receive instruction from him di- 
 rectly, before he could be an apostle. And, to 
 
88 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 this end, the ascended Saviour appeared to him 
 in the natural heaven, surrounded by a superna- 
 tural light — spake to him in an audible voice — 
 arrested him in his persecuting career — and turn- 
 ed his attention and affections to the new work to 
 which he was called. From that time he was 
 qualified to bear a part in the apostolical work : 
 because, as he himself expresses it, in reporting 
 the words of Ananias, he had been permitted to 
 ^' SEE that Just One," and '' hear the voice of his 
 mouth." He could now go abroad with the oth- 
 er apostles, and preach the resurrection of Jesus, 
 as a truth established by the testimony of his own 
 senses. And, accordingly, in referring to this 
 qualification afterAvards, he says — " Am I not an 
 apostle? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our 
 Lord"? 
 
 As in keeping with this view of the subject, it 
 appears, from the record of the subsequent labors 
 of these men, that the resurrection of Jesus was 
 their prominent theme — " This Jesus hath God 
 raised up, Avhereof we are ivitnesses^^ — " And we 
 are witnesses of these things" — " If Christ be not 
 risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith 
 is also vain. Yea and we are iound false loitnesses 
 of God ; because ice have testified of God that 
 he raised up Christ." This great truth is the key- 
 stone in the arch of the christian system ; and it 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSIOX. 89 
 
 was needful, that credible and well qualified wit- 
 nesses should be brought to support it. For this 
 purpose the apostles of Christ Avere chosen — to 
 this work they were ''ordained" — and, in refer- 
 ence to it, they could say, what could not be said 
 by others : " that which we have seen, and heard, 
 declare we unto you." 
 
 Need I remind you, that, in respect to this part 
 of their work, they could have no successors ; and 
 therefore, that the claim of prelatical bishops to 
 the inheritance of their office, must be set aside, 
 here also, as visionary and baseless ? If they are 
 in the same office, they are surely entitled to chal- 
 lenge the attention of mankind to the fact in the 
 same ivay ; and this would represent them as say- 
 ing — ' Are we not apostles ? Have we not seen 
 Jesus Christ our Lord ? We have testified of God 
 that he raised up Chrisfl But, as none would 
 venture upon the use of such language, neither 
 should any pretend that they are successors in 
 office to the individual, by whom it was uttered. 
 
 The only remaining fact, appertaining to the 
 office of the apostles of Christ, to wliich I refer 
 you, in this connection, is, that their number was 
 DEFINITE and SPECIFIED — thcrc wcrc ouly tavelve 
 — and this number was not to be increased. 
 '' Jesus said, have I not chosen you twelve''^? 
 And the ivord " twelve" was the name by which 
 8* 
 
90 Discourses on 
 
 they were constantly known. In the absence of 
 other proof, it might, indeed, be admitted as pro- 
 bable, that this name was intended only to mark 
 their number during the ministry of Christ. But 
 there are other passages which clearly show, that 
 this limitation of its meaning is not to be allowed. 
 In Matthew xix. 28, it is thus recorded — " And 
 Jesus said unto them, verily I say unto you, that 
 ye which have followed me in the regeneration, 
 when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his 
 glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judg- 
 ing the twelve tribes of Israel." Now, it mat- 
 ters but little, what these " thrones," and this 
 *' judging," maybe supposed to describe. It is 
 clear enough, in any event, that the scene is laid 
 at the end of the world ; and, while these words 
 refer to some distinction which is to be conferred 
 upon the apostles of Christ, the whole passage 
 proceeds upon the assumption, that their number 
 then, as it was in the beginning, will be only 
 " twelve^ There will still be a correspondence, 
 in this respect, between them, and the "twelve 
 tribes of Israel"; and therefore " twelve thrones" 
 will be sufficient for their accommodation. — Of the 
 same tenor is the passage which occurs in the de- 
 scription of the New Jerusalem, Rev. xxi. 14. 
 '' And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, 
 and in them the names of the twelve apostles of 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 91 
 
 the LambJ^ Here we are transported, not only 
 to the end of time, but to the visions of eternity. 
 " The first heaven, and the first earth," have pass- 
 ed away, and there is "no more sea" — " the ta- 
 bernacle of God is with men," and he dwells 
 *' among them" — "the great city, the holy Jeru- 
 salem," has descended "out of heaven from God" 
 — and " the nations of them which are saved walk 
 in the light of it": and still the number of the 
 apostles is only iivelve. This was their number 
 at first, and it will not be extended, either by the 
 events of time, or in the records of eternity. 
 
 It is no objection to this vicAv of the subject to 
 say, that the word " apostle" is actually applied, 
 in the New Testament, to several persons in addi- 
 tion to the original " twelve." In its unrestrict- 
 ed sense, as signifying in general a messenger, we 
 acknowledge this to be true. Any one who goes 
 on an errand of any description, at the bidding of 
 another, may be called an apostle, because he is 
 one who is sent. In this unofficial sense, it is ap- 
 phed to Epaphroditus: he is called the " messen- 
 ger" (aTToo'To/ov) of the church at Phillippi, because 
 he was sent by them, as the bearer of what they 
 had collected for the use of Paul, while he was in 
 bonds at Rome. Phil. ii. 25, and iv. 18. — This 
 is the sense in which it is applied to Christ, when 
 he is called " the Apostle, and High Priest of our 
 
92 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 profession." It designates him, in general, as 
 the sent of God — as the Messenger of Jehovah to 
 the inhabitants of our Avorld. — In the same sense, 
 it is apphed to Barnabas, who was "se/i^" on a 
 special mission in company with Paul. — But, in 
 its restricted and official sense, it is never applied 
 to any but " the twelve." They alone are called 
 *' THE apostles" — '' the apostles of Christ," and 
 '' the apostles of the Lamb," to distinguish them 
 from all inferior messengers who are, or may be, 
 sent by others. There are two cases, indeed, in 
 reference to which the attempt is made to show, 
 that these phrases do include others. T^h.^ first is 
 in Rom. xvi. 7, where Paul says — '' Salute An- 
 dronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, who are of note 
 'among the Apostles^ But this obviously means, 
 not that these persons were numbered ivith the 
 apostles, but only that they were held in high es- 
 timation by the apostles. The second is in the 
 first Epistle to the Thessalonians. In chap. i. 1, 
 Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus are represented 
 as uniting in the salutation to the Thessalonian 
 church. And, in chap. ii. 6, the following lan- 
 guage occurs — "Nor of men sought we glory, nei- 
 ther of you, nor yet of others, when we migh 
 have been burdensome as the apostles of Christ. '^^ 
 Here, it is said, that the word "zi^e" includes all 
 the persons who are mentioned in the salutation, 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 93 
 
 and that, speaking conjointly^ they call themselves 
 the apostles of Christ. But the answer to this is, 
 that, in this, as in all his other epistles, the Apos- 
 tle, in speaking of himself, uses sometimes the 
 plural " i(;e," and sometimes the singular " J," 
 — changing, not unfrequently, in the same pass- 
 age, from one to the other. Take an instance, 
 from chap. ii. 18, "Wherefore we w^ould have 
 come unto you, even I Paul once and again ; but 
 Satan hindered us." Another may be found in 
 chap. iv. 13 — 15. He also says, chap. v. 1, 23, 
 27, " /write unto you" — "/ charge you," &c.; 
 from all which it is undeniably evident, that the 
 epistle was not ^ joint communication, but as ex- 
 clusively the letter of Paul, as any he ever wrote. 
 When he uses the plural '^ we," therefore, in re- 
 ference to " the apostles of Christ," the fair in- 
 terpretation is, that he speaks of himself^ as one of 
 their number; and that his object, in the passage 
 referred to, is to state what he might have done, 
 if he had been so disposed, upon the ground that 
 he ivas an apostle, or in i;zV^?^e o/ the apostolic 
 office, with which he and his associates were in" 
 vested. 
 
 We believe it then, to be a position which can- 
 not be assailed with success, — that none are call- 
 ed indefinitely " THE apostles," " the apostles of 
 Christ," or " the apostles of the Lamb," except- 
 
94 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 ing '' the twelve^'''' who were ordained to their 
 work immediately and personally by Christ him- 
 self. 
 
 In taking this ground, however, we are not un- 
 mindful, that a difficulty may seem to present it- 
 self, growing out of the case of Paul himself. In 
 him, it may be said, we actually find a thirteenth 
 apostle ; since the place, vacated by the apostacy 
 of Judas, was filled by the election of Matthias, 
 before he was converted. This involves the dis- 
 puted question whether Matthias ever ivas num- 
 bered among '' the twelve," by divine direction? 
 The negative of this question is maintained by re- 
 spectable names ; and the more we reflect upon 
 the circumstances attending his election, the more 
 we incline to the belief, that this is the side on 
 which the truth lies. Dr. M' Night expresses 
 his opinion, without any reference to the general 
 subject we are now discussing, in the following 
 language, — '' One of the apostles, Judas by name, 
 having fallen from his office by transgression, the 
 eleven judged it necessary to supply his place ; 
 and, for that purpose, chose Matthias by lot. In 
 this, however, they acted not by the direction of 
 the Holy Ghost, for he was not yet given to them, 
 but merely by the dictates of human prudence, 
 which, on that occasion seem to have carried them 
 too far. No man, nor body of men whatever. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 95 
 
 could, by their designation, confer an office whose 
 authority bound the consciences of all men, and 
 whose duties could not be performed without the 
 gifts of inspiration and miracles. To ordain an 
 apostle belonged to Christ alone, Avho, with the 
 appointment, could also give the supernatural 
 powers necessary to the function. Some time, 
 therefore, after the election of Matthias, Jesus 
 himself seems to have superceded it, by appoint- 
 ing another to be his apostle and witness in 
 the place of Judas."* 
 
 These views are certainly too natural, and ad- 
 dress themselves too strongly to the understand- 
 ing of the unbiased reader, to be treated lightly. 
 And, in enlarging upon them, I ask your candid 
 attention to the following considerations. 
 
 1. The i7iterval of time, during which this 
 transaction occurred. It was the period between 
 the ascension of Christ, and the descent of the 
 Spirit. And the manner in which the apostles 
 were to spend this period, they were not left to 
 determine for themselves. They had received 
 directions on this subject from their ascending 
 Master. And what loere those directions ? Not 
 that they should go forward, at once, to any part 
 of the work to which they Avere called ; but that 
 they should "wait" — " wait /br the promise of 
 
 * Work on the Epistles, vol. i. p. 50. 
 
96 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 THE Father" — remain in quiet and prayerful ex- 
 pectation of the coming of the Holy Ghost, who 
 was to ^'omDE" them " into all truth," and indue 
 them with the qualifications necessary for their of- 
 ficial duties. But, instead of waiting, Peter, with 
 a precipitation characteristic of himself, proposed 
 the measure, which was carried out under his di- 
 rection, and which resulted in numbering Mat- 
 thias with the eleven apostles. 
 
 2. The PERSONS who ivere the active agents in 
 this transaction. It is common to speak of it as a 
 thing done by the apostles. But nothing could be 
 farther from the truth, as stated in the record. 
 Peter himself, is the only apostle mentioned : the 
 others might have been present, and perhaps 
 were; but there is no allusion made to them by 
 the historian, and therefore no proof that they 
 concurred in the election, either actively, or by an 
 expression of their assent. Supposing, however, 
 that they did co-operate, it is in vain to say, that 
 they were the persons who chose Matthias, or who 
 appointed the " two'^'' from whom the choice was 
 made. The narration states, that " Peter rose up 
 in the midst of the disciples," and that " the num- 
 ber of the names together were about an hundred 
 and twenty" — that ''they appointed two, Joseph 
 called Barsabas," &c. — that '' they prayed," 
 &c. — and that '' they gave forth their lots." 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 97 
 
 The thing therefore was not done by the apostles ; 
 but by a promiscuous assemblage of disciples suf- 
 ficient to outnumber them ten times, and of 
 course to control the result. And does it seem 
 consistent to suppose, that such a congregation 
 had the right, by divine authority, of controling 
 the appointment of an apostle of Christ ? 
 
 3. The MANNER in ivhich the tiling ivas done. 
 The propriety of the measure was suggested by 
 Peter, not as the result of any special revelation, 
 but as an inference^ drawn by him from a passage 
 in the book of Psalms, considered it its applica- 
 tion to the case of Judas ; — " It is written," he 
 says, '' in the book of Psahns, Let his habitation 
 be desolate, and let no man dwell therein ; and 
 his bishoprick let another take." " This scrip- 
 ture," he alleges, "must needs have been fulfill- 
 ed"; and his proposition was, to proceed to its 
 fulfillment at once. Now the question is, — was 
 Peter, at this time, an inspired man ; and was his 
 conclusion therefore infallible, that this was the 
 proper occasion, and that the one hundred and 
 twenty disciples present were the proper persons, 
 to carry out the prediction in the Psalms, by fill- 
 ing the vacancy occasioned by the death of Ju- 
 das ? " The Spirit ^''^ let it be remembered, ''was 
 not yet given.^^ Nothing had yet occurred, to 
 render Peter a different man from what he was, 
 9 
 
98 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 when he committed the mistakes, which are re- 
 corded of him as occurring on former occasions. 
 But a day or two previous to this, he had united 
 with the other apostles in asking the Saviour, 
 " Lord, wilt thou, at this time, restore again the 
 kingdom to Israel"? Their notions and hopes 
 respecting a temporal kingdom were still unre- 
 moved. The promised influence, which was to 
 rectify their views, and guide them ''into all 
 truth," had not yet come. And, under these cir- 
 cumstances, where is there any proof of a divine 
 sanction upon the results of Peter's reasoning in 
 respect to the appointment of an apostle ? 
 
 Besides, are there not evident signs of human 
 contrivance, rather than of divine direction, in the 
 indirect and circuitous manner in which the result 
 was arrived at ? There was no concentration of 
 opinion in the minds of the assembly in regard to 
 any particular individual. Peter directed their 
 attention in general to the class of persons, who 
 might be regarded as eligible to the office. They 
 then agreed upon "two," between whom, in 
 their opinion, the choice might properly lie. But, 
 unprepared in their own minds to designate ei- 
 ther, they finally referred the selection to the 
 Lord himself, by prayer and the casting of lots. 
 The difference between this, and any other re- 
 corded appointment to office in the church of 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 99 
 
 Christ, is so icide, that we find it difficult to re- 
 gard it as occurring under the superintendence 
 and direction of the Spirit of God. 
 
 4. The absence of any reference to Matthias 
 AFTER this — we never hear of him again. Not 
 that we regard this fact as conclusive of itself ; 
 because there are others of whom little or noth- 
 ing is said. Still, it is Avorthy of notice, as falling 
 in with the circumstances already mentioned. 
 The course of subsequent events was just what 
 might have been expected, upon the supposition 
 that the place of Judas was still vacant. In a 
 short time, the Spirit was poured out according 
 to the promise. Thus endowed, the Apostles 
 entered upon their work. And when the time 
 came for going beyond Judea, and occupying the 
 territory of the Gentiles, Saul of Tarsus was con- 
 verted — was called to the apostleship by Jesus 
 Christ himself — and was regarded, from that time, 
 as a member of the original apostolical family. 
 
 These are the aspects of the case of Matthias, 
 which present themselves on the face of the re- 
 cord ; and which seem to us to point significantly 
 to the conclusion, that his election was unauthor- 
 ized and invalid. — Nor does the objection appear 
 to us to be of any weight, that this view of the 
 subject has a tendency to impair our confidence 
 in the inspiration of the sacred history. The ob- 
 
100 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 ject of history is to record events as they occur- 
 red. The record itself is true to the facts in the 
 case ; and this is all that we have a right to ex- 
 pect. Examples might be easily produced to 
 show, that things are recorded in scripture, even 
 of good men, which were not as they should be, 
 and which are permitted to pass without any ex- 
 pression of censure. Silence, under such circum- 
 stances, cannot be construed into a sign of appro- 
 bation. We must judge of X\iQ propriety of the 
 things recorded, in the light of general principles, 
 and by comparing scripture with scripture. 
 
 We have dwelt upon this case, thus long, not 
 because it is essential to the integrity of our gene- 
 ral argument ; but because we think the facts in 
 regard to it are not commonly estimated as they 
 should be. We could afford to admit, that Mat- 
 thias loas an apostle, and that the original number 
 '' twelve''' was extended to a thirteenth in the per- 
 son of Paul, and still have points enough remain- 
 ing, in respect to which there can be no identity 
 between the apostolical office and that of prelati- 
 cal bishops. The difference is as wide, as be- 
 tween any other things which are opposite in 
 their nature, in all the other enumerated particu- 
 lars. Modern bishops are neither called directly 
 by Christ, as the apostles were — nor instructed 
 immediately by him — nor endowed with the pow- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 101 
 
 er of loorking miracles — nor clothed with wfalli- 
 bility as pubhc teachers — nor appointed to be eye- 
 ivitnesses of our Lorcfs resurrection — and there- 
 fore, whatever else may, or may not be true in 
 regard to them, they cannot be their successors in 
 office. 
 
 I take leave of this topic, by adverting to the 
 opinions of some of the most eminent advocates of 
 episcopacy, as coinciding with the doctrine we 
 have maintained in the progress of this discussion 
 — that the prelatical office is not to be found in 
 that of the apostles — for the reason, that the apos- 
 tles have not, and cannot have, any successors. 
 Dr. Barrow speaks in the following explicit and 
 decided language, — " The apostolical office, as 
 such, was personal and temporary ; and therefore, 
 according to its nature and design, not successive, 
 or communicable to others in perpetual descen- 
 dence from them. It was, as such, in all respects 
 extraordinary^ conferred in a special manner, de- 
 signed for special purposes, discharged by special 
 aids, endowed with special privileges, as was 
 needful for the propagation of Christianity and the 
 founding of churches. To that office, it was re- 
 quisite that the person should have an immediate 
 designation and cojnmission from GodJ^ — '' It was 
 requisite, that an apostle should be able to attest 
 concerning our Lord's resurrection''^ — '' It was 
 9* 
 
102 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 needful, also, that an apostle should be endowed 
 with miraculous gifts and graces.^'' — " In fine, the 
 apostleship was, as St. Chrysostom telleth us, a 
 business fraught with ten thousand good things; 
 both greater than all privileges of grace, and com- 
 prehensive of them. ^^ — " Now such an office, con- 
 sisting of so many extraordinary privileges and 
 miraculous powers, which were requisite for the 
 foundation of the church, and the diffusion of 
 Christianity, against the manifold difficulties and 
 disadvantages which it then needs must encoun- 
 ter, was not designed to continue by derivation ; for 
 it containeth in it divers things, which apparently 
 were not communicated, and which no man with- 
 out GROSS IMPOSTURE AND HYPOCRISY COULD CHAL- 
 LENGE TO HIMSELF."* To tliis may be added the 
 testimony of Dodwell, whose learning as well as 
 zeal in the support of prelacy, has not been sur- 
 passed. He says, — " The office of the apostles 
 perished ivith the apostles ; in which office, there 
 never ivas any succession to any of them, except 
 to Judas the traitor. ^^ And so clear is this to 
 the mind even of Bellarmine, the great champion 
 of the Papacy, that he asserts without qualifica- 
 tion, that " bishops have no part of the true aposto- 
 lical author iiy.^^-f 
 
 Thus far, then, the attempt to find a divine 
 
 * Works vol. vi. p. 129, &c. f Quoted by Powell, p. 49. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 103 
 
 warrant for prelacy, in the apostolical office^ fails 
 entirely. * 
 
 There is one important point, however, con- 
 nected with this part of the subject, which re- 
 mains to be examined. The advocates of the 
 succession contend, that the apostolical office was 
 exclusively the ordaining office — that, while the 
 apostles lived, they alone set apart other persons 
 to the ministry — and that, in the exercise of this 
 prerogative, the superior order of the episcopacy 
 may be^ and are their successors. This claim 
 will occupy our attention in the progress of the 
 next discourse ; in which, our endeavor will be 
 to show, that the succession scheme clothes the 
 matter of ordination with a degree of importance 
 which is not assigned to it in scripture — that such 
 as it is, however, this rite ivas performed by other 
 persons than the apostles, even while the apostles 
 lived — and, of course, that no aid can be derived 
 from this source, in support of the high preten- 
 sions Avhich this scheme is intended to establish. 
 
DISCOURSE IV. 
 
 THE NATURE OF ORDINATION— THE POWER OF ORDINA- 
 TION NOT PECULIAR TO THE APOSTOLICAL OFFICE— 
 PRELATICAL BISHOPS NOT THEIR ONLY SUCCESSORS IN 
 THE EXERCISE OF THIS FUNCTION. 
 
 I. Timothy, ii. 7. Whereunto I am ordaiued a preacher, and au 
 apostle. 
 
 I OFFER this passage to your notice, at the pre- 
 sent time, not because I propose to dwell upon it 
 exclusively, but only because it is one of several 
 passages in the New Testament which refer to 
 the subject of ordination — a subject which we 
 are necessarily called upon to examine at this 
 stage of our remarks on the general doctrine of 
 apostolical succession. 
 
 This doctrine, as we have already had occasion 
 to define it, is, that, in an unbroken line from the 
 apostles downward there has been a personal suc- 
 cession of bishops or chief pastors — that they suc- 
 ceed the apostles, as belonging to the highest of 
 
106 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 three grades of which the christian ministry is 
 supposed to consist — that they alone are clothed 
 with the power of governing the churches by a 
 general supervision, and especially of ordaining 
 others to the ministerial work — and that their or- 
 der, together with the inferior ones, is perpetuated 
 by one ordaining another in continuity from age 
 to age. 
 
 In this scheme, it will be seen at once, that eve- 
 ry thing depends upon the question, — Whether, 
 by the appointment of Christ and the authority of 
 scripture, there is any such superior grade in the 
 ministry at all, as that to which prelatical bishops 
 belong ? If there is not, the controversy is ended 
 — the chain of succession is not only defective in 
 itself, but without a hook at the superior end on 
 which it can hang — and the stupendous fabric of 
 the hierarchy vanishes into thin air, like a creature 
 of the imagination, when brought to the tests of 
 reality and truth. 
 
 Our object, in the last two discourses, has there- 
 fore been to test the grounds on which the scrip- 
 tural warrant for prelacy is supposed to rest- 
 And thus far we have failed to find any traces of 
 the bishop of this order, either by lumie or by of- 
 flee. The name we have disposed of finally ; but 
 various things, in regard to the office, are yet to be 
 considered. To show that the apostolical office 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 10*7 
 
 does not represent the office of a prelatical bish- 
 op, we have brought the distinctive features of 
 that office before you ; and have seen that, in 
 the language of Dr. Barrow, "it containeth in it 
 divers things, which apparently were not commu- 
 nicated, and which no man without gross impos- 
 ture and hypocrisy could challenge to himself." 
 But, other considerations apart, it is stoutly 
 maintained by the advocates of prelacy, that the 
 Apostles alone ordained — that this was the main 
 characteristic of their office — and that in respect 
 to this prerogative the possibility of succession 
 must be granted, while the fact of such succes- 
 sion as applied to prelatical bishops can be estab- 
 lished by satisfactory evidence. 
 
 This, then, is the point at Avhich we take up 
 the thread of the argument on the present occa- 
 sion. And, it will help not a little to clear our 
 way, if we advert in the outset to the real na- 
 ture and design of this rite of ordination, of 
 which so much is made by the advocates and sup- 
 porters of this scheme. 
 
 In the Romish system, ordination is exalted to 
 the grade of a sacrament. And we cannot see 
 that it occupies a much lower place, in the high- 
 toned prelatical system we are now considering. 
 One would really think, from the language in 
 which the advocates of this system speak, that 
 
108 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 there is something in the nature of this ceremony 
 which is awfully mysterious, and even inscruta- 
 ble ; something which lies beyond the ken of or- 
 dinary mortals ; and in regard to which, it is bet- 
 ter ' to believe than to reason.' They refer to it, 
 as if its invariable and sure effect were to imprint 
 upon the subject of it a new and indelible charac- 
 ter — introducing him into a new relation, both to 
 God and his fellow men — putting him in posses- 
 sion of something which, though invisible, intan- 
 gible, and incomprehensible, is yet real, and of 
 wonderful efficacy — clothing him with the power 
 of giving practical effect to the ordinances which 
 he administers — and doing all this with certainty, 
 without regard either to his moral character, or 
 his mental endowments. In virtue of the ' apos- 
 tolical grace' or the ' grace of the episcopal or- 
 der,' Avhich he thus receives, the sprinkhng of 
 water by his hands, in baptism, ensures regenera- 
 Hon — the bread and wine of the eucharist are 
 made to convey the real body and blood of the 
 Saviour to those who receive them — and the door 
 of the kingdom of heaven is opened to the peni- 
 tent and believing who receive these sacraments 
 at his hands, while none who renounce his autho- 
 rity can enter, unless in some way which the scrip- 
 tures do not reveal. If this is not going the ivhole 
 distance to Rome, it is certainly performing more 
 than half the journey ! 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 109 
 
 To convince you, that I have not misstated the 
 high-church doctrine in regard to ordination, es- 
 pecially as conferring these wonderful powers on 
 men Avithout any regard to their persojial charac- 
 ter and qualifieations, I ask your attention to the 
 following expressions of opinion, which are from 
 competent sources. " Theumuorthiness of man,''^ 
 say the Tract Avriters, " cannot prevent the good- 
 ness of God from flowing in those channels in 
 which he has destined it to flow ; and the chris- 
 tian congregations of the present day, who sit at 
 the feet of ministers duly ordained^ have the same 
 reason for reverencing in them the successors of 
 the apostles, as the primitive churches of Ephesus 
 and of Crete had for honoring in Timothy and in 
 Titus the apostolic authority of him who had ap- 
 pointed them." No. 5, p. 10, 11. — Rev. Henry 
 Melville, one of the most celebrated living preach- 
 ers, goes still farther, and is more explicit. Speak- 
 ing of Christ as the Chief Minister of his church 
 on earth, he proceeds to say, — " He has provided 
 by keeping up a Succession of men, who derive 
 authority in unbroken series from the first teach- 
 ers of the faith, for the continued preaching of his 
 word, and administration of his sacraments." * 
 * "You have no right, when you sit down in the 
 sanctuary, to regard the individual who addresses 
 you, as a mere public speaker, delivering an ha- 
 10 
 
110 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 rangue, which has precisely so much worth, as it 
 may draw from its logic and its language. He 
 is an ambassador from the Great Head of the 
 church, and derives an authority from this Head, 
 which is quite independent of his own worthiness. 
 If Christ remain always the minister of his church, 
 Christ is to be looked at through his ministering 
 servant, ivhoever shall visibly officiate. And 
 though there be a great deal preached^ in ivhich 
 you cannot recognize the voice of the Savioiw^ and 
 though the sacraments be administered by hands 
 which seem impure enough to sidly their sanctity ; 
 yet shall we venture to assert, that no man, who 
 keeps Christ steadfastly in view, as the ' minister 
 of the true tabernacle,' will ever fail to derive 
 profit from a sermon, or strength from a commun- 
 ion." * # " The ort^amec? preacher is a messen- 
 ger, a messenger from the God of the whole earth. 
 His mental capacity may be weak — that is nothing. 
 His speech may be contemptible — that is nothing. 
 His knowledge may be circumscribed — we say 
 not, that is nothing, but we say that, whatever 
 the man^s qucdifications^ he should rest upon his 
 office.^'' * * '' Whoever preaches, a congre- 
 gation would be benefitted, if they sat down in 
 the temper of Cornelius," &c. # * # <« If 
 wheresoever the minister is himself deficient and 
 untaught, so that his sermons exhibit a ivrong sys» 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. Ill 
 
 tern of doctrine^ you will not allow that Christ's 
 church may be profited by the ordinance of 
 preaching, you clearly argue that the Redeemer 
 has given up his office, and that he can no longer 
 be styled ' the Minister of the true tabernacle.' 
 There is no middle course, between denying that 
 Christ is the minister, and allowing that whatever 
 may be the faulty state77ients of his ordained ser- 
 vant^ no soul, which is hearkening in faith for a 
 word of counsel or comfort, shall find the ordi- 
 nance worthless, and be sent empty away.*' * * 
 ' ' We behold the true followers of Christ enabled 
 to find food in j)astures ivhich seem barren, and 
 water where the fountains seem dry. They ob- 
 tain, indeed, the most copious supplies — though, 
 perhaps, even this will not always hold good — 
 when the sermons breathe nothing but truth, and 
 the sacraments are administered by men of tried 
 piety and faith. But when every thing- seems 
 against them, so that, on a carnal calculation, you 
 would suppose the services of the church stripped 
 of all efficacy, then by acting faith on the head of 
 the ministry, they are instructed and nourished, 
 though in the main the given lesson be falsehood, 
 and the 'proffered sustenance Utile better than poi- 
 son.* 
 
 This passage speaks for itself. It proceeds up- 
 
 * Sermons, p. 44 — 4S. Lond. ed. 
 
112 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 on the supposition, that the whole constitution 
 and virtue of the christian ministry resides in the 
 act of ordination. Knowledge is nothing ! Mo- 
 ral character is nothing ! Personal piety is noth- 
 ing I Sound doctrine is nothing ! The mysteri- 
 ous gift, conferred in ordination, is every thing ! 
 In the performance of this ceremony, the hands 
 of the officiating prelate, to use the language of 
 another, '' become a sort of Leyden jar of spirit- 
 ual electricity," communicating the divine virtue 
 by personal and physical contact. But how ut- 
 terly ridiculous do such views appear, when 
 brought soberly to the tests of reason, and scrip- 
 ture ? If there is a new character, or divine vir- 
 ture, communicated in ordination, luhat is it? 
 What are its nature, and properties ? And where 
 is the evidence of the fact, that it is conveyed in 
 the manner alleged ? No one pretends to have 
 seen it — the person ordained is not conscious of 
 having received it — nor can others perceive, that 
 any alteration has occurred, in consequence of it, 
 either in his physical or moral nature. He is the 
 same person, in his external appearance, and in 
 all his mental and moral endowments, afterwards, 
 that he was before. He exhibits no increase in 
 the measure of his wisdom, of his knowledge, or 
 of his piety and purity of life. If he was igno- 
 rant and graceless, before the ordaining hands 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 113 
 
 were laid upon him, he is equally so, when they 
 are removed. "In a word," this mysterious qua- 
 lity supposed to be communicated in ordination," 
 " appears to be a non-entity^ inscribed with a very 
 formidable name — a very substantial shadow; 
 and dispute respecting it, appears about as hope- 
 ful, as that concerning the ' indelible character' 
 imparted in the unreiterable sacraments of the 
 E-omish church ; of which Campbell archly says, 
 — ' As to the ubi of the character^ there was no 
 less variety of sentiments — some placing it in the 
 essence oi the soul, others i\\ the under stayiding ; 
 some in the ivill, and others more plausibly in the 
 imagination; others even in the hands and 
 tongue; but, by the general voice, the body was 
 excluded. So that the Avhole of what they agreed 
 in amounts to this, that, in the unreiterable sacra- 
 ments, as they call them, something, they know 
 not ivhat, is imprinted they know not hoiv, on 
 something in the soul of the recipient, they know 
 not ivhere, which never can be deleted.' "* 
 
 As this " grace of ordination" is neither cogni- 
 zable by the senses, nor capable of being ascer- 
 tained by consciousness, it surely cannot be fair- 
 ly demanded of us, that we should believe in it, 
 unless it is clearly set forth in the Bible as an ob- 
 ject of faith. When we turn to this quarter for 
 
 * Ed. Rev., April, 1843. p. 270 Am. ed. 
 10* 
 
114 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 information, however, we find the matter of ordi- 
 nation to be one of the simplest and plainest of 
 all imaginable things. In the teachmg of the 
 sacred writers, it is referred to but seldom ; and 
 when it is brought into view, there is nothing said, 
 in the way of direct instruction, as to its nature 
 and importance — nothing, as to its imprinting a 
 new character, or imparting to the subject of it 
 any thing which he did not before possess — noth- 
 ing, which even prescribes any particular fonn of 
 it as indispensable. In short, there is no proof to 
 be found in their statements that ordination is any 
 thing more than a ceremony of inauguration, or 
 induction to office — performed upon the ground, 
 that the subject of it is supposed to be already/ 
 qualified for the performance of its duties. In 
 the few cases in which it is noticed, there are no 
 less than five different words employed to express 
 it ; and these are words which are generally ren- 
 dered by the English verbs to make, to place, to 
 be made, to choose, to constitute or appoint. See 
 Mark iii. 14. John xv. 16. Acts i. 22. Acts 
 xiv. 23. Titus i. 5. They all indicate the gene- 
 ral idea oi appointiyig to, or placing in office, and 
 nothing more. This is their popular meaning; 
 and their indiscriminate use affords sufficient 
 proof, that nothing more Avas intended to be de- 
 scribed than occurs in any case, when an individ- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 115 
 
 ual is appointed^ inaugurated^ set up^ or placed \\\ 
 office. 
 
 I know, therefore, of no better way of exhibit- 
 ing the true nature of this ceremony, than by ad- 
 verting to what occurs in any case of investiture 
 with civil office. Let it be the case of the Chief 
 Magistrate of our own country. The constitution 
 provides for his inauguration, or induction, in a 
 pubhc and formal way. He takes the oath of of- 
 fice, as administered by the Chief Justice ; and, 
 from that time, he is regarded as in the chair of 
 state, and invested with all the powers which ap- 
 pertain to this elevated and responsible station. 
 Now, in this case, what is the nature and effect 
 of the ceremony, through which the individual 
 passes ? Does it alter the personal character of 
 the man ? Has it any tendency to qualify him, 
 either in body or mind, for the duties he is called 
 to perform ? Instead of this, he is supposed to 
 have the necessary qualifications before his inaugu- 
 ration. Upon the supposed ground of his possess- 
 ing them, he has been nominated and elected by 
 the people ; and the ceremony in question is no- 
 thing more, than a visible and formal introduction 
 to the office, to which, by the constitutional pro- 
 visions, his way is already prepared. 
 
 If ordination to the ministry means any thing 
 more than this, we profess ourselves unable, ei- 
 
116 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 ther to understand it, or to find any authority on 
 which it can rest. It is a public and formal de- 
 claration, on the part of those Avho perform it, 
 that the subject is qualified for the office, and 
 ought to be so regarded and received by the 
 churches. Instead of imprinting a new character, 
 or imparting new powers, it proceeds upon the 
 assumption, that the appropriate character, and 
 the necessary powers, are already present. And 
 the only important respect, in Avhich it differs, in 
 its nature, from a case of civil investiture, is, that 
 it is a religious observance — it not only has respect 
 to an office, established for religious purposes, 
 but is accompanied with prayer to God for his 
 blessing upon the person, who is set apart to its 
 responsibilities and duties. With this view, the 
 tenor of the New Testament fully agrees. When 
 ordination is referred to there, it is only incideU' 
 tally ^ as a matter of history — no explanations are 
 given as to its nature — no commands are issued 
 enjoining its observance — no stress is laid upon 
 it, as communicating any thing essential. But, 
 while there is no effort towards challenging the 
 special attention of the reader to the mere act of 
 ordination^ there are other things^ in regard to 
 which the instructions are full, explicit, and earn- 
 est to the last degree. Sufficient care is taken to 
 inform us, what a minister of Christ must be; and 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSIOX. 117 
 
 yet, among all the enumerated particulars, there 
 is not one, which can be supposed to be commu- 
 nicated in ordination. He must be '' blameless," 
 *' of good behaviour," '' apt to teach," '' gii^en to 
 hospitality," not '^ covetous," nor '' greedy of fil- 
 thy lucre," not " given to wine," neither '' a 
 brawler," nor " a striker," but '' gentle unto all 
 men," '' in meekness instructing those that op- 
 pose themselves," &c. &c. These are things, in 
 regard to which there is no room left for misap- 
 prehension and mistake. They are not referred 
 to incidentally, but are put forth in the way of di- 
 rect instruction. They are repeated, enlarged 
 upon, inculcated by ' line upon line and precept 
 upon precept.' And is it not marvellous, if there 
 is something communicated in ordination, more 
 vital to the ministerial office than all these, that 
 no allusion to it should be found in the writings of 
 the very persons by whom these instructions were 
 delivered ? Surely, if there is any conclusion to 
 be drawn from their teaching on this subject, it 
 is, that our hope, in reference to a succession of 
 true ministers, must rest, not on any thing com- 
 municated in ordination, but on the moral and re- 
 ligious character, together with the mental endow- 
 ments, of those who, by means of this ceremony, 
 are introduced to the work. 
 
 Perhaps it may be thought by some, that, if 
 
118 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 these views are correct, there is 710 need of ordina- 
 tion — that the effect of our doctrine is to turn it in- 
 to an empty, idle, and unmeaning formahty — and 
 that, to be consistent, we must take the ground, 
 that it is not essential to a true and valid ministry 
 at all. To this we reply, that, while it is not the 
 thing which makes the ministry, or confers the 
 ministerial character and qualifications, it is 
 nevertheless an observance of great importance 
 in the raising up and regulation of the ministry. 
 It is eminently proper, for the sake of good order, 
 and for defending the churches against incompe- 
 tent and unworthy teachers, that those who are in 
 the oflice should judge of the qualifications of 
 those who have it in vieiv — that they should su- 
 perintend their training and preparation — and, at 
 the proper time, set them apart, and commend 
 them to the public regard and favor, in the way 
 which is sanctioned by scriptural example. This 
 is so clearly reasonable in itself, and so manifestly 
 in accordance with scriptural usage, that, under 
 ordinary circumstances, no one ought to be receiv- 
 ed as a minister of Christ, whose mission is not 
 authenticated in this way. — If we are required to 
 go farther than this, and to answer the question 
 categorically, whether there can be a true minis- 
 try, under any supposable circumstances, without 
 ordination ? we are still unable to perceive. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 119 
 
 that any formidable difficulty presents itself in our 
 way. We reply, without hesitation, in the affir- 
 mative. To be in possession of all that belongs 
 to the ministerial character, in the sight of God, 
 is one thing — the certification of this fact to men, 
 so far as it can be done by those Avho are already 
 in the office, is another thing. The certification 
 does not confer the character^ and yet, where a 
 ministry exists, it ought not to be dispensed with 
 — the person Avho should ivish to have it dispens- 
 ed with, in his own case, would furnish probable 
 evidence, in this circumstance alone, of a state of 
 mind in connection with which the proper charac- 
 ter could not be supposed to exist. But, if a case 
 were to occur in which no existing faithful minis- 
 try could be found, it would not be necessary, for 
 this reason, that the ministry should be forever ex- 
 tinct. Faithful preachers of the Gospel might 
 still be raised up, by the word and spirit of God, 
 v/ho, without any imposition of hands on the part 
 of men, might be honored and accepted, in the 
 work of turning many unto righteousness. Men 
 /lave preached acceptably, without ordination, and 
 they may do it again. Stephen and Phillip Avere 
 among the number, in apostolic times — so were 
 the " men of Cyprus and Cyrene," who were the 
 means of turning " a great number" to the Lord, 
 in Antioch — and so were multitudes of others in 
 
120 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 the primitive church : it is said of the christians 
 generally, who were dispersed from Jerusalem, 
 that they " went every where preaching the 
 ivorcl.^'' The truth is, that ecclesiastical power is 
 lodged, by the Head of the church, not with the 
 ministry^ but with the people — the body of the 
 FAITHFUL, in their associated state. And, if times 
 and circumstances come, in which there is either 
 no ministry at all, or the existing ministry become 
 universally corrupt, they are perfectly competent 
 to retire upon their original rights, and to see that 
 a ministry, of appropriate character and gifts, is 
 raised up among themselves. A State, in a simi- 
 lar position, would not allow the doctrine of per- 
 sonal succession to interfere with the choice of 
 persons to administer its affairs ; and there is 
 no reason why the Chwch should be cramped, by 
 a less convenient and liberal rule. 
 
 It may occur to you, perhaps, that I have 
 dwelt longer on this part of the subject than was 
 needful; and I can justify myself, in consuming 
 so much of your time on so plain a case, only by 
 the fact, that the point in question is a vital one, in 
 that scheme of succession which we are opposing. 
 The doctrine is, that acts of ordination, perform- 
 ed in succession, are the true and only links of 
 the chain, along which the ministerial character 
 descends — that the imposition of hands, by a bish- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 121 
 
 op, is what makes a man a minister of Christ, and 
 that nothing else does — and that this effect fol- 
 lows, with equal certainty, whether the subject 
 be a true servant of Christ hke Paul, or a servant 
 of the Devil like Judas. So that, the moment 
 we deprive ordination of the mysterious power 
 which is thus ascribed to it, and convert it into 
 the plain thing which all men understand a cere- 
 mony of inauguration to be, we have inflicted a 
 wound upon the succession scheme which it can- 
 not survive — we have taken away the corner- 
 stone of its foundation — and, having nothing to 
 support it, the superstructure must fall to the 
 ground. 
 
 Having thus adverted to the nature of ordina- 
 tion, we proceed, in the line of our argument, to 
 say, that there is no evidence ivhatever that the au- 
 thority to ordain ivas coinmitted exclusively to 
 THE Apostles, or to any set 0/ chief pastors, be- 
 longing to a higher grade than that of presbyters, 
 or parochial pastors. If there is such evidence, 
 in the teaching or history of the New Testament, 
 it will not be difficult to find it. The point which 
 it would go to establish is an important one ; and 
 we may expect to see it presented too prominent- 
 ly and plainly to admit of any mistake. And yet, 
 we may read the sacred record from beginning to 
 end, with never so much attention and care, and 
 11 
 
122 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 be compelled to confess, Avhen we have done, 
 that we have not found a line, or sentence, which 
 even looks in this direction. We may go back 
 to the original appointment of the Apostles, as 
 the account is written in the Gospel by Matthew, 
 and repeated by Mark and Luke — or we may go 
 to the instructions which they received from the 
 lips of Christ, after his resurrection, and imme- 
 diately before his ascension to heaven — and we 
 shall not ifind the slightest evidence, that any 
 thing ever passed between their Divine Master 
 and them on the subjeet of ordination at all : there 
 is an unbroken silence in regard to the whole 
 matter ! 
 
 I know it will be said, here, that the ordaining 
 power may be considered as fairly included in the 
 terms of the Saviour's final commission. And 
 this presents us with another specimen of the 
 shifts which are resorted to, in supporting the 
 cause of prelacy. When, in order to make room 
 for a prelatical succession, the object is to show 
 that the apostles coidd have successors, we are 
 told, in regard to a variety of things which are 
 expressly referred, to in scripture — such as work- 
 ing miracles, bearing eye-witness to the resurrec- 
 tion, &c. — that they were no part of the apostoli- 
 cal office. But now, when the particular object 
 is to magnify the ordaining power, and to confine 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 123 
 
 it to the apostles, we are directed for the proof, 
 that it was committed to them, and to them alone, 
 to a declaration, in which there is no reference to 
 it at all I That the apostles did ordain we grant ; 
 but that the right to perform this ceremony was 
 ever lodged with them, either expressly or exclu- 
 sively^ we deny. And we call upon those who 
 make the assertion to bring us the evidence. 
 There is not a ivord on the subject, either direct 
 or indirect, in the language of the commission al- 
 ready referred to. Read it again, and see — " 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 observe all 
 things, Avhatsoever I have commanded you : and 
 lo, I AM with you always, even unto the end of 
 the world." Observe the emphatic words, and 
 then say, whether a mind unwarped by prejudice 
 could ever have drawn from this passage any 
 thing like a doctrine or precept on the subject of 
 ordination. If ordination, by the imposition of 
 particular hands, is that important thing which 
 prelatists suppose — if, in one form of it only, it is 
 that essential rite without which a ministry cannot 
 exist, and be perpetuated — is it credible, that the 
 Head of the church would have left us to ascer- 
 tain the fact hy inference, instead of declaring it 
 expressly ? To our minds, the silence of the as- 
 
124 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 cending Saviour on this subject, is in perfect keep- 
 ing with the views of ordination we have already 
 expressed. His mind did not dwell upon this 
 ceremony as being, in any of its relations, of fun- 
 damental importance. Regarding it as a mere 
 form, he did not think it expedient to bring it into 
 view, in connection with the greater things of 
 which he had to speak. It was one of those mat- 
 ters which might be safely left to the judgment 
 and discretion of his church in after times; and 
 he therefore departed from the world, without ad- 
 verting to it at all. It is a perfectly gratuitous 
 assumption, therefore, that the power of ordaining 
 was committed exclusively to the Apostles. 
 When they performed this ceremony, they did it 
 — not as belonging to a particular grade in the 
 ministry — nor in consequence of any particular 
 injunction laid upon them in reference to it — but 
 on the general ground of the natural propriety 
 and fitness of the thing itself, and in conformity 
 with the usage which was common in all cases of 
 appointment to office, whether ecclesiastical or 
 civil. With ordination, as practiced in the Jew- 
 ish Synagogue, they had long been familiar : and 
 it required no direct instruction, to suggest to their 
 minds the propriety of setting apart teachers, in 
 the christian church, in the same w^ay. 
 
 We have thus offered, what we think should be 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 
 
 i2h 
 
 regarded as proving clearly, that the ordaining 
 power was not committed by Christ exclusively 
 to the Apostles. And, as going to strengthen the 
 general conclusion at which we are aiming, we 
 now say, farther, that this power actually luas ex- 
 ercised by OTHER PERSONS thciii the Apostles ; and 
 by persons, who could not be supposed to be of a 
 superior grade in the ministry to presbyters^ ox pa- 
 rochial pastors. We can even find a case, in the 
 New Testament history, in which an Apostle 
 was set apart to his work, by the imposition of 
 hands, under circumstances which render it cer- 
 tain, that the ordainers Avere persons on whom 
 the apostolic office had not been conferred. You 
 will find what I refer to, in this remark, in Acts 
 xiii. 1 — 3. " Now there were in the church that 
 was at Antioch, certain prophets and teachers ; 
 as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, 
 and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had 
 been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and 
 Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fast- 
 ed, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas 
 and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called 
 them. And when they had fasted and prayed, 
 and laid their hands on them, they sent them 
 away." How completely does this reverse the 
 order of things, which prelatical arguments are in- 
 tended to estabhsh ? If Paul had been the ordainer, 
 11* 
 
126 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 and the other persons mentioned the ordain- 
 ed, the transaction might have been in keeping. 
 But that he, who was " not a whit behind the ve- 
 ry chiefest apostles," should have received ordi- 
 nation at the hands of persons who were never 
 raised to the same office, is certainly adapted to 
 awaken suspicion as to the prevalence of prelati- 
 cal views in the apostolical college I 
 
 This case, as it presents itself to the reflecting 
 reader, is so entirely fatal to the whole high 
 church system, that there is no security but in de- 
 nying' that this was an ordination. This is ac- 
 cordingly done. Paul, it is said, had been a 
 preacher of the gospel before this ; and this was 
 nothing more than the destination of himself and 
 Barnabas to a particular field of labor. But 
 where shall we go to find the characteristics of an 
 ordination, if they are not to be found in connec- 
 tion with this transaction ? And what use can 
 there be in arguing with those, who insist upon 
 any thing more, as essential to an ordination 
 scene, than is embraced in separation to the work 
 of the ministry, by the imposition of hands, ac- 
 companied by fasting and prayer. It may serve 
 a purpose, to say, that this was not an ordination ; 
 but, if a thing is to be known by its properties, it 
 could not have been any thing else. It matters 
 not, as to this point, whether Paul had preached 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 127 
 
 the gospel before this or not — that he had, we do 
 not doubt. After receiving the Holy Ghost, at 
 the time of his conversion, he began at once to 
 preach the faith he had endeavored to destroy. 
 He continued to do this, for a while, among the 
 Hebrews and Grecian Jews. But, when the 
 time came for him to go to the gentiles, agreeably 
 to his original appointment, he was set apart by a 
 human ordination. The words of the Holy Ghost 
 are significant — " Separate me Barnabas and 
 Saul for the work ivhereunto /have called thenC^ 
 — clearly implying, that they had been called be- 
 fore this ; and that what was now done, was their 
 visible and formal introduction to the work to 
 which the call related. As corroborating this 
 view, let it be remembered, that Paul is never 
 called an apostle, till after this transaction ; nor 
 was he known before this, by his neio name. 
 Saul was the name he bore, up to this event ; but 
 immediately afterwards, he is called Paul, Acts 
 xiii. 9. And we see not how these things are to 
 be accounted for, but on the supposition, that he 
 was now set apart to that ministerial and mission- 
 ary work among the gentiles, to which he was 
 called, at the time of his conversion. Indeed, the 
 correctness of this interpretation is not denied by 
 the most eminent episcopal writers. Lightfoot 
 says, — '' The Lord did hereby set down a plat- 
 
128 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 form of ordaining ministers in the church of the 
 gentiles to future time." Archbishop Wake 
 says, — " Thus Paul, though he was called to be 
 an apostle, not by man, but by Jesus Christ, was 
 yet consecrated to he an apostle, by the ordinary 
 form of imposition of hands, after he had preach- 
 ed in the church for some time before." And 
 the following are the words of Skelton, — " So sa- 
 cred a thing is the succession of ordination, that 
 the Holy Ghost, who had already enabled Barna- 
 bas and Saul to preach the word, ordered them 
 to be separated for the work Avhereunto he had 
 called them, by fasting, prayer, and the imposi- 
 tion of hands." ^ 
 
 It is proper to say, farther, in relation to this 
 case, that the attempt is sometimes made to es- 
 cape its fatal bearing upon the exclusive right of 
 the apostles to ordain, by taking refuge in the sup- 
 position, that Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen, who 
 performed the ceremony, belonged to the apostol- 
 ic order. The words " prophets and teachers," 
 it is said, indicate nothing certain in regard to 
 their rank — they may have been persons who had 
 been consecrated, by other apostles, to the high- 
 est ministerial grade. But, in answer to this, it is 
 sufficient to refer to the New Testament list of 
 official names, and see where the apostles are 
 
 # See these, and many others, in Smythj p. 176. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 129 
 
 placed, in their relation to others. " And God 
 hath set some in the chnrch ; first apostles, sec- 
 ondarily prophets, thirdly teacher s,^^ &c. 1 Cor. 
 xii. 28. Precisely the same order is observed in 
 Eph. iv. 11. And, in view of this, who can be- 
 lieve, that the persons named above wonld have 
 been called "prophets," and "teachers," if they 
 had been " apostles"? The trnth is, that they 
 were ministers of the gospel, who were officiat- 
 ing at the time in Antioch — they preached to the 
 people ; and, in this capacity, "were " teachers," 
 — some, and perhaps all of them, possessed the 
 gift of prophecy, which was not uncommon in the 
 primitive church, and Avere therefore " prophets." 
 And the Holy Ghost, without intimating that the 
 power of ordaining belonged to any particular or- 
 der, directed them to set apart two, one of Avhom 
 was, from that time, the highest in the list of apos- 
 tolical names. — While this record remains, it will 
 be in vain to say, that the ordaining power was 
 confined to the apostolical order. 
 
 Nor is this the only case, which bears upon the 
 same point. The ordination of Timothy, not- 
 withstanding all the efforts which have been made 
 to get rid of so troublesome an example, must 
 stand forever as perfectly decisive. " Neglect 
 not the gift that is in thee," says Paul, " which 
 was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on 
 
130 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 of the hands of the presbytery'''^ ; yes, my hearers, 
 by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery 
 — a most annoymg sound, m the ears of those 
 who are for confining the right of ordination to 
 prelatical bishops ! To admit that the passage 
 means what it says, would, of course, be fatal. 
 And hence, we are put to the task of defending 
 its obvious meaning against as many, and as for- 
 midable objections, as human ingenuity can de- 
 vise. How valid these objections are, you shall 
 see. 
 
 We are told, as in the case of Barnabas and 
 Saul, that this imposition of the hands of the pres- 
 bytery on Timothy, was no ordination. This is 
 one of the grounds taken by Bishop Onderdonk, 
 in his Episcopacy Tested by Scripture. He pro- 
 fesses to look at the passage calmly, and candidly ; 
 and is not able to see, in the description which it 
 gives, any certain evidence of an ordination scene. 
 What certain persons can see, however, depends 
 very much upon what they ivish to see. And, as 
 a curious illustration of the truth of this remark, 
 we find, that the same eyes that can detect no or- 
 dination, here, can discern such a transaction 
 with perfect distinctness, in other places, where 
 common eyes would certainly fail to discover it. 
 They can see, for instance, that the twelve apos- 
 tles entered, first, upon the office of Deacons — 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 131 
 
 that, afterwards, they were ordained as Priests, 
 or Fresbyters — and that, finally, by another ordi- 
 nation, they were elevated to the still higher grade 
 of Bishops^ in the prelatical sense. The follow- 
 ing is the curious passage, in which this view is 
 presented — ''We have seen, that 'the twelve' 
 had at first the right only to preach, and baptize ; 
 which made them deacons in office, according to 
 St. Paul's standard, though, like " the seven," 
 without the name : there being as yet no occasion, 
 they did not act as almoners ; or rather, if fanci- 
 ful, it is nothing worse, to allege that this diaco- 
 nal function ivas adumbrated in their distributing 
 the provisions, luhen Jesus fed the midtitudes. 
 After serving in this lower ministry, "the tAvelve" 
 received the power of the keys ; by which promo- 
 tion they attained the " good degree," and were 
 commissioned to the " good work" of presbyter 
 BISHOPS. All this occurred, before the death of 
 our Lord. Afterward, after his resurrection, the 
 eleven were commissioned a third time ; Christ 
 "breathed" on them, and said, "Receive the 
 Holy Ghost"; they thus obtained a further,' and 
 of course, a higher power of the keys." — " This 
 third commission made the apostles more than 
 they were before ; more than presbyter bishops, 
 which they became, on acquiring their first pow- 
 er of the keys; in other words, it made them 
 
132 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 APOSTLE BISHOPS, or BISHOPS PROPER."^ It tlius ap- 
 pears, that what is equivalent to two successive or- 
 dinations can be found in passages, on the face of 
 which there is no reference to the subject at all, 
 while no traces of such a transaction are to be 
 seen in the formal laying on of the hands of a 
 presbytery ! But, seriously, if this was not an 
 ordination, where shall we find one? and by 
 what marks shall we know it, when we do find 
 it? We cannot help thinking, that, if the pass- 
 age had read " with the laying on of the hands of 
 AN APOSTLE," iiistcad of " the hands of the ^re5- 
 hytery^'' the essential features of an ordination 
 ceremony would have been seen, distinctly, by 
 those to whom they are now invisible ! 
 
 Another attempt is made to escape the legiti- 
 mate bearing of this passage, by alleging, that 
 the word " presbytery" means the office to which 
 Timothy was ordained, and not the persons who 
 ordained him ; so that the passage Avould read — 
 '' with the laying on of hands to confer the pres- 
 byterate^'' or presbytership, or the clerical office. 
 There are not many writers of reputation, it is 
 true, Avho venture upon this ground. And we 
 ask those who do, to point us to any other place 
 in the New Testament, in which the word trans- 
 lated " presbytery" is used to signify the office^ as 
 
 * Ep. Examined, p. 243. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 138 
 
 distinguished from an assembly of the persons by 
 whom the office is filled. If the word had been 
 Ilpsrtsiov, the iiitepretation in question might be 
 sustained ; but npsc^urepiov is uniformly employed 
 to designate the senate^ or council, of the officers, 
 and not the offi,ce itself. See Luke xxii. 66, and 
 Acts xxii. 5, where it is applied to the sanhedrim, 
 or council of the elders. — Besides, if Timothy was 
 ordained to the presbyter ate, or the office of pres- 
 byter, what ihen becomes of the pretension, that 
 he was a prelaticcil bishop? This, be it remem- 
 bered, is a favorite position in the episcopal 
 scheme. It is constantly and zealously maintain- 
 ed, that his rank was that of an apostle, and that 
 he was the apostolical bishop of Ephesiis. To 
 give this up, would seem to most of the friends of 
 prelacy, like surrendering their cause. And yet 
 it must be given up, if Timothy's ordination was 
 only to the presbyter ate. This would place him 
 in the middle grade of the hierarchy, and thereby 
 annihilate his claim to the possession of prelatical 
 power, either in Ephesus, or any where else. 
 
 Once more, it is objected, that, even supposing 
 this to have been an ordination, and the word 
 *' presbytery" to refer to the persons concerned 
 in the transaction, it cannot, after all, be proved to 
 have heennp?'esbyterian ordination — that, though 
 the hands o^ presbyters were laid on Timothy, still 
 12 
 
134 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 there is good reason for believing that he was or- 
 dained, not by a " presbytery," but by a prelate I 
 One would think, indeed, that the attempt to es- 
 tablish a position, so directly contradictory of the 
 fact stated in the record, Avere rather adventurous ; 
 but any thing, rather than admit that presbyters 
 have a right to ordain. Paul, in his second epis- 
 tle to Timothy^ chap. i. v. 6, thus writes, — 
 *' Wherefore 1 put thee in remembrance, that 
 thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee, 
 by the putting on of my hands." Here, it is said, 
 we find the true source, and virtue, of Timothy's 
 ordination ; it was in Paul, and not in " the pres- 
 bytery": Paul was an apostle : he belonged to the 
 superior grade in the ministry : and he was the 
 one, who really performed the ceremony, and 
 gave it all its vaUdity, while the presbyters im- 
 posed their hands merely as a sign of concurrence, 
 or approbation. This would, no doubt, answer 
 very well; but the difficulty lies in the proof. 
 This reasoning takes for granted the very thing to 
 be proved; and that is, that the virtue of the or- 
 daining power resided exclusively with the apos- 
 tles. This is what we deny ; and we say, that 
 these passages, which refer to Timothy, do not 
 contain a tittle of evidence that Paul had any 
 more efficient concern in his ordination than the 
 rest. " The gift" which he had received is as- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 135 
 
 cribed, just as fully, in one case, to the laying on 
 of the hands of the presbytery^ as it is, in the oth- 
 er, to the putting on of the hands of the apostle. 
 And who has a right to say, in view of this fact, 
 that the presbytery Avas nothing in the transaction, 
 and that the apostle was every thing ? If we sup- 
 pose that the virtue of the ordaining act resided 
 in the presbytery as a body, and that the apostle 
 refers to the laying on of his hands as one of the 
 presbytery, and especially as the presiding meni' 
 ber, then the two passages are consistent with 
 each other, and the view presented is in perfect 
 harmony with presbyterian ordinations, as they 
 always occur. But, if w^e suppose that the whole 
 virtue of the act was with the apostle, and that the 
 presbytery only concurred, then we make the re- 
 cord affirm, that Timothy received a gift, at the 
 hands of the Presbytery, which, in point of fact, he 
 did not receive from them at all, either in whole 
 or in part, but altogether from the hands of a sin- 
 gle individual. It is perfectly gratuitous, there- 
 fore, to say that the apostle was the ordainer, in 
 any sense which did not apply as fully to all con- 
 cerned ; and the case remains, as furnishing indu- 
 bitable proof, that the ordaining power ivas exer- 
 cised, in the primitive church, by presbyters, as 
 well as by apostles. 
 
 There is a criticism sometimes resorted to, for 
 
136 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 the purpose of showing that Paul's agency in this 
 ordination was of a higher kind than that of the 
 presbytery, which deserves a passing notice. It 
 is said, that the apostle himself makes a distinc- 
 tion, thus, — " by the putting on of my hands" — 
 *' ivith the laying on of the hands of the presbyte- 
 ry." The word <5ia (by,) it is alleged, signifies 
 emphatically the cause of a thing; while M-sra 
 {with) denotes concurrence^ or agreement; and 
 this difference, in the form of expression, is sup- 
 posed to imply, that Paul was the efficient ordai- 
 ner, while, on the part of the others, there was 
 merely consent. — Any one who desires to see the 
 argument, drawn from this distinction, reduced to 
 less than iiothing-, may find it disposed of to their 
 satisfaction, in Dr. Mason's Essays on Episcopa- 
 cy.^ In testing the truth of the assertion, '' that 
 Sia always signifies emphatically the cause of a 
 thing," he refers to the following examples — " It 
 is easier for a camel to go through [Sia] the eye of 
 a needle," &c. — " Jesus went through ((5<a) the 
 cornfields" — " And again he entered into Caper- 
 naum, after (Sia) some days." And, in reference 
 to these cases, he inquires, — ''What cause does 
 the preposition Sia express here ? Does it signify 
 emphatically, the cause of the needle's eye ? or 
 of the cornfields ? or of the days ? or the cause of 
 
 * Works vol. iii. p. 156^ &c. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 137 
 
 the camel's going through the first ? of our 
 Lord's going through the second ? or of his spend- 
 ing the third before he went into Capernaum"? 
 These inquiries point us, at once, to the utter ab- 
 surdity of this whole criticism, and therefore of 
 the argument, which is founded upon it. 
 
 The general conclusion, then, to which we are 
 conducted, in respect to the ordaining power, is, 
 that it did not reside icitli the apostles exclusively^ 
 but was exercised, also, by those who had attain- 
 ed to no higher grade than that of presbyter. 
 This, we believe, is the only grade of ministerial 
 character and office, which is known to the New 
 Testament. The apostles, in their character as 
 apostles, had no equals, and no successors — they 
 were special messengers of Christ, for the perform- 
 ance of a special Avork — and, when their work 
 was done, the necessity for their special endow- 
 ments, and prerogatives, passed away. But, in 
 respect to any part of their work, which was to 
 be of permanent duration — such as preaching the 
 gospel, administering the ordinances, setting apart 
 others to the ministerial office, &c. — they stood 
 on the same level with all the other elders, or 
 presbyters, who labored in company with them. 
 
 Their position is defined with sufficient clear- 
 ness, by the Apostle Peter, w^hen he says, — 
 ** The elders which are among you, I exhort, ivJio 
 12* 
 
138 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 am also an elder." The grade to which he be- 
 longed is thus designated by himself; and what 
 is it ? Is it the grade of a prelate ? Is it the 
 grade of one, who is appointed to rule presbyters, 
 as well as to govern churches ? Or is it the grade 
 of a presbyter, or parochial pastor ? His own 
 view of the matter is clear. He was an apostle 
 of Christ — he was sent, by the great Lord and 
 Master of all, upon a special mission — he was 
 commissioned to do, in many respects, an extra- 
 ordinary work — and was therefore endowed with 
 many extraordinary qualifications. But, in refer- 
 ence to the standing work of the ministry, in 
 which other elders were engaged, he was " also 
 an elder"; and, without any disarrangement of 
 established ranks and orders, he could come and 
 take his place among them — this was the class to 
 which he belonged — this was the only office, in 
 reference to the ordinary ministry of Christ, which 
 he sustained. The only difference between him 
 and others, was, that he was an elder under the 
 guidance of inspiration — an elder who could 
 speak and write infallibly — and an elder who was 
 chosen to be an eye-witness of the resurrection of 
 Christ. 
 
 The names and titles, which are given in scrip- 
 ture to preachers of the gospel, are not names of 
 different grades, but different names which are 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 139 
 
 applied to one and the same grade ; and these 
 names are descriptive of the different aspects, in 
 which this office and work may be viewed. The 
 state of the case is well presented, in the follow- 
 ing extract from the constitution of the Presbyte- 
 rian church — ^^ The pastoral office is the ffi'st, in 
 the church, both for dignity and usefulness. The 
 person who fills this office, hath, in scripture, ob- 
 tained different names expressive of his various 
 duties. As he has the oversight of the flock, he 
 is termed bishop. As he feeds them with spirit- 
 ual food, he is termed pastor. As he serves 
 Christ in his church, he is termed minister. As 
 it is his duty to be grave and prudent^ and an ex- 
 ample of the flock, and to govern well in the 
 house and kingdom of God, he is termed presby- 
 ter, or elder. As he is the messenger of God, 
 he is termed the angel of the church. As he is 
 sent to declare the ivill of God to sinners, and to 
 beseech them to be reconciled to God through 
 Christ, he is termed ambassador. And as he dis- 
 penses the manifold grace of God, and the ordi- 
 nances instituted by Christ, he is termed steward 
 of the mysteries of God."* Besides these, are 
 the terms '' prophets," " teachers," "evangelists," 
 &c., all of which have their applications in the 
 same way. And it would be just as reasonable 
 
 * Form of Government, chap. iii. 
 
140 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 to say, that each and every one of these names is 
 the name of a distinct and separate grade in the 
 ministry, as to say that there are three grades, 
 among Avhich the entire list is to be divided. 
 
 We have thus presented, all that we intended 
 to say, in refutation of the claim, that prelatical 
 bishops have succeeded to the apostolical office. 
 "We have seen, that, in many respects, the charac- 
 teristic nature of this office was such as to render 
 its perpetuation impossible ; and that, in those 
 respects in which the apostles could have succes- 
 sors, they were of no higher grade than that of 
 elder or presbyter. In respect to their extraor- 
 dinary work, and the endowments which qualifi- 
 ed them for it, there are none like them, and nev- 
 er will be ; but, in the office of preaching, baptiz- 
 ing, and all else that is permanent in the adminis- 
 tration of the gospel, there is a succession, the 
 line of which will never run out until "the myste- 
 ry of God" in respect to our world is '' finished." 
 Of the nature of this succession, we shall have oc- 
 casion to speak hereafter. And, in its reality 
 and true value, we shall find it — not in necessary 
 and exclusive connection with those, on whom 
 prelatical hands have been imposed — not in the 
 character and doings of the arrogant and bigotted 
 hierarch, who appropriates the apostolical char- 
 acter to himself, and looks upon those who reject 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 141 
 
 his claims as beyond the ordinary possibility of 
 salvation — not in the person of the Arch, or Lord 
 Bishop, with his £50,000 a year, his princely reti- 
 nue, his vicar general, his domestic chaplains, his 
 chancellors and their attendants, his registers and 
 their clerks, his commissaries, surrogates, and 
 other attendants, amounting in all to hundreds — 
 but in the humble, self-denying, and faithful la- 
 bors of those who can truly say, — "We preach 
 not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord ; and 
 ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake." This is 
 the spirit of the apostolical office, so far as it was 
 intended to be permanent ; and, where it lives, 
 the apostles live, in those who succeed them. 
 But where there is more of pride, of pomp, and of 
 external show, than of active, prayerful, and per- 
 severing labors for the salvation of men, there is 
 no apostolical succession^ because there is no 
 apostolical character — the vitality of their office is 
 gone — and what remains, is of no value in the sight 
 of God, and should be so regarded in the judg- 
 ment of men. 
 
DISCOURSE V. 
 
 =g©'^ 
 
 NO TRACES OF A PRELATICAL BISHOP, IN THE JEWISH 
 HIGH-PRIESTHOOD— IN TIMOTHY— IN TITUS— NOR, IN THE 
 ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES. 
 
 Phil. i. 1. Paul and Timotheus, the serv^ants of Jesus Christ, to 
 all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philhppi, with the bishops 
 and deacons. 
 
 It is not so much on account of any thing 
 which this passage contains, as on account of 
 what it does not contain, that I introduce it to 
 your notice, in connection with the general sub- 
 ject which we are now discussing. We can easi- 
 ly account for it, on tmprelatical principles, that 
 the apostle, in addressing the church at Phillippi, 
 should have recognized no officer of a higher 
 grade than that of "bishops," who are acknow- 
 ledged to have been parochial pastors ; because, 
 in our judgment, there was no officer of a supe- 
 rior rank, in the primitive church, whom he could 
 address. But, on the supposition that the pastors 
 
144 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 and deacons, together with all the church, were 
 under the supervision and government of a chief 
 ruler in the character and capacity of a prelate, 
 how is it to be explained, that no reference is 
 made to him, either in the apostle's salutation, or 
 in any of the subsequent parts of the epistle ? Nor 
 is this a solitary case. The course of the apostle, 
 in relation to this point, is without any variation : 
 he addresses the " saints," the " deacons," and 
 the " pastoral bishops"; but never whispers the 
 name, or makes any allusion to the office, of 
 the prelate. And we now put it to the intelligent 
 and candid inquirer after truth, Avhether such an 
 omission could have occurred, if prelacy had been 
 in existence when the Epistles were written ? 
 Would such a course, on the part of the apostle, 
 have been natural ? Would it have been even 
 7'especiful, to have sent his salutation to all others, 
 and to have uttered no expression of regard for 
 the chief pastor, to Avhose care and management 
 the interests of the whole church were commit- 
 ted ? 
 
 Indirectly, therefore, the text may be consider- 
 ed as reiterating our position, that " there is no 
 such functionary known to the New Testament at 
 all^ as A PRELATiCAL BISHOP." Wc have seen that 
 he is not to be found there by name — we have 
 proved, as we think, that he cannot be traced, in 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 145 
 
 any of the features of the apostolical character and 
 office. — And we proceed, now, to show, that he 
 does not appear, either in the high-priesthood of 
 the Jewish economy — in Tdiothy, or Titus — or 
 in THE ANGELS q/" //^e 5eye;? churches. We know 
 of no other important points than these, which re- 
 main to be examined ; and we shall advert to 
 them, briefly, in the order in which they are here 
 presented. 
 
 The argument for the prelatical office, which is 
 drawn from the high-priesthood of the Jews, is 
 stated by those who use it, in the following man- 
 ner ; — " The Mosaic dispensation was figurative 
 of the christian" — ''The priesthood of the law, 
 was typical of the priesthood of the gospel" — 
 '' Why, then, should not the orders of the priest- 
 hood under the old economy, be supposed to 
 typify those orders that were to be established un- 
 der the new"? — "What the high-priests, the 
 priests, and the Levites were in the temple, such 
 are the bishops, the presbyters, and deacons, in 
 the church of Christ." 
 
 Now, to test the soundness of this argument, 
 let us see, in the first place, w^hether the premises 
 are well and securely laid. That " the Mosaic 
 dispensation was figurative of the christian" we 
 grant ; and that " the priesthood of the law was 
 typical of the priesthood of the gospel," we do not 
 13 
 
146 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 deny, provided the word '' priesthood," as applied 
 to the gospel, be understood in its New Testa- 
 ment sense. But the gospel priesthood, of which 
 that of the law was typical, was not the christian 
 ministry^ but the priesthood of Christ. This is 
 undeniably evident, from the tenor of all scrip- 
 ture. There is not a passage to be found, con- 
 taining the remotest allusion to the ministry of 
 Christ under the notion of a priesthood, while to 
 exhibit and illustrate the priesthood of Christ 
 himself, is the main object of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews. Speaking of Christ, Paul says, — 
 ^' This man hath an unchangeable priesthood''' — 
 ^'such a high-priest became us" — "the Son of God 
 abideth a priest continually" — "Christ being come, 
 a high-priest of good things to come," &c. — Nor 
 is it difficult to see what it was, in the character 
 and work of Christ, that the Old Testament 
 priesthood was intended to prefigure. The type 
 had reference, not to orders or grades of office, 
 but to the priestly work — which was, to offer sa- 
 crifice for sin, and to make intercession for the peo- 
 ple. This work, under the Jewish law, was di- 
 vided. The offering of the sacrifice was perform- 
 ed, by the lower priests, in the outer court — after 
 which, the high-priest alone entered the inner 
 sanctuary with the sprinkling of blood, and inter- 
 ceeded for the congregation before the mercy 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 147 
 
 seat. But Christ, as the antitype, performs, in 
 his own person, the entire work. " Once, in the 
 end of the world," says Paul, "hath he appear- 
 ed to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself ^^; 
 and again — " Christ is not entered into the holy 
 places made with hands, which are the figures of 
 the true ; but into heaven itself, there to appear 
 in the presence of God for us." This finishes the 
 work of Christ as a priest ; and, beyond this, 
 there is nothing which the legal priesthood was 
 intended to foreshadow. The typical allusion 
 has run out in Him ; and we therefore hear no- 
 thing more of any thing priestly in any other di- 
 rection : neither the name, the character, nor the 
 office are ever introduced, as applying to " the 
 ministry of reconciliation." 
 
 But even granting, for the sake of argument, 
 that the Old Testament priesthood ivas typical of 
 the New Testament ministry, it is plain enough, 
 that the likeness between the type and the anti- 
 type would fail at the point ichere it is most need- 
 ed. Between the High Priest as the only one of 
 his order ^ and the Pope of Rome, who claims to 
 be the only head of the church on earth, a like- 
 ness might be supposed to exist ; but we look in 
 vain for any such resemblance in the order of pre- 
 latical bishops. They are not one but many: 
 their number may be extended indefinitely : with 
 
148 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 a single prelate, their system could not exist, and 
 be perpetuated : so that, instead of a likeness, we 
 here find a perfect dissimilarity. The high- 
 priesthood must have but one incumbent, and the 
 bishop's order must have inore than one ; and, if 
 so, how could the former be the type of the lat- 
 ter ? There is no getting rid of the difficulty, 
 which this view of the subject presents. If a 
 type and an antitype must resemble each other at 
 all, then it is not possible, that the one high priest 
 of the Mosaic economy Avas intended to prefigure 
 the hundreds of bishops, who are in office, at the 
 same time, in the prelatical system. 
 
 We do not dwell upon this claim, however ; 
 because we perceive that the friends of prelacy 
 are becoming less disposed to urge it themselves. 
 Great stress has been laid upon it, heretofore ; 
 but, in most of the recent publications we have 
 seen, it is either passed over entirely, or brought 
 into view as of secondary importance. 
 
 We pass, therefore, to the argument for prela- 
 cy derived from the supposed character and office 
 of Timothy : it is alleged, that he was a prelatical 
 bishop — and that, as such, he was stationed at 
 Epliesiis. We shall advert to the grounds on 
 which this allegation is put, and see whether they 
 are broad and firm enough to support it. 
 
 Was Timothy an apostle? It is affirmed that 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 149 
 
 he is so called, expressly ; and that this proves, 
 that he was of that upper grade in the ministry, 
 to which modern bishops belong. In the refuta- 
 tion of this claim, however, I need not occupy 
 your attention long, since the main points which 
 it embraces have been already considered. The 
 only passage in which Timothy is supposed to be 
 called an apostle, is the one in Thess. ii. 6 ; 
 where Paul, in using the phrase " the apostles of 
 Christ," is said to refer to Timothy, and Silas, 
 in connection Avith himself. We have shown, in 
 another place, that this view is founded on an er- 
 roneous interpretation of the apostle's language ; 
 and the considerations there advanced need not 
 be repeated.* We only add, that, where Paul 
 speaks of himself and Timothy together, and calls 
 himself an apostle^ he is careful to call Timothy 
 by another name. There are two instances of 
 this, which are so marked, as to forbid the suppo- 
 sition, that they could have occurred otherwise 
 than by design. ^' Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ 
 by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,''^ 
 2 Cor. i. 1. Precisely the same form of expres- 
 sion occurs in Col. i. 1. And nothing could be 
 more decisive as to the fact, that, in the judgment 
 of Paul himself, Timothy was not an apostle, in 
 
 * See pages 92, 93, to which the reader is requested to refer. 
 13* 
 
150 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 the sense in which this name and office appertain- 
 ed to himself. 
 
 But, if it were true, that Timothy was called an 
 apostle, would this make him a bishop^ in the pre- 
 latical sense ? To say that it would, would be to 
 beg the whole question in dispute. It is yet to be 
 proved, that apostles and prelates are identical, 
 either in name, or office. We deny that they 
 are, and have assigned our reasons. An apostle 
 is one who is sent — Timothy might have been 
 sent by Paul, as he was, on more than one impor- 
 tant mission, and yet not have belonged to the 
 highest of three ministerial grades. The truth is, 
 the word " apostle" determines nothing whatever, 
 as to rank or order. On the supposition that 
 there were three grades in existence, an indivi- 
 dual might have been an apostle, and yet have be- 
 longed to the lowest as well as the highest. 
 
 Again, however, we are told, that Timothy 
 must have been a bishop in the prelatical sense, 
 because he is addressed by Paul in language 
 which shows that the power of ordaining, and 
 governing the churches, was committed to him 
 personally and singly. The specimens are such 
 as the following — " this charge I commit unto 
 thee^ son Timothy" — " these things write I unto 
 thee^ that thou mightest know how to behave thy- 
 self in the house of God" — " that thou mightest 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 151 
 
 charge some that, they teach no other doctrine"^ — 
 ^' the thmgs which thou hast heard of me, the 
 same commit thou to faithful men," &c. On 
 these passages we remark, that, as the epistles 
 which contain them were addressed to Timothy 
 as an individual, it would have been strange in- 
 deed if the apostle had not addressed him person- 
 ally and singly; and that, as to the things them- 
 selves which he was empowered and directed to 
 do, they were nothing more than might have 
 been appropriate, on a variety of other supposi- 
 tions, as well as on the supposition that this office 
 w^as identical with that of a modern prelate. Oth- 
 ers have as good a right to m.ake suppositions, to 
 suit the case, as the friends of high church episco- 
 pacy. We will suppose, then, that Timothy was, 
 what he is expressly declared to have been, '' an 
 evangelists''^ 2 Timothy iv. 5 — that he travelled 
 from place to place, sometimes as the companion 
 of Paul, and sometimes by himself, though act- 
 mg under the apostle's authority and direction — 
 and that the counsels and charges, which he re- 
 ceived, were in reference to this extraordinary 
 work. Is there any thing incongruous in this 
 supposition ? Does it involve any contradiction, 
 or absurdity, whatever ? — Again, we will suppose 
 that Timothy was, what a bishop is understood to 
 be, in the Lutheran church, or among the Wes- 
 
152 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 leyan Methodists — not a prelate, by divine right 
 — not a distinct order, as essential to a true mi- 
 nistry — but a superior, to whom certain duties are 
 committed, in the way of superintendence. If 
 this had been his position, would any of Paul's 
 instructions to him have been out of place ? And, 
 so far as these instructions are concerned, have 
 not the Lutheran, and the Wesleyan, as fair a 
 claim to Timothy as the advocates of prelacy ? — 
 And, once more, we will suppose, that Timothy 
 was nothing more than a presbyter, on the purest 
 principles of presbyterian parity ; and that, as 
 such, he was directed by Paul to ''do the work 
 of an evangelist." If this was the state of the 
 case, as we believe it was, there is still room for 
 all that was said in the apostle's addresses. His 
 language is in no respect different from what we 
 should regard as perfectly appropriate, in sending 
 an evangelist to any new field, where churches 
 were to be gathered and established. We should 
 address him as an individual ; and we should tell 
 him to '' lay hands suddenly on no man," and to 
 "commit" what he himself had received ''to 
 faithful men, who should be able to teach others 
 also." As Avell might it be inferred, therefore, 
 from the language which we use on such occa- 
 sions, that we regard all our missionaries as invest- 
 ed with superior ministerial power and rights, as 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 153 
 
 that Timothy was so regarded by Paul, because 
 he addressed him in the manner above referred to. 
 
 If there is any virtue, then, in having Timothy 
 as a predecessor, it may be allowed, as fairly to 
 others, as to prelatical bishops. 
 
 Besides, it is worthy of remark, that the apos- 
 tle confers no higher power upon Timothy than 
 he conferred upon some others, for whom the pre- 
 latical character is not claimed. Take, as an in- 
 stance, his charge to the church at Corinth. His 
 language to them, on the subject of exercising 
 discipline, is much stronger than the language he 
 uses to Timothy. He commands them, not only 
 to ^^ receive an accusation," in regard to a certain 
 person, but to try the case, and carry it out even 
 to excommunication — which is the highest act of 
 discipline known in the church. '^ In the name 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ," he says, " when ye 
 are gathered together, and my spirit, with the 
 power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a 
 one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh^^^ 
 &c. Here the reins of discipline are put into 
 the hands of a plurality — of certain persons " ga- 
 thered together" — and whether we suppose them 
 to have been the ministers of the church, or the 
 members at large, it matters not : in either case, 
 according to the reasoning from the powers of 
 Timothy they must have been prelatical bishops! 
 
154 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 But it is still affirmed, that Timothy was a bi- 
 shop — not only a missionary, but a diocesan bishop 
 — and that Ephesus was his diocese. We can 
 scarcely turn to a writer on episcopacy, by whom 
 this is not asserted ; and the assertion is general- 
 ly unaccompanied by any attempt to support it by 
 proof. The truth of it is supposed to be so evi- 
 dent, that no well informed person can be expect- 
 ed to deny it. Timothy was bishop of Ephesus ! 
 This is the declaration ; and those who will not 
 receive it are regarded, either as ignorant, or ob- 
 tuse, to a hopeless degree. Still, we cannot 
 help inquiring, whether, in giving him this title, 
 there is not some mistake ? We have already 
 seen that, by the confession of all modern prelati- 
 cal writers, a bishop, in New Testament times, 
 was a presbyter — the overseer of a particular 
 flock, and not the ruler of ministers and churches. 
 And, if this is so, and Timothy was bishop of 
 Ephesus, what becomes of his prelatical charac- 
 ter ? The reply to this will probably be, ' names 
 are nothing' — ' we inquire only after things.'^ 
 But, if Timothy was not known among the Ephe- 
 sians as their bishop, in what character, and by 
 what name did they know him ? What was his 
 title ? If it was not ' Timothy, our bishop,'' what 
 can we suppose it to have been ? Was it ' Timo- 
 thy, our apostle^2 This will hardly be contended 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 155 
 
 for ; and, if not, must we come to the conclusion, 
 that he was known among them, as Bishop Onder- 
 donk says all prelates are known in scripture ? — 
 
 " INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY NAME AT ALL"I 
 
 As to his location in Ephesus, there is not the 
 slightest evidence, that he ever had a fixed resi- 
 dence there, in any capacity. There is but one 
 passage which speaks of him in connection with 
 Ephesus at all; and that, by a fair interpretation, 
 affords conclusive proof of the contrary. It is the 
 passage, in which Paul says, — " I besought thee 
 to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Mace- 
 donia." If this does not imply, that Timothy 
 was, in general, the traveling companion of the 
 apostle, and that he was not located permanently 
 at Ephesus, we confess ourselves unable to under- 
 stand the import of the plainest language. For 
 why exhort him " to abide," in the place to which 
 he belonged ? Where should a prelate abide, but 
 in his own diocese ? Does the bishop of New- 
 York need an exhortation to abide in New- York ? 
 A most undutiful son in the faith Timothy must 
 have been, if it required the beseeching of his spi- 
 ritual father, to induce him to remain on the very 
 field of duty to which he w^as appointed ! 
 
 On this point it is playfully, but forcibly, said 
 by Jean Daille — " Who, without the assistance 
 of an extraordinary passion, could ever have di- 
 
156 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 vined a thing so fine and rare; or have ima- 
 gined, that to beseech a man to abide in a city, 
 implied the settling him the bishop of it, arch- 
 bishop of the province, and primate of all the 
 country ? Without exaggerating, the cause of 
 our hierarchial gentlemen must needs run very 
 low, that they should be forced to have recourse 
 to such pitiful proof. For my part, viewing 
 things without passion, from the apostle's saying 
 that he besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus, 
 I shall rather conclude on the contrary, that he 
 could 7wt be the bishop of that place." * * 
 '' To beseech him to stay in a place where he 
 is fixed by his charge, and Avhich he could not 
 quit, without offending God and failing in his 
 duty : to speak the truth, that is a request that 
 is not very ohllging ; for it evidently presuppo- 
 ses, that a man does not lay his duty much to 
 heart, when he needs to be entreated to do 
 it." t 
 
 If the powers which Timothy was to exercise 
 in Ephesus are proof, that he had a fixed resi- 
 dence there as diocesan bishop, why will not 
 the same argument answer in other cases ? Why 
 will it not follow, for example, that Paul and 
 Barnabas were the resident prelates of Lystra, 
 of Iconium and of Antioch ? What was done 
 
 t Quoted by Powell, p. 58. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 157 
 
 by Timothy, in Ephesus, that was not done by 
 them, in these several places, in which they so- 
 journed ? Clearly nothing, which involved the 
 possession of any higher prerogative : so that the 
 same principle, which locates Timothy as the dio- 
 cesan of Ephesns, wonld make each one of the 
 apostles sustain the same relation to every place, 
 in which they exercised their apostolical func- 
 tions. 
 
 But, if there were nothing else against it, this 
 whole figment in regard to Timothy's diocese, 
 would be demolished by the fact, that, in Paul's 
 valedictory address to the elders of Ephesus, he 
 makes no allusion, either to him, -or to any other 
 one, occupying the station which he is supposed 
 to have filled. This is an aspect of the subject, in 
 regard to which there can be no mistake. Think, 
 for a moment, of the marked and interesting cir- 
 cumstances under which this address was deliver- 
 ed. Between the apostle and the Ephesian church, 
 there existed a bond of mutual attachment, which 
 was strong and tender. Its ministerial officers 
 were now before him ; and the circumstances 
 were such as to indicate, with sufficient certainty, 
 both to him and to them, that they were never to 
 meet again. Surely, he will now give them a 
 word of counsel, applicable to all the relations 
 they sustain. As an appropriate designation of 
 14 
 
158 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 their office and character, he calls them "bish- 
 ops" — he speaks of ''the flock," over which the 
 Holy Ghost had appointed them overseers — he 
 charges them, to take heed to themselves, and to 
 all the flock, and " to feed the church of God" 
 — but he utters not a word, from which it can be 
 inferred, that they either were, or expected to be, 
 under the direction and control of any ecclesiasti- 
 cal superior. Now if Timothy, his own son in 
 the faith, was their diocesan, how is this to be ac- 
 counted for ? Is it credible, that such a charge 
 was given, under such circumstances, containing 
 no allusion to him ? To say that Timothy was 
 absent.) at the time, would not alter the case : it 
 would still be unaccountable, that the whole care 
 and management of the church should be com- 
 mitted to the presbyters, without any thing to sig- 
 nify that the resident prelate was to have any 
 concern in the matter. — Nor would it neutralize 
 the objection, to say, that this interview between 
 Paul and the elders of Ephesus, occurred before 
 Timothy became their diocesan. If this was the 
 fact, then Ephesus was without a prelate, at the 
 time referred to — the organization of the church, 
 there, was still defective — the most important offi- 
 cer of all was still wanting. And who can be- 
 lieve that, in this state of the case, Paul would 
 have given them his final charge, without advert- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 159 
 
 ing to the necessity of their having an ecclesiasti- 
 cal superior — without promising to appoint one, 
 or directing them to choose one from among 
 themselves — without even intimating that the 
 presence of such a superior was desirable, or that 
 his office had any place, by divine authority, in 
 the proper constitution of the church ? We feel 
 compelled to unite with Daille, in saying, that 
 ^' the cause of our hierarchial gentlemen must 
 needs run very low," when it becomes necessary 
 to maintain, under these circumstances, that Tim- 
 othy was bishop of Ephesus, in the modern pre- 
 latical sense. 
 
 And if Timothy was not, in this sense, the bish- 
 op of Ephesus, are there any better or more co- 
 gent reasons for believing, that Titus was bishop 
 of Crete ? This is the next ground, on which a 
 stand is attempted to be taken in defence of pre- 
 lacy. And, as if to make it sufficiently broad, w^e 
 are told of " the large island of Crete" — an island 
 of *' one hundred cities'^ — all committed to one 
 man, to <' set in order," and "ordain elders in 
 every city"! Surely he must have been a prelati- 
 cal bishop ! One would think, that this field was 
 large enough for an archbishop. What bishop of 
 modern times has ever had such a diocese ? Man- 
 ifestly, the argument drawn from the extent of 
 the territory and population proves too much. 
 
160 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 But who says that Titus was bishop of Crete, 
 in the sense in which the word is here to be un- 
 derstood, or in any other sense ? Is there any 
 passage in the New Testament, which declares 
 that this was the fact ? This is not claimed, by 
 those who make the assertion ; but, as usual, w^e 
 are told, that there are certain things from which 
 it may be inferred. And the passage Avhich is reli- 
 ed upon, mainly, is that in which Paul says to him 
 — " For this cause, left I thee in Crete, that thou 
 shouldest set in order the things that are want- 
 ing, and ordain elders in every city, as I had ap- 
 pointed thee." Titus i. 5. This is taken in con- 
 nection with another, in which he is directed to 
 admonish heretics, and to reject them, if they do 
 not renounce their errors. Chap. iii. 10. From 
 all this it is supposed to be evident, that the pow- 
 ers of ordination, and of discipline, were commit- 
 ted to his single hands — and that Crete was ap- 
 pointed to him, as the diocese, within which, these 
 powers were to be exercised. 
 
 In regard to the first of these allegations, it is 
 the same that we have already refuted, in the 
 case of Timothy. As Paul was writing to Titus, 
 as an individual, it would have been strange if he 
 had not addressed him personally and singly. 
 And, as to the substance of the charge which he 
 gives him, it is nothing more than would be ap- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 
 
 16X 
 
 propriate on presbyterian principles, in designat- 
 ing an individual to any particular field, where 
 churches were to be organized, and brought into 
 a settled and permanent state. The truth is, that 
 Titus was left, for a while, in Crete, as Timothy 
 was besought to abide in Ephesus, to execute, 
 under the direction of the apostle, what he could 
 not stay to finish himself; and that, in this itine- 
 rant and extraordinary capacity, he was expected 
 to exercise a general supervision over all that was 
 needful to be done, in carrying out the plans 
 which the apostle had laid. If his instructions 
 prove that he was a prelate, or that no one but 
 himself was to ordain and exercise discipline in 
 Crete, they prove, with equal conclusiveness, that 
 no one but himself was to preach within this field. 
 Pursuing the same personal style of address, the 
 apostle says — "speak thou the things that become 
 sound doctrine." If the word '' thou," when 
 applied to ordaining and exercising discipline, 
 means that he alone was to do these things, of 
 course the same word, when applied to preach- 
 ing, must mean that he alone was to preach. 
 But, granting that he did ordain alone — which 
 never can be shown — would this prove that he 
 belonged to an upper grade in the ministry, as 
 compared with others ? All that could be deriv- 
 ed legitimately from this would be, that one min- 
 14* 
 
162 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 ister of the gospel, especially when acting under 
 the direction of an inspired apostle, might proper- 
 ly set apart another of the same grade, to the per- 
 formance of the same work — which few of the re- 
 formed churches would be disposed to deny. 
 
 As to the circumstance of Paul's leaving Titus 
 in Crete, going to prove that Crete was his dio- 
 cese, we marvel just as much, that this should ever 
 have been dignified with the name of an argu- 
 ment, as that the beseeching of Timothy to abide 
 in Ephesus should have been considered as prov- 
 ing that he was the prelate of that city, and its 
 suburban dependencies. As in one case, so in 
 the other, we may ask, — Where should a prelati- 
 cal bishop be left, but in his own diocese ? And 
 does not the fact, that he was left in a particular 
 place, sufficiently prove that it was not the place 
 of his fixed and permanent residence ? Titus, 
 like Timothy, was an itinerant — he was Paul's 
 companion in labor, and travel — and, having been 
 with him in Crete, he was " left" there, to set in 
 order the things that were still wanting, and 
 which the apostle himself could not wait to ad- 
 just. It is plain too, from a subsequent statement, 
 that, in leaving him behind, he had produced a 
 separation between himself and his faithful coad- 
 jutor, which he was anxious should come to an 
 end as soon as possible ; for he says, chap. iii. 10, 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 163 
 
 *' When I shall send Artemas nnto thee, or Ty- 
 chicus, be diligent to come unto me to Nicopolis : 
 for I have determined there to winter." It is 
 evident from this, that, when the epistle was writ- 
 ten, he was already agitating the pm'pose of re- 
 lieving Titus from the temporary duties which he 
 had assigned to him in Crete — that he had partly 
 fixed, in his own mind, upon the person who was 
 to take his place — and that, as soon as the ar- 
 rangement could be completed, he expected him 
 to leave Crete, and become his companion again, 
 as he had been aforetime. — A plainer case than 
 this, we think it Avould be difficult to present. 
 And we are, therefore, wholly unable to find the 
 likeness of a prelate in Titus, any more than in 
 Timothy. 
 
 But there is yet another resource : we are told, 
 that the order of modern bishops is to be found 
 in THE ANGELS of tlw sevBii cliurclies of Asia. 
 " Each of those churches," it is said, " is address- 
 ed, not through its clergy at large, but through its 
 ' angel,' or chief officer" — '' Unto the angel of the 
 church of Ephesus write" — '' And to the angel of 
 the church in Pergamos write," &c. " This in- 
 dividual, called ' the angel,' " it is farther said, 
 " is, in each case, identified with his church, and 
 his church with him" — " he is made responsible, 
 individually, for the errors of the respective 
 
164 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 churches, and is commended individually for 
 their respective merits" — and the question is ask- 
 ed, as if the answer must of necessity be on the 
 side of prelacy — "Who then was 'the angel'? 
 What was his office"? Bishop Onderdonk, after 
 repeating what is said concerning him, and inter- 
 preting the language to suit himself, exclaims — 
 " Surely a diocesan is here"? 
 
 We do not wonder that he should think so ; 
 but the question is, whether the mind of an indi- 
 vidued must not be pre- occupied with prelatical 
 notions, in order to make the discovery ? Is there 
 any thing in the meaning of the word " angel," 
 which renders it necessary to suppose that the 
 person referred to was a prelatical bishop ? Must 
 it be so interpreted ? Is there nothing else to 
 which it might refer ? And, if there is, must we 
 not know, from other and independent sources, 
 that there w^ere prelates in the primitive church, 
 before it will be fair to conclude, that they were 
 the persons to whom these epistles were address- 
 ed ? According to our humble notions of minis- 
 terial rank and order, it is quite as likely, and 
 much more so, that these "angels" were paro- 
 chial pastors^ than that they were diocesan bishops. 
 And what forbids the supposition, that this inter- 
 pretation may be correct ? 
 
 In taking up the record, as it is, we find that 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 165 
 
 *' the angel," whoever he may be, is associated 
 with a single church — " Unto the angel of the 
 church^^^ &c — not the churches. And, in view 
 of this fact, we ask which supposition is the most 
 plausible — the one which makes him a parochial 
 pastor, or that which supposes him to have been 
 a prelatical bishop ? How could he have been 
 a prelate, if his relations extended only to a single 
 church ? I know it will be said, in reply to this, 
 that the phrase " the church" is to be understood, 
 as it occurs in each of these cases, in a collective 
 sense, as signifying more congregations than one 
 — that in each of the cities mentioned, Avith their 
 suburbs, there were many churches — and that 
 taken together they were called, as a whole, ''the 
 church." But, it must be remembered, that this 
 is a thing to be proved — the record does not say 
 so — we deny entirely that such was the fact — it 
 is a mere figment to suit the emergency. 
 
 The only proof, attempted to be drawn from 
 scripture, is in the case of Ephesus. There, it is 
 said, there were several presbyters, when Paul 
 bade them farewell at Miletus, which was many 
 years before the book of Revelation was written ; 
 and that, where there were several presbyters, it 
 is fair to conclude there were several congrega- 
 tions. But the truth is, no conclusion could be 
 more unfair. It is no uncommon thing, now, 
 
166 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 and it was much less so then, to find a plurality 
 of preaching presbyters in connection with a sin- 
 gle church. Besides, if our system be scriptural, 
 as we believe it is, there were ruling presbyters in 
 connection with every church, who did not 
 preach ; so that the plurality of presbyters in 
 Ephesus can be easily accounted for, without 
 supposing a plurality of churches. 
 
 Erroneous notions, in regard to the extent of 
 these ancient churches, lies at the foundation of 
 much of the false reasoning which occurs in the 
 support of prelacy. And for the purpose of set- 
 ting this matter before you in its true light, I ask 
 your attention, in this place, to the testimony of 
 one, who was qualified to judge, and who will 
 not be suspected of a disposition to crowd episco- 
 pacy out of its proper place. I refer to Sir Peter 
 King — nephew of the celebrated Mr. Locke, and 
 Lord High Chancellor of England. As the re- 
 sult of his careful inquiry into the constitution, 
 &c., of the church for the first three hundred 
 years, he confesses that there was, then, "but one 
 bishop to a church,'' and "but one church to a 
 bishop" — and that " the bishop's cure was never 
 called a diocese, but usually a parish, no larger 
 than our parishes." In regard to Ephesus, in 
 particular, he says — " As for the diocese of Ephe- 
 sus, there was but one altar, or communion table, 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 167 
 
 in its whole territory, at which they all communi- 
 cated together ; whence they are said to break 
 the one bread." — " The members of this church 
 could also meet together in one place, to send up 
 their joint prayers to God in Christ: and there- 
 fore Ignatius condemns all those of that diocese, 
 who did not assemble together in that one place, 
 with the rest of the members thereof, to send up 
 their prayers to God." — " So that, if to communi- 
 cate together, and to pray together, be the marks 
 of a particular church, then this bishopric "was 
 one." He takes the same gi'ound in regard to 
 the churches at Smyrna, at Philadelphia, &c,; 
 and his opinion is corroborated by other eminent- 
 ly respectable authorities, which we might ad- 
 duce. 
 
 We contend, therefore, that these Asiatic 
 churches were just what the record specifies — 
 they were single churches, of no great or unusual 
 extent — and those who insist upon understanding 
 the record differently, are bound to sustain their 
 interpretation by satisfactory reasons. If we 
 must have prelatical bishops, let us see, first, that 
 we have room for them : there is not space enough 
 in any ofSce, or sphere of duty, connected with 
 an individual church : and, if this sphere is to be 
 enlarged to suit the necessity of the case, let US' 
 see that it can be done consistently with facts. 
 
168 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 On our principles, there is no difficulty. The an- 
 gels in question were not diocesan, but scriptural 
 bishops — they were the overseers of single church- 
 es — they were the pastors of the flock of God, 
 whose business it was to feed them with the bread 
 of life in the word and ordinances of the gospel. 
 
 In addition to this, I might refer you to other 
 senses of the word " angel," Avhich would be 
 quite as plausible as that which makes it ap- 
 ply to a prelatical bishop ; but I shall only de- 
 tain you, further, by giving a specimen of the 
 loose and contradictory statements, into which 
 the advocates of prelacy are betrayed, in hunting 
 after this order where it cannot be found. 
 
 I have before me an argument, by Bishop 
 M'lUvaine, in which he contends for the prelatical 
 character of the angels of the seven churches, up 
 on the express ground, that to them " was appro 
 priated, during their life-time, the title oi bishops 
 as a distinctive title of their special office." This 
 he says, "is not disputed"; and he quotes Igna 
 tins as evidence. " Ignatius, bishop of Antioch 
 who personally knew and conversed with St 
 John, writing to the church of Ephesus not more 
 than twelve years after St. John had addressed 
 the angel of that church, in the book of Revela- 
 tion^, expressly says that Onesimus was then its 
 bishop — ' Who (he says) according to the flesh is 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 169 
 
 your bishop,'' " It may be fairly presumed, that, 
 when the author penned this sentence, he was not 
 aware of the manner in which it may be turned 
 against himself: he has, unwittingly, surrendered 
 the very point in debate. The true argument in 
 the case runs thus: — Ignatius was an acquaint- 
 ance and personal friend of the Apostle John : 
 during the time of John and the other apostles, as 
 is confessed on all hands, the name " bishop^'' was 
 the title, not of a prelate, but of a parochial pas- 
 tor : the angels of the seven churches were then 
 called " bishops," as " the distinctive title of their 
 special office": therefore the angels of the seven 
 churches were not prelates^ but parochial pastors I 
 If there is any defect in this logic, vv^e should like 
 to know where it lies. 
 
 Now turn, for a moment, to a position taken 
 by Bishop Onderdonk, on the same subject. 
 When pressed by one of his opponents to say, 
 why the " angels" were not called " either apos- 
 tles or bishops"? — on the supposition, that these 
 were the appropriate names of the superior order 
 — he answers in the following language — '' These 
 * angels' were addressed just at the time, when, 
 as we learn from other sources, the. name of apos- 
 tle was about being relinquished td/ those indivi- 
 duals so called in scripture, and the name bishop 
 was IN TRANSITU froiTi the second order to the 
 15 
 
170 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 first ; the former title was losing, or begining to 
 lose, its more general application ; and the lat- 
 ter had not yet acquired its final appropriation." 
 - — " The dignitaries in question were addressed, 
 when it was somewhat too late to call them apos- 
 tles, and too soon to call them bishops"! This, 
 we think, is a choice specimen of its kind; and, 
 when taken in connection with the argument of 
 Bishop M'lUvaine, it shows upon what dark, un- 
 certain, and inconsistent ground these gentlemen 
 are compelled to stand. One stakes the cause of 
 prelacy upon the fact, that the "angels" were 
 called '' bishops^^ — the other is at no loss to assign 
 a sufficient reason Avhy they were not called 
 bishops — and, in this state of antagonism, what 
 safety can there be in following the footsteps of 
 either ? The position of the former destroys his 
 own cause ; and that of the latter, while it is a 
 mere fancy, borders too closely upon the ridicu- 
 lous, to be entitled to a serious refutation. 
 
 Having thus disposed of the last scriptural ar- 
 gument for the divine right of prelacy, I invite 
 your attention, in conclusion of this part of the 
 subject, to the three following considerations. 
 
 1. If prelacy existed in the church, as founded 
 by our Saviour and his apostles, hoiu does it hap- 
 pen that we never meet ivith a second, or a third 
 ORDINATION, in scripture ? that is, an ordination 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 171 
 
 from a lower to a higher grade — from a deacon 
 to a priest, or from a priest to a prelate. If these 
 orders were in being, such transactions must have 
 been frequent. And is it credible, that, among 
 them all, not a single one should have been no- 
 ticed in the sacred record ? Not only are the scrip- 
 tures silent, as to any such occurrence, but also 
 the uninspired history of the church for more than 
 two hundred years. The advocates of prelacy 
 have been challenged to produce an instance 
 from any record, for the first two centuries — they 
 have never done it, and never will. And, if there 
 were nothing else, this would be enough to show 
 that the prelatical system had no existence in the 
 primitive church. 
 
 2. If the government of the church is prelatical, 
 by divine appointment, loluj is it that lue never 
 meet icith an ordination in scripture performed by 
 A SINGLE PERSON. The systciTi supposes, that the 
 ordaining power resides in prelatical bishops as 
 individuals ; and yet there is no case recorded, in 
 which a single individual officiated — there was 
 always a plurality of ordainers. It may be said, 
 I know, that some one of the number was the real 
 ordainer, and that the others only concurred ; or 
 that all the ordainers belonged to the superior 
 grade. But this is mere assumption. It takes 
 for granted, too, the thing to be proved ; and that 
 
172 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 is, that there was a superior grade. Of this, we 
 have yet to see the evidence. And, to our minds, 
 the indications are strong, that no such grade ex- 
 isted, from the fact, that, while the ordaining 
 power is supposed to be lodged with prelates indi- 
 vidually, there is no example of a single person 
 performing the ceremony. 
 
 3. If there were prelates in the primitive 
 church, ivhp do the apostles never refer to the^n in 
 any of their Epistles ? We have alluded to this 
 already ; and we now ask your attention to it dis- 
 tinctly. The apostles write to " the saints," and 
 to the parochial "bishops, and deacons"; but 
 never record a syllable in recognition of that su- 
 perior officer, who is supposed to rule over all 
 these, and without whom neither the church, nor 
 the ministry, can exist. They speak of the au- 
 thority which parochial pastors are to exercise and 
 of the duties which they are to perform — they 
 speak of the deacons, and of their qualifications — 
 they call upon the people to know their spiritual 
 rulers, and " to esteem them very highly in love 
 for their work's sake," — but, while dwelling on 
 these topics, they never introduce the remotest 
 allusion to any one occupying the place of a pre- 
 late. And we ask, in all sincerity, could this have 
 been the case, on the supposition that a prelatical 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 173 
 
 order was then in existence ? The thing is unna- 
 tural, to a degree which exceeds behef. 
 
 We must take the hberty, then, of again repeat- 
 ing our first and fundamental position ; and of 
 asking you now to receive it as an established 
 truth, — that '^ there is 710 such functionary, knoivn 
 to the New Testament at all, as a prelatical bish- 
 op." We have sought for him in all the places 
 in which he is supposed to be visible, and Ave can- 
 not find him. He does not appear by '' name," 
 by " character," or by " probable intimation. 
 
 We feel prepared therefore to conclude this dis- 
 course, by saying, in the language of another, — 
 '' The whole system, as to scriptural authority, is 
 built on a sandy foundation ; and is buttressed up 
 by violent assumptions, strained or false analogies, 
 forced interpretations, and ultimatly comes to 
 be placed, by concessions of their own, upon mere 
 human and ecclesiastical authority. This is its 
 proper basis. In this view of the case, they have 
 a perfect right, if they think it best, to adopt it, to 
 advocate, and to recommend it to others." — ''But 
 to claim a divine right for this system, and for 
 this, exclusively of all others ; and that so as to 
 declare that no ministry, except ordained by these 
 modern apostles, is valid ; that all the ordinances 
 of all the protestant churches in Europe, besides 
 the church of England, are vain, and without the 
 15* 
 
174 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 promise of Christ : this, we say, is such a piece of 
 blind and bigotted arrogance, as to deserve severe 
 exposure and rebuke. It is designed to promote 
 a spirit of exclusiveness and intolerance: may 
 such designs perish forever ! and may all minis- 
 ters learn that they are brethren ; and that all 
 who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity are 
 one holy, catholic, and apostolical church, built, 
 not upon the traditions of men, but ' upon the 
 foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus 
 Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.' "* 
 
 * Powell. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 175 
 
 DISCOURSE VI. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS— NO PRELATICAL BISHOPS 
 DURING THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES— RISE OF PRELACY. 
 
 Matt. xv. 9. But in vain they do worsliip me, teaching for doc- 
 trines the commandments of men. 
 
 A LARGE proportion of all the errors in religion, 
 which have prevailed in the world, have resulted 
 from allowing uninspired human authority to 
 come in, in connection with the word of God, as a 
 rule of faith. This was the rock, on which the 
 Jewish people made shipwreck of all the precious 
 mterests involved in the covenant, which God had 
 made with their fathers. He gave them a plain 
 revelation, to be the guide of their faith and prac- 
 tice ; but, instead of adhering to it exclusively, 
 they, in process of time, received the traditions 
 of men, as being of equal, and even of paramount 
 authority. And this, more than any thing else, 
 was the occasion of that extensively irreligious 
 condition, in which they were found at the com- 
 ing of their Messiah; and which led, through the 
 
176 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 judgments of heaven, to their final downfall as a 
 nation. 
 
 To say that the multiform heresies and abomi- 
 nations, which have appeared in connection with 
 the Papal hierarchy, are to be referred directly to 
 this source, would only be to utter what is too 
 plain to require proof. And the same thing we 
 are now compelled to say — though the remark 
 may not be applicable to the same extent — of 
 that lower, less complicated, it may be, but equal- 
 ly unscriptural hierarchy, the succession in Avhich 
 we have undertaken to discuss. It is one of those 
 impressions that we cannot resist, if we were to 
 try, that, if the claims of prelatical bishops to an 
 exclusive place in the line of apostolical succes- 
 sion had never been referred to any other tribunal 
 than the holy scriptures, they would long since 
 have been set aside by common consent. There 
 is nothing there, in support of these claims, which 
 is so obvious and tangible as to command the as- 
 sent of unprejudiced and reflecting minds. And 
 this remark we do not venture, without having 
 examined the ground upon which it rests. We 
 have gone with the advocates of prelacy to the 
 strong holds of their system, so far as scriptural 
 arguments are concerned; and we have seen, 
 that, when assailed with the simplest weapons of 
 truth and argument, there is not one of their num- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 177 
 
 ber that can stand. There is no such thing as a 
 prelatical bishop to be found in the Avord of God, 
 either with, or without a name. And this, we 
 are confident, would soon be the judgment of all 
 candid inquirers after truth, if the controversy 
 were not renewed, and kept up, on another field. 
 But it is always an advantage to a weak cause, 
 to escape from a rule of judgement which is plain 
 and determinate, to one which is ambiguous, or 
 difficult to be defined; and if, in som.e of its 
 points, it is so indeterminate and inconsistent with 
 itself as to amount to no rule at all, the advantage 
 is so much greater — the controversy may then be 
 kept up interminably — and a show of reason may 
 be given to that, which, in point of fact, has no 
 foundation to support it. This, accordingly, is 
 the management resorted to, in supporting the 
 system of high church episcopacy. Many of the 
 advocates of this system admit, that it cannot 
 be established by an appeal to scripture alone. 
 Here I have only to recall to your recollection the 
 acknowledgements of Tomline, Palmer, Ham- 
 mond, Dodwell, Beveridge and others, which 
 have been already quoted.* These and other 
 authors, not only speak of the scriptural evidence 
 for episcopacy as "doubtful," " faintly traced," 
 not " exactly recorded," &c.; but they point us 
 
 * See pages 45-47. 
 
178 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 distinctly to " the Greek and Latin Father s^''^ as 
 the source from which the true and satisfactory 
 evidence is to be derived. The ground of the 
 controversy is thus shifted, from the scriptural 
 platform, to mere human authority, uninspired, 
 and therefore faUible — to such authority as stands 
 in the same category v^ith " the commandments 
 of men," referred to by our Saviour in the text, 
 and '' the traditions of men," against which the 
 churches are warned by the Apostle Paul. 
 
 And to give you an idea of the extent to which 
 prelatical writers expect us to defer to this author- 
 ity, I furnish you with the following expositions 
 from the fountain head. In Tract No. 90, of the 
 Oxford series, we find the following language, — 
 " In the sense in which it is commonly understood 
 at this day, scripture is not, on Anglican princi- 
 ples, the rule of faiths — '' We do not make scrip- 
 ture the rule of our faith, but that other things, in 
 their kind, are rulers ; likewise, in such sort, that 
 it is not safe, without respect had unto them, to 
 judge things by the scripture alone.'^ — Mr. Ncav- 
 man says, — '^ Catholic tradition is a divine infor- 
 mant on religious matters ; it is the univritten luord. 
 These two, the Bible and catholic tradition, form 
 together a united rule of faith." — The Gentle- 
 mans' Magazine for March 1843, speaking of the 
 church of England, says, — " Her standard of ap- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 179 
 
 peal in matters of doctrine and discipline is Holy 
 scripture, as interpreted by the voice of the ancient 
 churchy — We add but another specimen, which 
 is from Mr.Keble on Primitive Tradition — " How- 
 much more dutiful, with all seriousness, to use 
 our privilege of belonging to a church, which, on 
 the one hand, refers us to scripture as the stand- 
 ard and treasure of all necessary doctrine, on the 
 other hand, ties her doctors as much as the Coun- 
 cil OF Trent does, to expound scripture according 
 to the consent of the ancient father s^ 
 
 We have taken no pains in making these se- 
 lections ; but have used those which happened to 
 be nearest at the time. Others, of a similar tenor, 
 might be produced to any extent. These are 
 sufficient, however, to give a fair representation 
 of the ground which is taken in relation to this 
 point, by the advocates of prelacy and apostolical 
 succession. Their doctrine, when set forth in its 
 mildest form, is, that, as men may differ in their 
 judgment as to what the scriptures teach, it is 
 right and safe, to call in the ancient fathers as um- 
 pires, and let them decide — that, as they lived so 
 near to the apostolic age, they must have known 
 what the opinions of the apostles were, or how 
 their writings were understood by the earliest 
 churches — and that this is a consideration of so 
 much weight, that Ave are bound to receive their 
 
180 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 opinions on matters of faith and practice as cor- 
 rect, even if the scriptures should seem to us, in 
 our private judgment, to inculcate a different les- 
 son. So that, if they shall say that prelatical bish- 
 ops are a distinct and superior order in the chris- 
 tian ministry, or shall speak of such bishops as ex- 
 isting in their day, v^e must accept this, as prov- 
 ing beyond all controversy, that such an order is 
 of divine institution, whatever the scriptures may, 
 or may not say, in relation to it. In this way, the 
 very thing is done, which our Saviour charged 
 upon the Jews : the word of God is made void 
 by the traditions of men : and Ave are drawn 
 away from a rule of faith which is plain, brief, 
 and easily understood, to another, which is scat- 
 tered through scores of folio volumes — written in 
 dead languages, which few understand — inacces- 
 sible from the nature of the case to nine hundred 
 and ninety-nine out of every thousand persons 
 tliat live — containing puerilities, fancies, and con- 
 tradictions without number— and affording discor- 
 dant materials, from which persons of almost eve- 
 ry shade of sentiment, may draw something, 
 which Avill seem to support the theory which they 
 desire to establish. 
 
 Now to all this, as a matter of principle, we en- 
 tirely demur — not only, because it undervalues 
 and dishonors the word of God, but because it 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 181 
 
 ties US to a rule of faith, which is far more likely to 
 lead us astray, than to conduct us rightly. We 
 could prove, from the testimony of the very fa- 
 thers who are appealed to in this controversy, 
 that, in their days, it Avas regarded as apostolical, 
 to worshi]) the reliques of departed saints — to pray 
 for the dead — to make the sign of the cross — to use 
 consecrated oil ; nay we could prove that they re- 
 ceived it as apostolical to believe, that, wherever 
 vjood is mentioned in the Old Testament, as the 
 material of which any thing is composed, wo are 
 to regard it as a type of the cross of Christ — such 
 as the wood of the rods, which Jacob stuck in the 
 troughs before Laban's sheep, and the wood of 
 the staff, with which he passed over Jordan, and 
 the wood of the ladder, which he saw in a dream ! 
 any one who wishes to be satisfied on these points, 
 will find enough for his purpose, in extracts from 
 the writings of the fathers, contained in Vol. i. of 
 the Miscellaneous Works of Dr. Middleton. In 
 Taylor's Ancient Christianity, too, there is enough 
 to satisfy the most incredulous, that, among the 
 earliest of the fathers, it was regarded as apostoli- 
 cal, to advocate the celibacy of the clergy, and 
 to hold this up as a virtue of the highest order. 
 And surely, if authority was claimed for such ab- 
 surdities as these, it is not wise to rely upon their 
 interpretation of scripture, or their testimonies as 
 16 
 
182 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 to apostolical usages, in reference to any thing 
 else. 
 
 We beg you to understand, however, that, in 
 adverting to these facts, we are not prompted, in 
 the least degree, by a desire to escape from any 
 legitimate eflect which the testimony of these an- 
 cient writers is adapted to produce. Considered 
 as falhble men like ourselves, who have no rule 
 of faith to present, and whose judgment should 
 be taken under all the circumstances for what it 
 is worth, we are perfectly vs^illing to admit them 
 as witnesses upon the stand in the trial of this 
 cause. We ask your attention to the following 
 passages, as presenting the exact truth in the 
 case. — " The Fathers will receive, and ought to 
 receive, just the degree of respect that we should 
 pay to any other men, and no more : that is, their 
 authority will be in proportion to their knowledge, 
 good sense, freedom from prejudice, honesty, 
 and opportunities of forming a judgment. It 
 may be supposed, indeed, that the last circum- 
 stance, considering their proximity to the aposto- 
 lic age, would give them a decided superiority 
 over every other class of w^riters ; but, it is very 
 possible, that their disadvantage in other respects 
 may depress their authority in the greater num- 
 ber of cases below that even of a third-rate stu- 
 dent of scripture of a later age — ^just as a man, 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 183 
 
 with bad eyes, may not see an object so clearly 
 at fifty yards, as another, Avith good eyes, may 
 see it at half a mile. Now, almost all the fathers 
 had very bad eyes ; and, what is worse, they at- 
 tempted to remedy the defect by still worse spec- 
 tacles." — '' The reason of this phenomenon is not 
 far to seek. Many of the fathers, indeed, were 
 men of unquestionable genius, and of large erudi- 
 tion (such as it was ;) and small portions of many 
 of their writings may be read with profit. But they 
 were all more or less tainted — most of them deep- 
 ly — with the false maxims and pernicious preju- 
 dices which characterised their day ; and from 
 the influence of which, without being more than 
 human, it Avas impossible that they could be free. 
 This is no disparagement to their genius, or their 
 learning, any more than it is disrespectful to Des- 
 cartes or Kepler to affirm, that having been early 
 imbued with false principles of science, they con- 
 structed theories which we do not feel bound to 
 reverence, because we reverence the men. We 
 can separate Descartes from his ^ vortices,' and 
 Kepler from his fanciful analogies between the 
 laws of the planetary system and the * five regular 
 solids.' In like manner we may well despise the 
 interpretations of Origen, without despising Ori- 
 gen himself."* 
 
 # Ed. Rev. for April 1843 p. 355. 
 
184 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 In proceeding to take the testimony of the Fa- 
 thers as to the constitution of the ministry in their 
 day, it is all important that a definite understand- 
 ing should be had as to what certain words and 
 phrases, which are likely to occur in the course of 
 the examination, shall be considered as implying. 
 
 If I should ask them, for instance, whether 
 there were bishops in the church of Christ in their 
 time, and they should answer in the affirmative, 
 the friends of prelacy must not insist upon the 
 word bishop being so interpreted as to mean 
 something entirely different from the sense which 
 it bears in the writings of the apostles. There is, 
 at this point, one of the most remarkable instances 
 of shifting the use and meaning of terms, which the 
 progress of any controversy has developed. And, 
 if we could only prevail upon the advocates of 
 diocesan episcopacy to be consistent with them- 
 selves, in regard to the import of the word ''bish- 
 op," we should hear but little more of what the 
 Fathers have to say in support of their cause. 
 When we go with them to the apostolical epis- 
 tles, to see whether a prelatical bishop can be 
 found there, they tell us that we must not look for 
 him under the name ''bishop" — that the word 
 *' bishop," as used by the apostles, does not mean 
 a prelate — that this is the scriptural name for the 
 second order, and not for the first. But, the mo- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSIOxN-. 185 
 
 ment we turn from the apostolical writings, to 
 the writings even of those fathers who personally 
 knew and conversed with the apostles, behold the 
 meaning of the word " bishop" is entirely chang- 
 ed ! It signifies, in their mouth, a wholly differ- 
 ent thing from that which it signified in the 
 mouths of their inspired instructors. A bishop, 
 now, is not a parochial pastor, but a prelate — in- 
 stead of pointing the reader to a middle grade in 
 the ministry, it points him to a superior one. The 
 song, that ' names are nothing,' is now hushed ; 
 and a name not only becomes every thing, but, 
 without any notice of the change, is made to bear 
 a new and unheard of sense. 
 
 I know it is said, in justification of this course, 
 that, after the apostolic age, the name "bishop" 
 was taken from the second order in the ministry 
 and appropriated to the first ; and this would no 
 doubt answer to the exigency of the case exceed- 
 ingly well, if the fact could be established. But 
 where is the witness ? when did the change oc- 
 cur ? and by whose authority was it made ? 
 What Avas the name of the person or persons who 
 ventured, even before Clement and Ignatius wrote, 
 to mar the scriptural phraseology, by taking the 
 word " bishop" from the place which the apostles 
 had assigned to it, and turning it to a different 
 use ? To these questions, the common answer 
 16* 
 
186 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 is, — " lue learn it from Theodoref\' " Theodo- 
 RET," says one, '' a christian ivriter ivho flourish- 
 ed ONLY about two hundred years after those 
 times'^ 1 1 This is the only witness brought to sup- 
 port such an important position. Theodoret 
 flourished in the fifth century ; and to him we are 
 referred for testimony to an event, which is sup- 
 posed to have occurred more than three hundred 
 years before he was born ! With those who can 
 be satisfied with such proof as this, it is useless to 
 reason. The unprejudiced inquirer will go with 
 us, when we say, that, Theodoret to the contrary 
 notwithstanding^ it is fair to believe, that the 
 earliest christian writers use the word "bishop" 
 in the same sense in which it was used by the 
 apostles. 
 
 Another thing to be considered, in taking the 
 testimony of the Fathers, is that when they speak, 
 as they sometimes do, of Bishops, Presbyters, and 
 Deacons, we are not to suppose that they refer of 
 course to three distinct grades in the ministerial 
 office. Generally, as we shall see, they adopt 
 the scriptural enumeration, and say, "Bishops 
 and Deacons," or Presbyters and Deacons ; but, 
 in a few cases, these names will all be found to- 
 gether, and in succession. Such passages are 
 seized with avidity, by the advocates of prelacy, 
 and are held up as affording condusive proof of a 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION, 187 
 
 ministry of three orders. The Fathers, they say, 
 speak of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons ; and 
 what more do we want ? I answer, we want a 
 great deal more ; because we have akeady shewn, 
 what indeed no one denies, that '' bishop" and 
 *' presbyter," in the language of scripture, are 
 titles, not of different grades, but of one and the 
 same grade ; and it is not to be believed, Avithout 
 proof, that the Fathers, who lived near to the time 
 of the apostles, intended to use them in any other 
 sense. 
 
 And, if it is asked why they should use the 
 names "bishop" and "presbyter" together, if 
 they refer to the same grade, I answer, because, 
 while every bishop is a presbyter, it does not fol- 
 low that every presbyter is a bishop. A bishop is 
 an overseer — he is the appointed pastor of a par- 
 ticular flock. Bat, besides him, there may be 
 preachers of the gospel who are not pastors, and 
 who belong to the grade of presbyters as well as 
 he. Of such, there were many in the primitive 
 church, as there are many in all the denominations 
 of protestant christians at the present day ; and 
 that these should have been sometimes enumerated 
 by the Fathers, in connexion with the parochial 
 bishops, is nothing more than the circumstances 
 of the case would lead us to expect. 
 
 With these remarks, then, we proceed to a 
 
188 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 brief examination of this far-famed patristic tradi- 
 tion, which prelatical Avriters regard with so much 
 veneration, and which is so essential to the sup- 
 port of their cause. And, that no exception may- 
 be taken to our course, we shall bring into view 
 their own selections from these ancient writings — 
 giving them in the words of their own translation 
 — presenting them in the order of importance 
 Avhich they assign to them — and not stopping to 
 discuss the question, in reference to particular 
 passages, whether they are genuine or spurious ; 
 adding, of course, such other passages, as may 
 seem to be necessary, in placing the true meaning 
 of these writers before you. 
 
 I shall confine myself to the selections used by 
 Percival, in his treatise on apostolical succession, 
 which is circulated as a standard work. 
 
 He begins with Clement — called Clement of 
 Rome, to distinguish him from another of the 
 same name, of Alexandria. He flourished about 
 A. D. 100 ; and is generally supposed to have 
 been the person referred to by Paul, Phil. iv. 3. 
 The following is all that is relied upon from him 
 — "It will behoove us, (christians,) 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 ivhat perso7iS 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 189 
 
 they (the sacred services and oblations) are to be 
 performed. For the chief priest has his proper 
 services, and to the priests their proper place is 
 appointed ; and the layman is confined within the 
 bounds of what is commanded to laymen." It 
 would no doubt be difficult for an un practiced 
 eye, to discover the reason for resorting to this 
 passage, since, on the face of it, there is not the 
 remotest allusion to the subject under considera- 
 tion. What Clement does not say of himself, 
 however, he is made to say, thus, — he refers to a 
 three -fold ministry, as existing under the Jewish 
 dispensation ; and, in doing this, his object must 
 have been to indicate the existence of the same 
 number of orders in the christian ministry ! You 
 will not expect me to occupy your time in expos- 
 ing the Aveakness of such reasoning as this. 
 
 But let us hear what Clement does say in pas- 
 sages, which, of course, the advocates of prelacy 
 never quote. I give you, here, the translation of 
 Archbishop Wake. Speaking of the apostles, he 
 says — " They went abroad, preaching that the 
 kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preach- 
 ing through countries and cities, they appointed 
 the first fruits of their conversions to be Bishops 
 and Minister s.^^ The word which the archbishop 
 here translates ''ministers" is ^iaxovoug, deacons. 
 So it is rendered in our version of Paul's Epistles; 
 
190 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 and doubtless the reason why " ministers" was 
 substituted for "deacons," in translating Cle- 
 ment, was, that if the latter word had been chosen, 
 it would have made him speak to the ear of the 
 English reader exactly in the language of scrip- 
 ture — '' bishops and deacons." This is Paul's 
 own enumeration of ecclesiastical officers — mean- 
 ing by " bishops" parochial pastors. He never 
 referred to one of a superior grade ; and Clement 
 has followed his example. 
 
 In another place, Clement says, — '' Wherefore 
 we cannot think, that those may be justly thrown 
 out of their ministry, who were either appointed 
 by them (the apostles,) or afterwards chosen by 
 other eminent men, with the consent of the whole 
 church ; and who have, with all lowliness and 
 innocency, ministered to the flock of Christ in 
 peace, and without self-interest, and were for a 
 long time commended by all. For it would be 
 no small sin in us, should we cast off those from 
 their ministry {s^itfy.o'n'^^s) who holily and without 
 blame fulfill the duties of it. Blessed are those 
 priests, {Upsd^vrspoi,) who, having finished their 
 course," &c. Here is a still more glaring in- 
 stance of so departing from the common transla- 
 tion of words, as to prevent the English reader 
 from seeing, that Clement writes on the subject of 
 the ministry, just as the apostles themselves did. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 191 
 
 Why should the word npstf^urspof be rendered 
 *' priests," instead of presbyters, if this was not 
 the object ? And why should rrig s'irt(fxo-tris be ren- 
 dered '' their ministry," instead of their episcopa- 
 cy, or their place as bishops. Translate his 
 words, as the same words are translated when 
 used by Paul, and then he will speak j ust as Paul 
 spoke. His allusion is to those, who occupied 
 the place of bishops, or parochial pastors ; and he 
 pronounces his blessing upon them as presbyters 
 — showing, conclusively, that in his time a bishop 
 and a presbyter were one and the same person, as 
 they had been in the time of the apostles. 
 
 From Clement, Mr. Percival passes to Igna- 
 tius, whom he calls " the friend and disciple of 
 St. John, bishop of Antioch, A. D. 106." And 
 the following are the principal extracts from his 
 writings. — " The Bishops appointed to the utmost 
 bounds of the earth are the mind of Jesus Christ." 
 " I think you happy who are so joined to your 
 Bishop as the church is to Jesus Christ, and Jesus 
 Christ to the Father ; that so all things may agree 
 in unity." — " I exhort you that ye study to do all 
 things in a divine concord. Your Bishop presid- 
 ing in the place of C4od ; your Presbyters in the 
 place of the council of the apostles ; and your Dea- 
 cons, most dear to me, being intrusted with the 
 ministry of Jesus Christ." — ^^ Do nothing without 
 
192 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 your Bishops and Presbyters." — '' He that does 
 any thing without Bishops and Presbyters and 
 Deacons, is not pure in conscience." — " Attend to 
 the bishop, to the presbytery, and to the dea- 
 cons," &c. 
 
 The force of these passages is supposed to lie 
 in the single circumstance, that bishops, presby- 
 ters, and deacons, are named together. But we 
 have already shewn, that there is no sufficient 
 reason for supposing that these names were in- 
 tended to indicate so many distinct grades in the 
 ministry. Ignatius was writing, in all these cases, 
 to particular churches; and he speaks to them, 
 individually, of their Bishop. And what so natur- 
 al, as to suppose that he means a bishop, in the 
 scriptural sense ? It is plain, from other conside- 
 rations, that he can mean nothing else. He 
 speaks of " the bishop and the luhole church,''^ and 
 of their coming "to the same place,-'' In his 
 epistle to Poly carp, bishop of the church at Smyr- 
 na, he says, — " Let not thewidoivs be neglected; 
 be thou, after God, their guardian" — " Inquire 
 after all bi/ name. Do not proudly overlook the 
 men-servants, and the maid-servants.'^'' Do these 
 sound like instructions to a diocesan bishop ? or 
 are they, manifestly, directions to the pastor of a 
 particular church ? How could a prelate be ex- 
 pected to individualize, in the manner here de- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 193 
 
 scribed ? — to inquire after each one in all his dio- 
 cese " by name," and attend to his personal de- 
 sires and wants ? The inference is unavoidable, 
 that the bishop of Ignatius, like the bishop of 
 Clement, is of no higher order than the overseer 
 of a single church. 
 
 Another consideration, which settles the ques- 
 tion in regard to the testimony of Ignatius, is, that 
 he speaks oi presbyters in terms which place them 
 too high, to admit of their being under the govern- 
 ment of a superior, in the character of a prelate. 
 In his Epistle to the Trallians, he says — " be sub- 
 ject to jom presbyters as to the apostles of Jesus 
 Christ" — "reverence Xhe presbyters as the sanhe- 
 drim of God and college of the apostles." To 
 the Magnesians, he speaks of Sotio the deacon 
 being subject " to the presbytery as to the law of 
 Jesus Christ. '^'^ And, in writing to the Smyrnians, 
 he calls upon them to " follow the presbytery as 
 THE Apostles." It thus appears, that, while he 
 speaks of a bishop and a plurality of presbyters in 
 connection with each church, he puts the pres- 
 byters as high in rank and authority as is possible 
 — that is, in the place oithe apostles. And, if the 
 people were to be subject to them as to the apos- 
 tles, how is this consistent, in any possible way, 
 with the idea, that the reins of government and 
 17 
 
194 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 discipline were not in their hands, but in those of 
 a superior bishop ? 
 
 The next father, on whom reliance is placed, 
 is Irenceus, a. D. 178. And he is quoted as 
 writing thus — " Those elders in the church are to 
 be obeyed, who have a succession from the apos- 
 tles as we have shown, who, together with the suc- 
 cession, have received a certain true gift, accord- 
 ing to the decree of the Father ; but the rest, who 
 shun the chief succession, and are gathered toge- 
 ther in any place, are to be suspected as heretics 
 and persons of bad opinions ; or as schismatics, 
 and conceited persons, pleasing themselves ; or, 
 again, as hypocrites, doing this for the sake of 
 gain and vain-glory ; and all these have fallen 
 from the truth." — •' The doctrine of the apostles 
 is true knowledge ; and the ancient state of the 
 church, and the character of the body of Christ, 
 is according to the succession of bishops, to 
 whom, in every place, they delivered the church." 
 
 The value of these passages is supposed to lie 
 in the fact, that the writer speaks of bishops, and 
 represents them as successors of the apostles. 
 But here, the question returns, — What does he 
 mean by a bishop ? And, it is somewhat strange, 
 that any one should have failed to perceive, that, 
 in reference to this point, the language just quoted 
 explains itself. For the persons who are called 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 195 
 
 " bishops," in the last part of the extract, are the 
 same persons who are called " elders," or pres- 
 byters, in the first : they are both represented as 
 having a succession from the apostles ; and, shar- 
 ing as they do in this honor, the conclusion must 
 be, that, instead of belonging to different grades, 
 they are equals in office. This conclusion might 
 be strengthened by almost any number of quota- 
 tions from Irenoeus. He is full of passages, 
 which speak of bishops and presbyters, alike and 
 indiscriminately, as having the apostolical succes- 
 sion. And, in one passage especially, he so in- 
 terweaves the office of the presbyters with that of 
 the bishops, that they cannot be separated : it 
 runs thus, — " Obey those presbyte7's in the church 
 who have succession, as we have shown, from the 
 apostles ; who, with the succession of the episco- 
 pate received the gift of truth," &c. If this father 
 had seen with the eyes of modern prelatists, he 
 would not have expressed himself in such lan- 
 guage. To say that presbyters have the succes- 
 sion of the episcopate (or bishop's office) is just 
 saying all that we contend for. It is granting that 
 they belonged to one and the same order ; and, 
 as coming from Irenoeus, it proves that in his day, 
 as it was in scriptural times, the name bishop sig- 
 nified a presbyter, and not a prelate. 
 
 In addition to Clement, Ignatius, and Irenoeus, 
 
196 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 there are other fathers of the first two hundred 
 years, to whom we might refer you. But we do 
 not regard it as needful to extend the hst; be- 
 cause it is not pretended, that any thing can be 
 found in the authors of this period, more favora- 
 ble to the cause of prelacy, than the passages just 
 quoted. The three witnesses already examined, 
 are those on whom the advocates of this system 
 mainly rely ; and if their testimony will not sup- 
 port the cause, it would be in vain to go to others, 
 who speak in less explicit, or in more doubtful 
 terms. You are therefore, now, in possession of 
 the best and strongest evidence that can be ad- 
 duced from the writings of the Fathers. And, on 
 reviewing it, it would not surprise us, if those 
 among you who have paid no particular attention 
 to this part of the subject, should feel disposed to 
 inquire, — Is this all ? Is this the entire amount 
 of that boasted proof, the report of which has 
 rung the world over, as being sufficient to demo- 
 lish the doctrine of parity in the christian ministry, 
 and to estabhsh the claims of diocesan episcopa- 
 cy on an immovable basis ? Yes ; it is all : and 
 the whole of it is not worth a rush, unless you 
 take for granted the very thing to be proved — 
 that the word "bishop," as used by these writers, 
 has a different sense from that which it bears in 
 scripture, and must be understood to signify a 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 197 
 
 prelate, instead of a parochial pastor. This has 
 not been proved, and never can be. And, while 
 it remains unpvoved, the Fathers will continue to 
 speak, against the hierarchy, and in favor of pa- 
 rity. 
 
 Before leaving this part of the subject, it may 
 be proper to advert to the statement so often 
 made by the advocates of prelacy, that no one can 
 tell AT WHAT TIME, subsequcnt to the apostolic age, 
 diocesan episcopacy came into existence. We wilt 
 receive what they allege on this point, from the 
 lips of Bishop M'lllvaine. He says, — " It is no- 
 torious that at this present day, about eleven 
 twelfths of those called christians in the world, 
 are under the jurisdiction of an order of ministers 
 called bishops, whose individual office embraces 
 the essential particulars of that of the apostles, 
 and whose succession they regard as derived by 
 an unbroken chain from apostolic times." Start- 
 ing at this point, he goes backward on the line of 
 history, and affirms, that, if this episcopal jurisdic- 
 tion is an innovation upon scriptural usage, ^' his- 
 tory has preserved not the slightest trace of its be- 
 ginning and progress" — "none perceived the 
 usurpation" — ''neither friend nor foe, advocate 
 nor complainant, heathen, heretic, nor Jew, is 
 known to have observed it" — and " without a 
 dream of its being the unquestionable truth, it 
 17* 
 
198 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 continued till the sixteenth century entirely un- 
 suspected^ 
 
 We have long ceased to wonder at any asser- 
 tions which are ventured in behalf fo this cause, 
 however reckless and unsupported by proof; but 
 we think that some deference was due, from the 
 author of this language, to those who are acknow- 
 ledged to have studied the history of the church 
 and the world to some purpose, and yet have 
 come to a very different conclusion. It would, 
 at least, have been fair to have apprised the read- 
 er, that there are men of mind and learning who 
 do not believe that these declarations are true. 
 
 As to the assertion, that " eleven twelfths" of 
 the christian world are under the jurisdiction of 
 prelatical bishops at the present day, it would not 
 have been expedient, perhaps, to have gone into 
 an exposition of the way in which the calculation 
 is made. Either the Papacy is included in this 
 calculation, or it is not : if it is, we care not to 
 argue the question : those who choose this com- 
 pany are welcome to it ; and we confess our ina- 
 bility to cope with them in the counting of num- 
 bers. If the Papacy is not included, then the re- 
 sult of the calculation is no where in the neigbor- 
 hood of the truth. 
 
 The number of protestant christians in the 
 world, may be estimated at fifty -five millions 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 199 
 
 Of these, about twenty-four millions, nearly one 
 half of the whole, are Lutherans. These have 
 Bishops by name : but they are not prelatical bish- 
 ops, or bishops by divine right. It is no part of 
 the Lutheran creed, that a bishop belongs to a 
 higher grade in the ministry, and a presbyter to a 
 lower. Luther himself was only a presbyter, and 
 yet he consecrated their first bishop — three pas- 
 tors uniting with him in the imposition of hands. 
 And the Augsburgh Confession expressly de- 
 clares, that, '' according to the gospel, or jure 
 divino, no jurisdiction belongs to bishops as bish- 
 ops." They are persons selected from among 
 the presbyters, and set apart to an office of gen- 
 eral supervision or superintendence ; but not re- 
 garded as forming a distinct and necessary grade 
 in the constitution of the ministry. — The same 
 thing is true of the V/esleyan Methodists. They 
 have their Bishops, and also their Presiding El- 
 ders ; but neither of these are considered as be- 
 longing to a superior grade, established by divine 
 authority : they are still presbyters in common 
 with others, and are appointed to the office of su- 
 perintedence from views of expediency alone. 
 From the Lutherans, and Wesleyan Methodists, 
 we might pass to the Moravians, the reformed 
 churches of France, of Holland, of Germany, of 
 Switzerland, &c.; and after passing round the 
 
200 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 protestant world, and making up oin* statistics, 
 we should find that the established Church of 
 England, with her daughter in this country, is the 
 only protestant church which maintains the divine 
 right of prelatical episcopacy. All others left this 
 invention behind them, when they escaped from 
 Rome ; and have reason to rejoice in the liberty 
 with which Christ has made them free. 
 
 But the more important matter which concerns 
 us now, is the allegation, that history has not pre- 
 served the slightest trace of the origin of prelacy ; 
 and that this may be considered as amounting to 
 a demonstration, that it could not have been intro- 
 duced, at any time subsequent to the apostolic 
 age. This statement of the case proceeds upon 
 the supposition, that we have no reason to believe 
 that an event has occurred in past times, unless we 
 are furnished with credible evidence of the fact, 
 horn the history oi those times. But is this so? 
 Let us apply the principle to some other things, 
 which are not remotely connected with the pre- 
 sent subject. Is there not an ecclesisatic, now in 
 existence, under the name and occupying the 
 station of an archbishop ? Is it not granted by all, 
 that, for such an office, there is no provision in the 
 New Testament, and that, during the life-time of 
 the apostles, it did not exist ? Under these cir- 
 cumstances, how can we do otherwise than be- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 201 
 
 lieve, that both the name and the office have come 
 into use since ? And yet, who can point us to 
 the time, and the place, at which they Avere intro- 
 duced, and detail the circumstances attending the 
 event ? This is one of the changes which history 
 is not likely to record ; for the reason, that they 
 do not occur at once, and are not likely, there- 
 fore, to excite public attention at the time. They 
 came on gradually and silently — they steal into 
 existence, by slow and imperceptible degrees — so 
 that there is no distinct line, on one side of v/hich 
 you can say they ewe, and on the other that they 
 are not. After the sun has risen, we can say ' it 
 is day '; but in the twilight of the morning we 
 find it impossible to distinguish accurately be- 
 tween the light and the darkness. 
 
 The following passage from Dr. George Camp- 
 bell is worthy of notice, in this connection ; — 
 *' There are very few, either protestants or pa- 
 pists, who with Baronius, and the other tools of 
 ecclesiastical tyranny, pretend to assign to the 
 metropolitical or patriarchal authority an aposto- 
 lical original, yet there is not a single objection 
 that can be raised against the feasbility of an ac- 
 quisition of power in the bishops over the presby- 
 ters, that does not operate with at least equal 
 force against the feasability of such an acquisition 
 in the metropolitans over the bishops, and in the 
 
202 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 patriarchs over the metropoUtans ; and I may- 
 add with equal reason, (as it came afterwards, in 
 a great measure, to obtain,) in the Pope over the 
 whole or greater part of the christian world. 
 There is a gradation in the whole progress : the 
 steps by which we ascend are exactly similar. 
 Nor is the origin of any one part of the system 
 more unaccountable than of another. ''^'^ 
 
 Again, it is granted on all hands, as we have 
 seen, that during the life-time of the apostles, the 
 name " bishop" was used to designate a person 
 of no higher grade than a presbyter : now, it is 
 used to signify a prelate : a radical change has 
 therefore occurred, in relation to this point ; but 
 who can tell when — by luhoin introduced — or by 
 what authority sanctioned ? Here, history is si- 
 lent ; and yet, who doubts the fact ? I know it 
 will be said, that Theodoret speaks of this change. 
 But again the question arises, who was Theodo- 
 ret ? He lived more than three hundred years af- 
 ter the change is supposed to have occurred, and 
 cannot therefore be a competent witness. He 
 reports it as having occurred, but only says, in re- 
 gard to the date of the event, that it was " in pro- 
 cess of time" — which every one knows, as well 
 without his testimony as with it. There is not a 
 particle of historical testimony, therefore, as to 
 
 * Ecclesiastical History, p. 149. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 203 
 
 the particular period, within which this important 
 change was introduced. 
 
 We join issue with the advocates of prelacy 
 here; and pledge ourselves to show, that history 
 has preserved traces of the rise of bishops as a su- 
 perior grade in the ministry, which are far more 
 distinct and full, than any traces which are to be 
 found of the transfer of the name bishop from a 
 parochial pastor to a prelate. If Theodoret is a 
 good witness on the latter point, Jerome is far 
 better on the former. He is put down as flour- 
 ishing about A. D. 380, nearly a century earlier 
 than Theodoret. For learning, as well as piety, 
 he stood unequalled in his day. Erasmus says 
 concerning him, that he was " without controver- 
 sy the most learned of all christians, the prince of 
 divines, and for eloquence that he excelled Cice- 
 ro." Bingham, author of the Antiquities, says 
 that he " Avill be allowed to speak the sense of 
 the ancients." And the great Augustine remarks 
 concerning him, that '' Jerome knew every thing 
 that was known by man." 
 
 What, then, does Jerome say ? The following 
 passages are in place, — " A presbyter therefore is 
 the same as a bishop ; and before there were by 
 the instigation of the devil parties in religion, and 
 it was said among different people " I am of 
 Paul; and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas," the 
 
204 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 churches were governed by the joint council of 
 the presbyters. But afterivards^ when every one 
 accounted those whom he baptized as belonging 
 to himself, and not to Christ, it was decreed 
 throughout the whole world that one, chosen from 
 among the presbyters, should be set over the rest^ 
 and that the whole care of the church should be 
 committed to him, and the seeds of schism taken 
 away." — " As to the fact that, afterivards^ one 
 was elected to preside over the rest^ this was done 
 as a remedy against schism," &c. — " Our inten- 
 tion, in these remarks, is to show that among the 
 ancients presbyters and bishops were the very 
 SAME. But that by little and little^ that the plants 
 of dissentions might be plucked up, the whole 
 concern was devolved upon an individual. As 
 the presbyters, therefore, know that they are sub- 
 jected, by the custom of the churchy to him wdio is 
 set over them ; so let the bishops know, that they 
 are greater than presbyters more by custom than 
 
 by ANY REAL APPOINTMENT OF ChRIST." HcrC, 
 
 we think, is a slight trace at least, not only of the 
 period within Avhich bishops were elevated above 
 presbyters ; but also of the manner in which this 
 distinction arose. Originally, Jerome says, they 
 were '' the very same" — the change was brought 
 about *' by little and little"^ — and it had its ori- 
 gin, in electing one presbyter "to preside over 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 205 
 
 the rest," as a remedy against schism. A more 
 natural account of the way in which such a 
 change might be supposed to occur, could not have 
 been written. It is plain, full, and directly to the 
 point — it comes from the most eminent man of 
 his time ; and was written less than three hundred 
 years after the death of the last apostle. 
 
 Nor is Jerome the only one who has expressed 
 himself on the same subject, substantially in the 
 same way. Bishop JcAvell represents Augustine, 
 who was cotemporary Avith Jerome, as saying, — 
 " The office of bishop is above the office of priest, 
 not by authority of the so'iptures, but after the 
 names of honor, which the custom of the church 
 hath noio obtained.'^'' A similar view is expressed 
 by Hilary, (or Ambrose,) who flourished about 
 A. D. 376— by Chrysostom, A. D. 398— by The- 
 odoret, A. D. 430 — by Primasius, who wrote 
 about the same time — andbySedulius, A. D. 470.*^ 
 They all agree with Jerome, that presbyter and 
 bishop were the same at first, and that, in their 
 day, a different arrangement had been intro- 
 duced. 
 
 To the opinions of these Fathers, we shall now 
 add some authorities from the most distinguished 
 modern historians. Dr. Campbell says, — " From 
 the imperfection of the ecclesiastic history of the 
 
 * See Dr. Miller on the Christian Ministry, p. 205-208. 
 18 
 
206 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 first ages, it is impossible to trace the progress of 
 usurpation through its various stages, with all the 
 clearness that could be wished. Enough, how- 
 ever, may be clearly discovered, when we com- 
 pare the state of things in latter times, with w^hat 
 we learn from the sacred record, and from the 
 genuine undisputed remains of the apostolic fa- 
 thers, to satisfy us both of the reality and of the 
 greatness of that usurpation. ^'^ 
 
 Dr. Mosheim, who will be acknoAvledged to 
 have studied the history of the church with care, 
 in speaking of the first century, says, — ''The 
 rulers of the church at this time were called either 
 presbyters or bishops, which two titles are in the 
 New Testament, undoubtedly applied to the same 
 orderofmen." * * "A bishop, duringthe first 
 and second centuries, was a person who had the 
 care of one christian assembly, which, at that time, 
 was, generally speaking, small enough to be contain- 
 ed in a private house." * * " But the number of 
 the presbyters and deacons increasing with that 
 of the churches, and the sacred work of the min- 
 istry growing more painful and weighty by a 
 number of additional duties, these new circum- 
 stances required new regulations. It was then 
 judged necessary, that one man of distinguished 
 gravity and wisdom should preside in the council 
 
 * Ecc. Hist, p. 149. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 20j7 
 
 of presbyters, in order to distribute among his 
 colleagues their several tasks, and to be a centre 
 of union to the whole society." Following the 
 line of events into the third century, he goes on to 
 say, — '' The face of things began now to change 
 in the christian church. The ancient method of 
 ecclesiastical government seemed, in general, still 
 to subsist, while, at the same time, by impercepti- 
 ble steps, it varied from the primitive rule, and 
 deo^enerated towards the form of a reliofious mon- 
 archy. For the bishops aspired to higher degrees 
 of power and authority than they had formerly 
 possessed, and not only violated the rights of the 
 people, but also made gradual encroachments up- 
 on the privileges of the presbyters. And that 
 tliey might cover these usurpations with an air of 
 justice, and an appearance of reason, they pub- 
 lished new doctrines concerning the nature of the 
 church, and of the episcopal dignity." — Passing 
 to the fourth century, he speaks thus, — " The 
 bishops, whose opulence and authority were con- 
 siderably increased since the reign of Constantine, 
 began to introduce gradually innovations into the 
 form of ecclesiastical discipline, and to change the 
 ancient government of the church. Their first 
 step was an entire exclusion of the people from 
 all part in the administration of ecclesiastical af- 
 fairs ; and afterwards they, by degrees, divested 
 
208 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 even the presbyters of their ancient privileges, 
 and their primitive authority." # # '' Hence, it 
 came to pass, that at the conclusion of the fourth 
 century, there remained no more than a mere 
 shadow of the ancient government of the church. 
 Many of the privileges which had formerly be- 
 longed to the presbyters and people, were usurp- 
 ed by the bishops ; and many of the rights, which 
 had been formerly vested in the universal church, 
 were transferred to the emperors, and to subordi- 
 nate officers and magistrates." 
 
 To the views of Mosheim, we add those of 
 Gibbon, who had no favorite views of church 
 government to support, and may therefore be sup- 
 posed to write impartially. In his " Decline and 
 Fall of the Roman Empire," he says, in refer- 
 ence to the first and second centuries, — " The 
 public functions of religion were solely entrusted 
 to the established ministers of the church, the 
 bishops and the presbyters ; two appellations which, 
 m their first origin, appear to have distinguished 
 the same office, and the same order of ; : -sons." 
 # ^ " In proportion to the respective niJ bers of 
 the faithful, a larger or smaller number • •* these 
 episcopal presbyters guided each infant cc ^grega- 
 tion, with equal authority, and united councils. 
 But the most perfect equality of freedom requires 
 the directing hand of a superior magistrate ; and 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 
 
 209 
 
 the order of public deliberation soon introduces 
 the office of a president, invested at least with the 
 authority of collecting the sentiments, and of ex- 
 ecuting the resolutions of the assembly. A re- 
 gard for the public tranquility, which would so 
 frequently have been interrupted by annual, or by 
 occasional elections, induced the primitive chris- 
 tians to constitute an honorable and perpetual 
 magistracy, and to choose one of the wisest and 
 most holy among their presbyters, to execute du- 
 ring his life the duties of their ecclesiastical gov- 
 ernor. It was under these circumstances, that 
 the lofty title of bishop began to raise itself above 
 the humble appellation of presbyter, and while the 
 latter remained the most natural distinction for 
 the members of every christian senate, the former 
 was appropriated to the dignity of its new pre- 
 sident." 
 
 We here close our citation of authorities. 
 They agree entirely as to the main facts in the 
 case. And yet, in the face of their united judg- 
 ment, we are gravely told, that the divine right of 
 prelacy was never called in question for sixteen 
 hundred years ; and that, if any change did occur 
 in the government of the church during this pe- 
 riod, " neither friend nor foe, advocate nor com- 
 plainant, heathen, heretic, nor Jew, is known to 
 have observed it"! ! ! 
 18* 
 
210 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 The first step, in the course of innovation upon 
 the scriptural model was the choice of one pres- 
 byter to preside over the rest : afterwards he be- 
 came a standing president, and finally a president 
 for life : to this president, in process of time, the 
 name bishop was applied as his distinctive title. 
 And, advancing from step to step, the usurpation 
 grew, until it ended, not merely in diocesan epis- 
 copacy, but in popery itself. 
 
 Our argument against the divine right of prela- 
 cy is now finished. We have sought in vain for 
 a prelatical bishop, in connection w^ith the church 
 as founded by our Saviour and his apostles. He 
 does not appear, in the uninspired history of the 
 first two centuries, any more than on the pages of 
 the New Testament record. In the writings of 
 the earliest fathers, as w^ell as in the language of 
 the apostles, bishops and presbyters are " the 
 VERY SAME." And this is so obvious, that we are 
 not surprised to hear even a prelate expressing 
 himself in the following terms, — "I hope my 
 readers will see what weak proofs are brought for 
 this distinction and superiority of order. No 
 scripture, no primitive general council, no gene- 
 ral consent of primitive doctors and fathers, no, 
 not one j)rimitive father of note, speaking particu- 
 larly, and home to our purpose."*' 
 
 ■^ Bishop Croft's Naked Truth, p. 47. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 211 
 
 DISCOURSE VII. 
 
 THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION BROUGHT TO THE TEST 
 OF HISTORY— CANNOT BE TRACED— NEITHER IN THE 
 LINE OF THE ROMISH, NOR OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. 
 
 Nehemiah \'ii. 64. These sought their register among those that 
 were reckoned by genealogy, but it was not found : therefore were 
 they, as poHuted, put from the priesthood. 
 
 This passage has reference to the mode of as- 
 certaining the line of succession in the Jewish 
 Priesthood. This office was hereditary in the 
 family of Aaron ; and the first-born of the oldest 
 branch of this family was the high priest, when 
 there was no ceremonial blemish to interrupt the 
 natural order. Under these circumstances, all 
 that was needful, in determining the claims of an 
 individual to the priesthood, was a knowledge of 
 his family relations. And that nothing might be 
 wanting towards an easy ascertainment of these 
 relations, every family was required to prepare 
 and preserve a genealogical record — the original 
 of which was lodged at Jerusalem, to be consult- 
 ed when necessary. So that when a difficulty 
 
DISCOURSES ON 
 
 arose, as to the claims of an unknown individual, 
 he had only to produce his register, and all were 
 ready to abide by its decision. 
 
 The case adverted to in the text, was a case in 
 which the decision was against the persons whose 
 names are mentioned in the history. Their title 
 to the priesthood was disputed ; and to establish 
 it, they sought the register of their names in the 
 genealogical tables, but they were not to be 
 found. And, without farther ceremony, they 
 were '' put from the priesthood," " as polluted" 
 — that is, as not entitled, from this circumstance, 
 to the honors of the office. 
 
 This was a righteous decision ; because the 
 rule of judgment was scriptural, and safe in its 
 operation. And if those of our own, or of any 
 other age, who claim to be the true and only suc- 
 cessors of the apostles in the power of ruling the 
 church and perpetuating a gospel ministry, could 
 substantiate their claims by any such evidence as 
 that which the application of such a rule would 
 furnish, v\^e should not think for a moment of call- 
 ing their claims in question. We have no right, 
 indeed, to demand evidence of precisely the same 
 kind; but we have a right to insist upon proof 
 which will be equally conclusive ; because the in- 
 terests involved are too momentous to be hazard- 
 ed upon uncertain and doubtful grounds. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 213 
 
 If there is any foimdation in truth for the doc- 
 trine of prelatical succession, the consequence in 
 relation to our country must be, that, of more 
 than tivo millions of professing christians, less 
 than one hundred thousand have any true connec- 
 tion with the church of Christ — more than nine- 
 teen twentieths are to be set down, as connected 
 with an unauthorised and spurious ministry — 
 their churches are to be regarded as no churches, 
 their sacraments as no sacraments, and their hope 
 of salvation as unsanctioned by the promises of 
 God. In view of this state of the case, we fully 
 agree in opinion with a living bishop, when he de- 
 clares this question of apostolical succession to be 
 ^' a question involving the eternal interests of mill- 
 ions." And, where such interests are to be dis- 
 posed of, we have a right to expect that every 
 thing will be made plain : we may say, with good 
 reason, to the few men among us who claim to be 
 exclusively the successors of the apostles, — Pro- 
 duce e evidence of your claim, and let it be of 
 such lature that none can misinterpret or evade 
 it. : *'ou cannot point us to a register, in which 
 your \i imes are written by competent authority, 
 or exhibit the signs of an apostle in divers won- 
 ders and miracles of the Holy Ghost, give us at 
 least such proof as will demonstrate that you are 
 
214 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 not mistaken — and then, we shall not hesitate to 
 receive and honor your exclusive pretensions. 
 
 Our object in this discourse will be to show, 
 that, even granting every thing else which this 
 system claims, the line of succession cannot be 
 TRACED — no prelatical bishop of the present day 
 can be sure, on his own principles, that he is con- 
 nected witli the apostles by an unbroken series 
 of valid ordinations. 
 
 No doubt if bold and confident assertions were 
 to be accepted as evidence, the proof would be 
 easy ; for, accustomed as we are, in connection 
 with this whole subject, to meet with strong and 
 sweeping assertions which are unsupported by 
 facts, we think that one of the choicest examples 
 of this method of operating upon the public mind 
 appears at the point at which we have now arriv- 
 ed. Dr. Hook says, — " This continued descent 
 is evident to every one ivlio chooses to investigate 
 if^ — " There is not a bishop, priest, or deacon 
 among us, luko cannot^ if he pleases^ trace his 
 own spiritual descent from St. Peter, or St. Paul.'* 
 The Oxford divines say, — " As to the fact of the 
 apostolical succession, that is, that our present 
 bishops are the heirs and representatives of the 
 apostles by successive transmission of their prero- 
 gative of being so, this is too notorious to require 
 proof. Every link in the chain is knoivn^ from 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 215 
 
 St. Peter to our present Metropolitans." An au- 
 thor before me challenges the whole world to pro- 
 duce " a flaw in the line of descent"; and says, — 
 " We can give you the lists of our bishops from 
 the earliest to the present times." And, in a Dic- 
 tionary of the Church, published in New York in 
 1839, we are told, that it cannot bear any dispute, 
 that " it is now more easily to be proved, that the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury was canonically or- 
 dained, than that any person now living is the 
 son of him luho is called his father ; and that the 
 same might have been said of any archbishop or 
 bishop, that ever sat in that or any other episco- 
 pal see, during the time of his being bishop." 
 
 That all the friends of diocesan episcopacy are 
 so far deluded as to embrace this fancy, we do 
 not mean to insinuate. On the other hand, we 
 rejoice to know that thousands are found in their 
 ranks, who not only dissent from the opinion ex- 
 pressed in the foregoing extracts, but even repu- 
 diate the notion as absurd. 
 
 The judicious Hooker admits, that ordinations 
 have often occurred without a bishop to ordain, 
 and says, — ^' We are not simply, and without ex- 
 ception, to urge a lineal descent of power from 
 the apostles by a continued succession of bishops 
 in every effectual ordination." 
 
 Bishop Hoadley's opinion is thus expressed, — 
 
216 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 " As far as we can judge of this, God's provi- 
 dence never yet^ in fact ^ kept up a regular uninter- 
 rupted succession of rightful bishops." — " It hath 
 not pleased God in his providence to keep any 
 proof of the least probability, or moral possibility, 
 of a regular uninterrupted succession ; but there 
 is a great appearance, and humanly speaking a 
 certainty of the contrary, that the succession hath 
 often been interrupted.''^ 
 
 Bishop Stillingfleet says, — " By the loss of the 
 records of the British churches, ive cannot draiv 
 down the succession of bishops from the apostolic 
 times ; that of the bishops of London, by Jocelyn, 
 of Furnes, not being worth mentioning." 
 
 Archbishop Usher quotes with approbation 
 another author who states, — " The accounts given 
 of British bishops, who stand at the head of the 
 succession, were rather agreeable to common fame 
 and opinion than any certainty of history .^^ 
 
 Archbishop Whately says, — " There is not a 
 minister in all Christendom, who is able to trace 
 up, ivith any approach to certainty, his own spirit- 
 ual pedigree." We read of bishops consecrated 
 when mere children ; of men officiating, who 
 barely knew their letters ; of prelates expelled, 
 and others put into their places, by violence ; of 
 illiterate and profligate laymen, and habitual 
 drunkards, admitted to holy orders ; and, in short, 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 217 
 
 of the prevalence of every kind of disorder and 
 reckless disregard of the decency which the apos- 
 tle enjoins. It is inconceivable, that any one, 
 even moderately acquainted v^ith history, can feel 
 a certainty, or any approach to certainty, that 
 amidst all this confusion and corruption, every 
 requisite form was, in every instance, strictly ad- 
 hered to by men, many of them openly profane 
 and secular, unrestrained by public opinion, 
 through the gross ignorance of the population 
 among whom they lived ; and that not one, not 
 duly consecrated or ordained, was admitted to 
 the sacred offices." 
 
 The present Bishop of Hereford remarks in a 
 charge to his clergy, — " You will exceed all just 
 bounds, if you are constantly insisting upon the 
 necessity of a belief in, and the certainty of, the 
 apostolical succession in the bishops and presby- 
 ters of our church as the only security for the effi- 
 cay of the sacraments." — " To spread abroad this 
 notion would be to make ourselves the derision of 
 the world. "^"^ 
 
 We only add the following language from a re- 
 cently published " Plea for Episcopacy," by the 
 Rev. J. E. Riddle, himself also a minister of the 
 church of England, — " Whatever may become of 
 the apostolic succession as a theory, or an institute, 
 it is impossible at all events to prove the fact of 
 19 
 
218 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 such succession^ or to trace it down the stream of 
 time. In this case the fact seems to involve the 
 doctrine ; and if the fact be hopelessly obscure^ 
 the doctrine is irrecoverably lost.^^ — " It is impos- 
 sible to prove the personal succession of modern 
 bishops, in an unbroken episcopal line, from the 
 apostles, or men of the apostolic age." 
 
 Now if there are names, among the living or 
 tde dead, worthy of being referred to as authority 
 on such a subject, they are certainly some of those 
 from wiiom these expressions of opinion have 
 come. And yet, as if no such intimations had 
 fallen from the lips of friend or foe, the dogmatic 
 assertion continues to be repeated, Avithout proof, 
 that there is no difficulty whatever in tracing an 
 unbroken line of valid episcopal ordinations 
 from the time of the apostles to the present day. 
 
 It is not a little amusing to find the position 
 taken by some modern defenders of the system, 
 that the burden of proof lies upon those who deny 
 the apostoHcal succession. ' The final promise of 
 Christ to the apostles,' it is said ' guarantees that 
 there shall be a succession — if the succession has 
 failed, the promise of Christ has failed also — we 
 are entitled therefore to assume that it has 7iot 
 failed — and those Avho say that it has, are bound 
 to shew when, where, and in what respects.' 
 Wellandconclusively reasoned, no doubt I — if you 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 219 
 
 admit that Christ promised just such a succession, 
 as that which this argmnent contemplates. For 
 such a succession, however, we have shewn there 
 is no starting point in the word of God : such a 
 succession Christ never promised : and we find 
 additional proof of this in the fact, that no suffi- 
 cient evidence can be produced, that a succession 
 of this particular kind has obtained and been per- 
 petuated in the world. 
 
 In any chain, consisting of links depending up- 
 on each other, the strength of the whole is just 
 equal in amount to that of the weakest part : the 
 entire chain will bear no more than the weakest 
 Hnk is adequate to sustain : in proving that one is 
 defective, therefore, you destroy the utility of all 
 the rest, however perfect and massive you may 
 suppose them to be. Now, in the chain of the 
 apostolical succession, the links are so many suc- 
 cessive acts of ordination, performed in a certain 
 way, by one prelatical bishop upon another — 
 each one depending for its validity upon that 
 which immediately preceded it. In order there- 
 fore to establish the defectiveness of the whole, 
 it is not necessary to travel along the entire line 
 and inspect the condition of every part ; but only 
 to prove, that there are one or more places, at 
 which the links are unsound, or the chain broken. 
 From any given point, at which this fact can be 
 
220 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 established, the succession ceases — all that comes 
 after this is worthless, on the principles of the 
 succession scheme itself. 
 
 We proceed then, in accordance with these 
 views, to examine some parts of the chain, which 
 is supposed to connect the prelatical bishops of 
 the present day with the apostles of Christ. 
 
 As the case is now generally presented, there 
 are tivo lines of descent relied upon ; or rather, in 
 tracing backwards, the line has two branches — 
 one running through the Papacy up to the apos- 
 tles, through the first bishops of Rome ; and the 
 other running through the AngHcan church, as 
 distinct from the church of Eome, and connect- 
 ing with one or more of the apostles, who are 
 supposed to have preached the gospel, and estab- 
 lished chnrehes in the island of Great Britain. 
 
 In regard to the first of these, we find on inquiry, 
 that, at the starting point, where every thing ought 
 to be perfectly plain, there is such an entire want 
 of evidence in support of the facts alleged, that 
 we are thrown at once into a state of inextricable 
 uncertainty and doubt. Prelatical writers them- 
 selves are not agreed, as to ivhich of the apostles, 
 was the head of the succession at Rome. Instead 
 of assigning the position with confidence to either 
 one, the phraseology generally is, " St. Peter, or 
 St. Paul." Here is the language of hesitation to 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 221 
 
 begin with : it is mere guess-work, as the phrase- 
 ology sufficiently shows. Some, indeed, with an 
 air of greater confidence, leave out the name of 
 Paul, and speak of Peter alone, and without qua- 
 lification, as having b,een the apostolical bishop of 
 Rome. This is the opinion to which the advo- 
 cates of the succession especially incline. But 
 when we ask for the evidence, on which this opin- 
 ion is based, we are furnished with nothing better 
 than the most uncertain tradition. The chal- 
 lenge has often been given to the papacy, and to 
 all others who claim to be the successors of Peter, 
 as bishop of Rome, to produce any proof that he 
 ever was at Rome at all — and they have never 
 done it. The probability is that he never was ; 
 and that he did not reside permanently in Rome, is 
 as certain as any thing can be, which depends 
 upon circumstantial evidence. A large propor- 
 tion of the book of the Acts of the Apostles is em- 
 ployed in giving an account of his labors — men- 
 tion is made of him in different places ; in Jerusa- 
 lem, Samaria, Lydia, Joppa, Csesarea^ &c. — but 
 not a word is said of him in connection with 
 Rome. Paul, in writing from Rome, never 
 speaks of him — even his last epistlil to Timothy, 
 in which he assured him that the time of his de- 
 parture was at hand, though he sent salutations 
 from all the brethren, from Eubulus, Pudens, Li- 
 19* 
 
222 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 nus, &c., he makes no allusion to Peter. It is 
 passing strange, if, under these circumstances, he 
 could have been the resident prelate of Rome. 
 
 But, supposing the alleged fact on this subject 
 to be established by sufficient evidence, the ques- 
 tion arises, who were Peter's successors in the 
 bishopric of Rome ? And here, when Ave collect 
 and compare the opinions of prelatical writers, 
 Ave find nothing but ' confusion Avorse confound- 
 ed.' Dr. Hook and others, indeed, Avill read off 
 the list, as if all Avere light and certainty, and Avill 
 say, — " These great apostles (meaning Peter and 
 Paul,) successively ordained Linus, Cletus, and 
 Clement." In opposition to this, hoAvever, there 
 are quite as many, Avho affirm, that the order thus 
 assiorned 3o the successors is all a mistake — that 
 the first bishop of Rome, after the apostles, Avas 
 not Linus, but Clement — and some declare, that 
 Clement and Cletus are both to be placed before 
 Linus. Bishop Pearson thinks he has shown, 
 that Linus died before Peter ; and, if so, he could 
 not have been one of his successors, in any part 
 of the line. — Again Eusebuis, Avho is relied upon 
 for authority that Linus was the first bishop of 
 Rome, declares that he received the episcopate 
 '' after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter." And, 
 if this Avas the case, who ordained and installed 
 him ? If Peter and Paul Avere dead, when the 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 223 
 
 episcopate was conferred upon him, of course he 
 did not receive it from either of them ; and if not, 
 who knows that the powers conferred upon him 
 were prelatical powers? Perhaps, after all, he 
 was set apart to his work by some body of hum- 
 ble presbyters; and, in that event, the virtue of 
 the succession was tainted at its very source. 
 
 The truth is, it cannot be ascertained, with any 
 thing like an approach to certainty, luho was the 
 first bishop of Rome. And, if it could, there 
 would be an insurmountable difficulty still re- 
 maining ; and that would be, to prove that the 
 bishop of Rome who succeeded the apostles w^as 
 the bishop of a diocese^ as distinguished from the 
 overseer of a particular church. It never has 
 been shown, and it never can be, that there Avere 
 more churches in Rome at this time than one. 
 Lord King, to whom I have already referred, ex- 
 presses himself in the following way, — " How 
 large the diocese of Rome was, may be conjec- 
 tured by that, 1. All people thereof could meet to- 
 gether to perform, divine service, &c. 2. In this 
 diocese, there was but one church or meeting 
 place ; for, when bishop Anterus died, all the 
 brethren met together in the churcJufo choose a 
 successor." This opinion, especially as coming 
 from a man of real learning and closel/ connected 
 "wiih the hierarchy, is worthy of special regard. 
 
224 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 To say the least of it, it is an opinion which never 
 can be refuted; and therefore, even granting that 
 Linus succeeded the apostles immediately, it re- 
 mains to be shown, that the powers which he ex- 
 ercised in Rome were any higher than those 
 which belong to the pastor of a particular church. 
 If Lord King is right in saying, that, when a 
 bishop died, " all thebrethren met together in the 
 church to choose a successor," then it is certain 
 that the bishops of Rome, at that time, were nothing 
 more than parochial ministers. For Avho ever 
 heard of ''all the brethren" of a particular 
 church meeting together to elect a prelatical bish- 
 op ? 
 
 The same doubts which hang over the question, 
 who was the first bishop of Rome ? equally attend 
 all investigations as to the second or third link in 
 tlie chain. Dr. Prideaux says, "there is no cer- 
 tainty to be had." Even Cabassute, the Popish 
 historian, says, "itisat'ery doubtful question." 
 Dr. Calamy, in speaking of the tables of succes- 
 sion, declares that " the head of the Nile is not 
 more obscure than the first part of these tables." 
 Stillingfleet says, it "is as muddy as the Tiber it- 
 self." And Dr. Comber, in arguing with the de- 
 fenders of the Papacy, says, — " Upon the whole 
 matter, there is no certainty who was bishop of 
 Rome next to the apostles, and therefore the Ro- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 225 
 
 manists build upon an ill bottom^ when they lay- 
 so great weight upon their pe?'so?ial succession. '''' 
 Apply this to the succession of the hierarchy, to 
 which Dr. Comber himself belonged, and the re- 
 mark will have equal weight. The high church 
 system and the Papacy stand, in this respect, up- 
 on the same ground. They build alike upon an 
 ill bottom ; because they both rely upon a succes- 
 sion, which cannot be traced ; and which, if it 
 could, would make the Prelate of one, as well as 
 the Pope of the other, a descendant of nothing 
 higher than a parochial pastor. 
 
 But we will suppose, for argument, that every 
 thing in regard to the first bishops of Rome was 
 just as the advocates of prelacy would have it — 
 that Rome, with its dependencies, was a diocese 
 in the modem sense — that Linus was ordained as 
 bishop of this diocese by Peter — that what he re- 
 ceived from the apostle was transmitted to others 
 after him in regular order — and that this succes- 
 sion was continued without interruption for centu- 
 ries : still, there are numerous places, farther 
 down in the chain, where, beyond a doubt, it was 
 broken. To a few of these, only, will our limits 
 permit us to refer. 
 
 We cannot proceed intelligibly, however, with- 
 out stopping here, for a moment, to set aside a 
 position, which is now resorted to uniformly by 
 
226 'discourses on 
 
 the friends of the succession, to aid them in their 
 passage along the line of descent : it is, that the 
 validity of ordinatio?i is 7iot affected by the impie- 
 ty, or HERESY, of the person ordained — that, ivhat- 
 ever he may be, as to his creed or moral charac- 
 ter, he is a true minister, if only the hands of a 
 prelate have been laid upon him, and, therefore, 
 that the right performance of the ceremony of or- 
 dination is the only thing, into which it is needful 
 to inquire, in tracing the line of succession. This 
 is monstrous, on the face of it ; and, for obvious 
 reasons, cannot be admitted. 
 
 We take an extreme case, for the sake of illus- 
 tration. Suppose a man to be openly and avow- 
 edly a7i atheist. Would the imposition of hands 
 make him a duly authorised and commissioned 
 minister of Christ ? Would he, remaining an 
 atheist, be the actual depository of ' apostolical 
 grace,' and the sure means of communicating it 
 to his successors ? This will hardly be pretend- 
 ed. — Suppose another individual to be a profess- 
 ed believer in the existence of God ; but, at the 
 same time, a professed unbeliever in the divine 
 origin and inspiration of the Bible ? Would or- 
 dination invest hi7n with the ministerial charac- 
 ter, and commission ? Is there any such differ- 
 ence, between an atheist and a deist, that the im- 
 position of hands could do for the latter, what it 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 227 
 
 could not do for the former ? — Farther, suppose 
 a man to receive the Bible as true, but to deny 
 altogether the divinity and atonement of Christ. 
 Would his ordination be valid ? And, in conse- 
 quence of such an act, could he be the means of 
 transmitting a true ministry to succeeding ages ? 
 In other words, can a man be a truly commission- 
 ed minister of Christ, who makes it his business to 
 DENY "the Lord that bought him," and to bring 
 " swift destruction" upon himself, and upon all 
 who embrace the doctrine which he preaches ? 
 Once more, suppose an individual to be a nomi- 
 nal believer in all the fundamental doctrines of 
 scripture ; but notoriously, habitually, and without 
 disguise, abandoned to every species of immorality 
 and profligacy. "Would a canonical ordination 
 bring him into the ranks of the true ministry, and 
 render him a safe link in the chain of succession ? 
 — Those who would answer these questions in the 
 affirmative, may as well be left to themselves : 
 they have embraced a form of delusion, which no 
 human argumentation can be expected to re- 
 move. 
 
 It may not be amiss, however, to suggest, that 
 ordinations have been set aside as invalid, for 
 reasons /ar less important than those enumerated 
 above ; and that too, by authorities, to which 
 high-churchmen are very fond of appealing. The 
 
228 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 Apostolical Canons, which they often quote, ex- 
 pressly say, — "If any bishop, priest, or deacon, 
 obtain his dignity by moneAj, let him, and him 
 who ordained him, be deposed and ivholly cut off 
 from communion, as Simon Magus was by Peter." 
 No. 22. — And the Council of Chalcedon, com- 
 posed of six hundred bishops, which sat A. D. 
 451, say, — " If any bishop ordain /or mowe?/, &c., 
 let him that is ordained be never the better for his 
 ordinatioii.^^ Can. 2. These decisions are in ac- 
 cordance with scripture, and with common 
 sense. No prelate, or other ordainer on earth, 
 possesses the right of setting apart to the ministry 
 of Christ, those whose faith or practice is in direct 
 opposition to the plain principles of the word of 
 God. All such acts are mdl and void^ from the 
 nature of the case. 
 
 With this principle for our guide, then, we 
 shall find but little difficulty in conducting you to 
 places, where the chain of succession is broken, 
 and the succession itself irrecoverably lost. 
 
 To say nothing of earlier and less vital depar- 
 tures from '' the faith once delivered to the 
 saints," Ave meet, early in the fourth century, with 
 an extensive defection in respect to the divinity of 
 Christ : I refer to the opinion broached by Arius, 
 a presbyter of Alexandria ; and known since, in the 
 history of the church, under the name of Arian- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 229 
 
 ism. He maintained that Christ was a mere 
 creature; and this opinion prevailed so extensive- 
 ly, as to lead to the calling of the council of Nice, 
 at which it was considered and finally condemn- 
 ed, A. D. 325. During the prevalence of this 
 heresy, it was embraced and advocated by a 
 large number of the existing bishops of the church. 
 It is not to be doubted, that many, by whom the 
 Son of God was thus denied and dethroned, were 
 ordained by those who held the same opinion. 
 Here, then, the conclusion is inevitable, that the 
 succession was tainted, at many important points, 
 at the same time. It must either be admitted, 
 that one who denies Christ, may be a duly com- 
 missioned SERVANT of Christ, or that all the ordi- 
 nations performed by the Arian bishops, were no 
 ordinations at all. The former will hardly be 
 contended for ; and, therefore, the latter must be 
 held to be the truth in the case. 
 
 Look at this fact, then, in its application to the 
 succession. There can be no reasonable doubt, 
 that a large proportion of all the episcopal ordina- 
 tions existing in the world, are such as derive 
 their virtue from the Arian line. For aught that 
 can ever be proved to the contrary, his Grace of 
 Canterbury, and of course all the bishops of this 
 country, who have received their episcopal pow- 
 ers from him, have no other succession than that, 
 20 
 
230 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 which has come through a race of pretended bish- 
 ops, who deposed the Son of God from his me- 
 diatorial throne, and denied, at the same time, the 
 divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit. If a 
 lineal descent from such predecessors involves 
 the idea of succession at all, it is a succession, not 
 in the service of Christ, but in the work of dissem- 
 inating error, and destroying the souls of men. 
 
 Leaving this part of the chain, we pass now to 
 remark, that, unless we admit those to be duly 
 commissioned ministers of Christ, whose lives are 
 an open disgrace to his religion, and who live to 
 no other practical end than to retard its pro- 
 gress, it will be impossible to carry the line of 
 succession, untainted, through the dark ages of 
 THE Papal reign. Let Bishop M'lllvaine speak, 
 in regard to the character of that system, which 
 embosomed the succession for centuries. Allud- 
 ing to the Pope, " sitting as God, in the temple 
 of God, showing himself that he is God," he pro- 
 ceeds to say, — " The grand scheme of that singu- 
 lar potentate has always been, while graciously 
 permitting the name and sliow of bishops and dio- 
 ceses, to reduce all into abject dependence on his 
 infallible will ; he, taking the place, as he calls 
 himself the alone vicegerent of Christ, the invisi- 
 ble head ; and thus seeking to reduce all office 
 and citizenship in the universal church, into one 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 231 
 
 consolidated mass of united confusion." * * 
 " Such is the scheme of Satan, against which the 
 protestant ensign of our parent church was hfted 
 up, and the old dioceses of oriental Christendom, 
 have been for centuries contending. This it was, 
 that kindled the persecutions of the English Re- 
 formation ; and burned to death those venerable 
 bishops of Christ, Cranmer, and Latimer, and 
 Ridley, and Hooper ; not to mention the many 
 confessors of lower place, but of equal faith and 
 constancy. Had they only acknowledged the su- 
 premacy of the Pope they might Imve died in their 
 beds:' 
 
 This, it must be confessed, is pretty harsh 
 treatment, to come from one who is dependent on 
 the Pope for his apostolical succession ! The 
 bishops and dioceses, it seems, which were made 
 by the Papal authority from age to age, were no- 
 thing more than "the 7ia7ne and shoiv^' — the 
 whole scheme was nothing else than " the scheme 
 of Satan'' — it was carried out, by kindling the 
 fires of persecution, and burning to death the true 
 servants of Christ — nay, the head and prime mov- 
 er in this operation, not only claimed to be the 
 vicegerent of Christ, but appropriated to himself 
 the name and character of "God" — and yet, it is 
 through him, and the bishops ordained by him 
 and his legates, that the succession comes ! ! 
 
232 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 Every bishop, therefore, in this country and in 
 England, must trace his pedigree through bishops 
 who had nothing more than " the name," and 
 through a system of ecclesiastical tyranny and 
 persecution, which is acknowledged to be the 
 ^'antichrist'''' of the New Testament. 
 
 But there are many advocates of the succes- 
 sion, who are more tender of the reputation of 
 " our Lord God, the Pope,'" than Bishop M'lll- 
 vaine. And this renders it expedient to enlarge 
 a little, upon the character of the Papacy, during 
 the dark ages, that you may judge how far a va- 
 lidly ordained ministry could come, through such 
 a sink of iniquity, and of innumerable abomina- 
 tions. The difficulty is not to procure testimony, 
 but to know what to select. 
 
 The opinion of the English church of the refor- 
 mation, may be learned from the fact, that the 
 litany of the Book of Common Prayer, published 
 during the reign of Edward VI., contains the fol- 
 lowing petition, — " From the tyranny of the bish- 
 op of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, good 
 Lord deliver us." Even Baronius himself, who 
 was a cardinal in the Romish church, acknow- 
 ledges that, " for fifty Popes in succession, there 
 was not a pious man." And, in reference to the 
 tenth century in particular, he writes in the fol- 
 lowing language, — " O what was then the face of 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 233 
 
 the holy Roman church ! how filthy, when the 
 vilest and most powerful harlots ruled in the court 
 of Rome ! by whose arbitrary sway, dioceses 
 were made and unmade, bishops were consecrat- 
 ed, and (which is inexpressibly horrible to be 
 m.enXionQdi\) false popes ^ their paramours^ were 
 thrust into the chair of St. Peter." * ^ " 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 after- 
 Avard. All the canons were suppressed into si- 
 lence, the voice of the decrees of former pontiffs 
 was not allowed to be heard, ancient traditions 
 were proscribed, the customs formerly practiced 
 in electing the pope, with the sacred rites and 
 pristine usages, were all extinguished. In this 
 manner, lust, supported by secular power, excit- 
 ed to frenzy, in the rage for domination, rided in 
 all thing- s.'^^^ How an uninterrupted line of ca- 
 nonical ordinations could run through such scenes 
 as these, it is for the advocates of the succession 
 to show. 
 
 Of a piece with the testimony of Baronius, is 
 the following from Episcopius, — " It is a matter 
 of historical record, that, for fifty or eighty years 
 together, there have been tivo or three popes at the 
 
 * Quoted by R, Southey in his Vind. Ecclesiae Anglicanae, p. 3S9. 
 Lond. 1S26. 
 
 20* 
 
234 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 same time ; one of them denying to another the 
 very name of christian^ reproaching each other 
 with the appellations of heretic and antichrist^ and 
 each pronouncing the other an unlaivful pope; 
 that one cut off tivo of the fingers of his predeces- 
 sor ; dug- lip the bodies of others from their graves, 
 a7id having insulted their ashes ^ ordered their bO' 
 dies to be cast into the Tiber ; — that, sometimes, 
 all the three popes together were condemned and 
 degraded, by a general council, as false popes, 
 heretics^ and ungodly loretches, not even to be 
 reckoned in the number of christians ; and that, 
 nevertheless, many of the bishops and clergy were 
 ordained by these false popes." What effect 
 could ordination by these monsters have, in per- 
 petuating a true succession ? And yet there is 
 not a bishop now living, who can satisfy himself 
 upon sufficient grounds, that his line of descent is 
 not traceable to them. 
 
 Father Paul, of the order of the Servites — areli- 
 aious order of the Romish church — utters his con- 
 fession, in regard to the iniquity and disorders 
 of those times, in the following language, — "Dur- 
 ing the space of eighty years, wherein Italy 
 labored under the extremest confusions, as Avell 
 in the civil government as ecclesiastical, espe- 
 cially in the papacy, we must not expect to find 
 any traces or form of good government in the 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 235 
 
 church, but a mere chaos of impieties, and a gen- 
 eral preparative and forerunner of the miserable 
 revolutions and disorders which followed. Popes 
 were then excommunicated by their scccessors, 
 and their acts cursed and annulled : not except- 
 ing the very administration of the sacrements. 
 Six popes were driven out and dethroned, by those 
 who aspired to their places ; two popes put to 
 death, and Pope Stephen VITI. w^ounded in the 
 face, with so much deformity, that he never ap- 
 peared in public. Theodora, a famous courttsan^ 
 by the interest and faction she had then in 
 Rome, got her professed lover chosen pope, who 
 was called John X. And John XI. was chosen 
 pope at the age of twenty years, the bastard of 
 another pope, dead eighteen years before. And 
 in short, such a series of wild disorders gave oc- 
 casion to historians to say, that those times pro- 
 duced, not popes, but monsters." 
 
 We need not pursue these horrid details. The 
 Popes of these times are immortalized in the an- 
 nals of human depravity. The tendency of their 
 whole lives was to bring the religion of the Bible 
 into contempt, and to promote infidelity and 
 crime. And to suppose that any form of ordina- 
 tion by man, could constitute them the duly com- 
 missioned servants of Jesus Christ, is an outrage 
 upon common sense, as well as destructive of all 
 
236 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 the great principles which lie at the foundation of 
 revealed religion. Alas, for the succession, that 
 derives its integrity and virtue from such a 
 source I 
 
 There is a consciousness, hov\^ever, even on 
 the part of its warmest advocates, that, in public 
 estimation, the doctrine cannot stand upon this 
 ground. And hence the attempt, which is now 
 common, to trace a line of succession through the 
 Anglican Churchy as distinct from the church of 
 Rome, and connecting with one or more of the 
 Apostles, who are supposed to have been the first 
 preachers of the Gospel in the island of Great 
 Britain. We turn, for a moment, to this view of 
 the subject; and we think you will agree with 
 us, that the defective links, in this chain, are not 
 only many in number, but easily detected. 
 
 As in the case of the Roman line, there is an 
 insuperable difficulty at the very commencement. 
 It is assumed, that the succession was started in 
 England by the apostles ; but this is a mere con- 
 jecture, entirely unsupported by proof. The 
 case is thus stated by a living Bishop, — '' The 
 Gospel was early cairied to that island, now 
 known as Great Britain. It is generally suppos- 
 ed, that St. Paul was the first messenger of truth 
 who visited it. And this opinion Avas held at a 
 very early period. The testimony to this fact 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 237 
 
 was first given by Clement Romanus. He says, 
 that the Apostle Paul 'traveled to the utmost 
 bounds of the West' — an expression, according 
 to Theodoret, used to denote the British Islands. 
 Clement gave this testimony as early as the year 
 70. To the like effect, is the testimony of Je- 
 rome and Theodoret. At all events, the proof is 
 most ample to show, that the Gospel was early 
 introduced into those Islands." And, after pro- 
 ceeding a little farther, he adds, — '' the succession 
 was carried there by St. Paul and continued, as 
 you will see, uninterruptedly in the church."^ I 
 give you this passage at length : because it con- 
 tains all the evidence on this point which is al- 
 leged to exist ; and because it affords a curious 
 specimen of the strong faith, which these succes- 
 sionists can exercise, where there is really no evi- 
 dence to support it. What does this testimony 
 amount to, when viewed in its most favorable 
 bearings ? It consists of a single remark by Cle- 
 ment Romanus ; and that remark has no direct 
 bearing upon the subject. To make it applicable, 
 it must be assumed, that " the utmost bounds of 
 the West" means Great Britain — and to assure 
 us that this is the true meaning, we are sent again 
 to Theodoret. He lived in the fifth century — 
 three hundred years after Clement Avrote — and 
 
 =* Bishop M'Coskry. 
 
238 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 his opinion, as to the import of this ambiguous 
 phrase, is the sum total of all the proof that is 
 given. For a moment, the Bishop's own faith 
 seems to waver, and he says, — " At all events, 
 the proof is most ample to show^, that the gospel 
 v^as introduced early into those Islands." But, 
 soon recovering, he returns to his first position 
 with greater confidence than ever ; instead of say- 
 ing " it is generally supposed,'''' he now affirms 
 positively, — " the succession ivas carried there by 
 St. Paulj^^ &c. It thus appears, that in the la- 
 boratory of this system, what was a mere suppo- 
 sition, can be transformed, in the course of a few 
 lines, into a matter of absolute and unqualified 
 certainty. 
 
 The truth is, as Stillingfleet observes, that, "by 
 the loss of records," it is not possible to ascertain 
 when, and under what circumstances, Christianity 
 was first introduced into Britain. The line of 
 succession, therefore, when traced backward in 
 this direction, runs into a region of darkness, 
 where there is no certainty to be had. Nor 
 would it help the cause to admit, that the fact was 
 as the advocates of the succession would have it ; 
 because there were subsequent occurrences in 
 Britain, by which all that had previously existed 
 of Christianity and ecclesiastical order, was swept 
 away. It is recorded, that in the time of the 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 289 
 
 Dioclesian persecution, early in the fourth centu- 
 ry, "the christian churches were levelled with the 
 ground; all the copies of the scriptures, Avhich 
 could any where be found, were burnt in the pub- 
 lic streets, and the priests and bishops of the 
 Lord's house were slaughtered, together with 
 their charges ; so that, in some provinces, not 
 even a trace of Christianity remained."* There 
 is no reason to believe, that at the close of this 
 distressing period, there was an individual left in 
 England by whom the succession could have 
 been perpetuated. 
 
 Again, it is matter of authentic history, that 
 the Saxons, Avho were enemies of Christianity, en- 
 tered Britain about the middle of the ^if/i centu- 
 tury, and established idolatry upon its ruins. 
 They destroyed the churches which remained, or 
 had been built, after the persecution under Dio- 
 clesian ; and the priests fled for safety to other 
 countries. After this, the reign of heathenism 
 continued for at least a century and a half; so 
 that, here again, the line of succession was cut 
 off effectually, and forever. Beyond this wide 
 and dark chasm, the present Anglican church 
 cannot trace the line of its existence, any more 
 than the line of its apostolical descent. 
 
 After this, the country passed, ecclesiastically, 
 
 * Churton. 
 
240 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 into the possession of the bishop of Rome, through 
 Augustine and Theodore. Theodore, ordained 
 at Rome, by Vitalian, Avas sent over, and made 
 Archbishop of Canterbury A. D. 668. Some at- 
 tempts, indeed, had been made to revive the knov\^- 
 ledge of Christianity before this, by Columba, and 
 others ordained by him and his assistants, who 
 are mentioned by Bede in his Church History, 
 who wrote about A. D. 731. But Theodore, in- 
 stead of recognizing any of the existing ministry 
 as validly ordained, began anew, and ordered all 
 ecclesiastical affairs as from the beginning. It is 
 related by Bede, that he " reproved Chadda (one 
 of the British ecclesiastics, Avho had been ordain- 
 ed by three others,) for that he Avas not rightly 
 consecrated ; and he did himself supply, and ren- 
 der complete, his consecration after the right and 
 due catholic manner J^^ From Theodore down- 
 ward, till the time of the Reformation, no less 
 than seventeen Archbishops of Canterbury, and 
 tivelve Archbishops of York, were ordained im- 
 mediately by the Pope, or his legates. This may 
 be seen by any one, who chooses to consult Bish- 
 op Godwin's Lives of the English Bishops. And, 
 when we consider how largely the incumbents of 
 these two sees, were concerned in the consecra- 
 tion of all the other English prelates, what be- 
 
 * Book iii. chap. 28. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 241 
 
 comes of the Anglican church, as distinct ixom. 
 that of Rome ? Was there ever such an un- 
 founded and senseless plea, set up in defence of 
 any cause ? As well might it be argued, that 
 the rivers, when absorbed by the ocean, are dis- 
 tinct from the sea ! 
 
 Not only did the archbishops, above mentioned, 
 derive their ordination immediately from Rome ; 
 but, in some cases, from those who Avere mere 
 pretenders to the popedom, or, if popes, at all, of 
 the very blackest and most abandoned character. 
 Pope Formosus, as appears from the authority 
 above quoted, ordained Plegmund Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, in 891. And of this occupant of the 
 chair of St. Peter, it is recorded, that he obtained 
 his place by perjury ; and, in general, that his 
 character and doings were so enormous, that he 
 was regarded as no pope, by those who came af- 
 ter him. Stephen VI., his immediate successor, 
 at the head of his council, declared the ordina- 
 tions he administered void, and caused all those 
 to be reordained whom he had ordered. Ser- 
 gius III. renewed all that Stephen had done 
 against Formosus, and caused his ordinations to 
 be declared 7iull over again^^ Now Plegmund, 
 who received his ' apostolical grace' from this 
 monster, was the chief ordainer of the bisbops of 
 
 * Courayer, as cited by Powell, p. 243. 
 21 
 
242 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 England for a quarter of a century ! In what a 
 predicament does this place the boasted succes- 
 sion ! The result is, that the present bishops of 
 this country are dependent for their ordination, 
 in all probability, upon the supposed episcopal 
 character of an unscrupulous and profligate pope, 
 whose oflacial acts were declared null and void by 
 the very church to which he belonged ! 
 
 Take another case. John Peckham was or- 
 dained Archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 1278, by 
 Pope Nicholas III. This pope is known in his- 
 tory, emphatically, as a robber. Platina says, — 
 " he took aAvay, by violence, the castles of cer- 
 tain noble Romans, and gave them to his own 
 relatives." And Bishop Godwin says, that Peck- 
 ham himself "had hardly arrived in England, 
 when the pope his creator (for so he was pleased 
 to call him) required a large sum of money from 
 him, viz. four thousand marks y Peckham's an- 
 swer, is given in these words — " Behold thou 
 hast created me, and forasmuch as it is natural for 
 a creature to desire to be perfected by his creator^ 
 so, in my distress, I desire to be refreshed by 
 your Holiness. Truly a writ of execution, horri- 
 ble to be seen, and terrible to be heard, has lately 
 reached me, declaring, that except I answer to it 
 within a month after the feast of St. Michael, by 
 paying into the hands of the merchants of Lucca 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 243 
 
 the sum of four thousand marks, according to my 
 bargain with the court of Rome, I am then to be 
 excommunicated, and am to be cursed, in my own 
 and other principal churches, with bell, book, and 
 candles^ Whether his Hohness, who issued the 
 '' writ" in this case, or his pliant " creature" who 
 had to meet its exactions according to his " bar- 
 gain," was farthest from the apostolical model, 
 we do not stop to inquire. It is enough to know, 
 that they both stand as essential links in the chain 
 of the vaunted succession. And, if ''no one can 
 bring a clean thing out of an unclean," it is easy 
 to determine of what value such a succession 
 must be. 
 
 We refer you, only, to one additional case, 
 among the many of a similar kind, which might 
 be cited. — Henry Chichley was ordained arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury by Pope Gregory XII., A. 
 D. 1414. Between the ordainer and the ordained, 
 in this case, there is little to choose. Gregory 
 was one of three pretenders to the papal chair ; 
 and, before this ordination was performed, had 
 been condemned in council. Subsequently, at 
 the council of Constance, all his acts were for- 
 mally disanmdled — he was set aside as being 
 neither pope, nor bishop. And had this no effect, 
 in tainting the line of succession ? Chichley con- 
 tinued for twenty-nine years to ordain the bishops, 
 
244 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 and otiier clergy, of the Church of England ; and 
 has thus perpetuated a succession, which must, of 
 course, be as uncanonical, and worthless, as the 
 ordination which he himself received. 
 
 But I need not weary you with these details. 
 The conclusion is as inevitable as evidence can 
 make it, that all the episcopal ordinations of 
 England — and of this country also, so far as they 
 are connected with the English line — are streams 
 from the impure fountains of Rome. On canon- 
 ical principles, they are vitiated by irregularity 
 in a hundred places ; and such was the mon- 
 strous character of many of the ordainers, who 
 form the line, that morahty, religion, and com- 
 mon sense, all revolt at the idea of their being the 
 duly commissioned servants of Christ, and em- 
 powered to perpetuate a ministry according to 
 his will. So that, instead of finding no flaws in 
 the line of descent, the difficulty is to turn in any 
 direction where they are not to be seen. 
 
 What has been said, thus far, has respect of 
 course to the state of things in England, anterior 
 to the Reformation. A few references to histori- 
 cal facts will show, that, even supposing the An- 
 glican chain to have been perfect until then, it has 
 since been broken in diiferent places. 
 
 It follows from what has been said, that no or- 
 dinations existed, Avhen the Reformation com- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 245 
 
 menced, which did not derive their validity from 
 the court of Rome. Now this com't had the 
 power of undoing what was done by itself — if it 
 could confer sacred orders, it could also recall 
 them — it could take back its own gifts. There is 
 no denying the propriety of this, as an ecclesiasti- 
 cal rule. All denominations of christians agree, 
 that the same body which may commission an in- 
 dividual to preach the gospel, may also withdraw 
 this commission, for what may seem to them to 
 be sufficient reasons. What then became of the 
 succession, when Rome Avithdrew from the An- 
 glican Church of the reformation all the ordina- 
 tions she had given — excommunicating her bish- 
 ops and other clergy — and thereby recalling all 
 the ' apostolical grace' which she had imparted ? 
 Here, it must be confessed, on all fair principles 
 of reasoning, the chain was not only injured, but 
 so broken, that it never can be repaired. 
 
 Passing from this consideration, we come to 
 the strange proceedings, in the time of Henry 
 VIH. In the plentitude of his power, and in the 
 character of another pope, he broke up all other 
 lines of succession, and started a new one com- 
 mencing with himself. He ordained, that, ''arch- 
 bishops, bishops, arch-deacons, and other ecclesi- 
 astical persons, have no manner of jurisdiction ec- 
 clesiastical, but by, under, and from, his royal 
 21* 
 
246 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 Majesty ; and that his Majesty is the only supreme 
 head of the church of England and Ireland ; to 
 whom, BY HOLY SCRIPTURE, all authority and pow- 
 er is wholly given, to hear and determine all man- 
 ner of causes ecclesiastical, and to correct all 
 manner of heresies, errors, vices, and sins what- 
 ever, and to all such persons as his majesty shall 
 appoint thereto." A higher specimen of effronte- 
 ry and daring impiety, is hardly to be found on 
 the page of universal history. And yet, there is 
 no line of episcopal ordinations, in this country 
 or in England, which is not tainted by this act. 
 They are all derived from the ordaining power 
 of those, who, in derogation of the supremacy of 
 Jesus Christ, took out their commissions from an 
 ambitious and impious king : which has led to the 
 remark, that, " thus it happens for the everlasting 
 honor and consolation of all high-churchmen, 
 that Henry VIII., and his delegates or lieutenants 
 in the episcopal office, stand in the line of succes- 
 sion between them and the apostles." 
 
 With these facts before us, we could afford to 
 pass by the invalidity of the ordination of Arch- 
 bishop Parker^ which occurred during the reign 
 of Elizabeth. But truth requires, that the state- 
 ment should be reiterated, in the face of all the 
 attempts which are made to deny or evade it, that 
 no sufficient proof has ever been produced, that 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 247 
 
 his ordination was canonical. He was consecra- 
 ted hy four bishops, who received their appoint- 
 ment from Edward VI., after the fashion of Hen- 
 ry VIH. Their names were Barlow, Scory, Co- 
 verdale, and Hodgkins. They had all been de- 
 posed, during the reign of Mary, and were never 
 restored. Barlow was the consecrator ; and, in 
 addition to the fact of his deposition, it was seri- 
 ously doubted at the time, whether he himself had 
 ever been consecrated at all — the registry, in the 
 archives of the archbishop, containing no mention 
 of his name. What casts a permanent shade of 
 suspicion upon the whole matter, is, that it was 
 afterwards brought before Parliament, and an act 
 was passed, confirming its validity, and that of 
 all the ordinations which were dependent upon it. 
 That the whole Anglican chain hangs upon this 
 ordination, will not be denied. And this pre- 
 sents another point, at which the succession was 
 lost, under such circumstances, that it could nev- 
 er be recovered. 
 
 I shall detain you farther, with only a few re- 
 marks on the succession, as connected with the 
 episcopacy of our own country. Bishop Seabu- 
 ry was ordained in Scotland in 1784 ; and serious 
 doubts were entertained then, and afterwards, as 
 to the validity of his consecration — upon the 
 ground that the Scottish bishops themselves had 
 
248 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 not been canonically ordained. These doubts 
 were not confined to the opponents, but Avere en- 
 tertained equally by the friends of episcopacy. 
 They were referred to by Bishop White, and as- 
 signed by him as a reason for seeking ordination 
 in England, instead of Scotland. And, if these 
 doubts Avere well founded, no inconsiderable por- 
 tion of the Anglo-American church have lost the 
 succession. 
 
 Besides Seabury, there were three American 
 prelates consecrated abroad — White, Madison, 
 and Prevoost. And the circumstances under 
 which they were admitted to a place in the Eng- 
 lish succession, if well considered, would be 
 enough to consign this whole matter of lineal de- 
 scent from the apostles, to the ridicule and con- 
 tempt of all reflecting and candid minds. The 
 Bishops of England, with all their apostohcal pre- 
 rogatives, did not regard themselves as possessing 
 the power, independently, of perpetuating a min- 
 istry in America. The authority must, and did 
 come, from another source. They could neither 
 whisper a Avord of encouragement to these appli- 
 cants, nor move a finger towards their ordination, 
 tmtil leave was granted^ by "the King's most ex- 
 cellent Majesty, by and Avith the advice and con- 
 sent of Parliament" — until authority Avas formally 
 given, by ^Hlie royal mandate under the great 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 249 
 
 seal!^^ The Act, permitting the Bishops to pro- 
 ceed to these consecrations, expressly recites, 
 that "no person shall be consecrated Bishop, in 
 the manner herein provided, nntil the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury, or the Archbishop of York, for the 
 time being, shall have first applied for and obtain- 
 ed his Majesty- s license, by warrant nnder hisroyal 
 signet and sign manual, empowering him to pro- 
 ceed to such consecration," &c. Nor was even 
 his Majesty permitted to grant leave, excepting 
 under the following restrictions — ^^ Provided also, 
 and it is hereby declared, that no person or per- 
 sons, consecrated to the office of a Bishop in the 
 manner aforesaid, nor any person or persons de- 
 riving their consecration from, or under, any 
 Bishop so consecrated, nor any person or persons 
 admitted to the order of a deacon or priest by any 
 bishop or bishops so consecrated, or by the siicces- 
 sor or successors of any Bishop or Bishops so con- 
 secrated, shall be thereby enabled to exercise his 
 or their respective office or offices within his Ma- 
 jesty's DOMINIONS." A pretty specimen of inves- 
 titure with apostolical powers I A strange con- 
 dition to be imposed, in constituting successors to 
 those who were empowered to ''go into all the 
 WORLD, and preach the Gospel to every creature !^^ 
 In this original commission, " his Majesty^ s do- 
 minions''^ are not contemplated as forbidden 
 
250 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 ground. It looks to no geographical limits, or 
 artificial distinctions : it makes those who receive 
 it, messengers of the gospel to their fellow men : 
 and, wherever there are men, in ignorance and 
 sin, to be enlightened and saved, there is the 
 sphere of duty and labor to which they are called, 
 Any attempt therefore to narrow the ground spe- 
 cified in the commission, is a virtual abrogation 
 of the commission itself — it converts it into anoth- 
 er, and a different thing — it is no apostolical com- 
 mission at all. And yet, it is on such a commis- 
 .sion, that the American succession depends for its 
 integrity and value. It runs back to the reign 
 and ParHament of George III. ; and the link, 
 which connects it with the Anglican line, is a mu- 
 tilated and spurious ordination — an ordination, 
 encumbered by an unauthorised and anti-scriptural 
 restraint — and performed avowedly, not on the 
 principles of the word of God, but in obedience 
 to the enactments of civil law. 
 
 We add, as another circumstance which is 
 worthy of notice in this connection, that in the 
 judgment of many of the ardent friends of prelacy 
 themselves, the succession in this country was es- 
 sentially vitiated, in the ordinations of Bishop 
 Hohart and Bishop Griswold. Certain words, 
 in the form of ordination, regarded by many as 
 essential, were omitted, in the performance of 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 251 
 
 the ceremony. And there are many still livingj 
 who remember the controversy which ensued. 
 It was kept up for a time with warmth, not only 
 in conversation, but also through the medium of 
 the press. And the following is an extract from 
 one of the pamphlets which were published dur- 
 ing its progress — " Suppose, then, at some future 
 period, Avhen the heat of passion is allayed, when 
 calm reflection is suffered to be called into exer- 
 cise, that then it shall be found and acknowledg- 
 ed, that the considerations here advanced have 
 weight, and that the consecration is attended with 
 an essential defect : what will then be the state 
 of our church ? Oiw priesthood invalid, ovr suc- 
 cession LOST ; numbers, under a shoiu of ordina- 
 tion, ministering without authority ; the evil so 
 extended as to be beyond the power of correc- 
 tion." — '' For myself, I am seriously and consci- 
 entiously persuaded, that the omission of the so- 
 lemn words is material, that it is essential, that it 
 renders the whole form besides an utter nulli- 
 ty."* What the omitted words, in the case here 
 referred to, were, we are not informed. We can 
 easily believe, hoAvever, that if the transmission 
 of a true ministry depends essentially on the im- 
 position of certain hands, it may also depend on 
 the use of certain forms of expression. The trans- 
 
 * Quoted by Smyth, p. 220. 
 
252 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 mitting agency, according to this doctrine, is, at 
 best, but an outward form — it is a physical opera- 
 tion, consisting of certain movements of the 
 hands and lips — and if the transaction cannot be 
 valid, without the right movement of the former, 
 why may it not be essentially vitiated, through 
 the failure of a right movement in respect to the 
 latter. On the principles of this system itself, 
 therefore, there can be no certainty, that all the 
 clergy ordained by Bishops Hobart and Griswold 
 are not mere laymen — officiating without authori- 
 ty — destitute of ' apostolical grace' — and worthy 
 only to be numbered among the " non-episcopal 
 sects," with whom there ought to be " no com- 
 munion"! 
 
 Having submitted these details to your conside- 
 ration, I leave it to yourselves to judge, how far 
 it is true, that an unbroken series of valid ordina- 
 tions have connected the prelatical bishops of the 
 present day with the apostles of Christ — that 
 '•^ every link in the chain is knoivn, from St. Pe- 
 ter" downward — that the continuity and perfec- 
 tion of this chain are " too notorious to 7'equire 
 proofs — that there is not '' a flaw in the line of 
 descent" — that there is not a bishop, priest, or 
 deacon, ivho cannot^ if he pleases, trace his oivn 
 spiritual descent from St. Peter, or St. Paul — in 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 253 
 
 short, that the whole matter " Z5 evident to every 
 oneioho chooses to examine it.'''' 
 
 To account for such declarations as these, in 
 view of the facts in the case, we confess to be one 
 of the most difficult things connected with this 
 whole discussion. On the one hand, we are not 
 willing to doubt the sincerity of those who utter 
 them ; and, on the other, we find it difficult to see 
 how the innumerable facts, which have a contra- 
 ry bearing, can be set aside, even in the judgment 
 of those minds which are warped by prejudice. 
 It must be, either that these unqualified assertions 
 are made ivithout examination — or, that there is 
 something in the spirit of this system, which so 
 distorts the mental vision of those who yield 
 themselves to its influence, that they can see only 
 in one direction. Assuredly, the human mind 
 has never been imposed upon, by a more chime- 
 rical and baseless hypothesis. It stands out in 
 the light of history, without a single consideration 
 to jnstify, or support it. And we marvel, with 
 increasing wonder, that any who have arrived at 
 years of discretion, and pretend to think and in- 
 quire for themselves, are willing to be numbered 
 among its advocates or friends. 
 22 
 
DISCOURSE VIII. 
 
 THE TRUE SUCCESSION. 
 
 Matt, xxviii. 20. And lo, I am with you always, even unto the 
 end of the world. 
 
 There is no difference of opinion as to the fact, 
 that this passage lays the foundation for our be- 
 lief in the perpetuity of the christian ministry. 
 It looks forward, expressly, to " the end of the 
 world" — it guarantees the presence of the Head 
 of the church to those to whom it is addressed — 
 and as they, personally, were soon to '' rest from 
 their labors," the unavoidable inference is, that 
 they were to have successors, and that the line of 
 this succession was never to run out, while the 
 world should stand. 
 
 The only question, then, as connected with 
 this discussion, on which a discrepancy of views 
 can be supposed to exist, is the question which 
 relates to the nature of this succession. The 
 
256 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 view contended for by the advocates of high- 
 church episcopacy is, that this succession is re- 
 alized, in an uninterrupted line of prelatical bish- 
 ops — that the christian ministry consists essentially 
 of three orders — that the his^hest order alone have 
 the power to ordain — and that this order, as per- 
 petuated by an unbroken series of valid ordina- 
 tions, is the particular line of descent in the minis- 
 try, which the Saviour anticipated, and to which 
 he assigned the promise contained in the text. 
 
 To undermine the foundation of this scheme 
 has been the object of what we have said, in the 
 preceding discourses. Our argument has been, 
 that there is no starting-place in scripture, for 
 such a line of ministerial succession as that which 
 this system contemplates — and that, if there were, 
 it is a line that cannot be traced. Neither the 
 Bible, nor the early Fathers, know of any such 
 ofhcer, in connection with the church of Christ, 
 as a prelatical bishop. This office, as well as the 
 offices of Archbishop, Patriarch, and Pope, was 
 the invention of a later age: it is a human 
 invention, and not a divine institution. But, 
 supposing it otherwise, it is impossible to estabhsh 
 the fact, that an unbroken series of valid ordina- 
 tions has descended from the apostles to the pre- 
 latical bishops of the present day : the chain, in- 
 stead of being perfect, is broken in a multitude of 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 257 
 
 places. This, therefore, cannot be the succession 
 which Christ had in view, and to which he gave 
 the promise of his presence till the end of time. 
 
 Having thus denied both the doctrine and the 
 fact of a prelatical succession, and having admit- 
 ted, at the same time, that the Saviour did con- 
 template a succession of some sort ; we acknow- 
 ledge the obhgation Avhich lies upon us to show 
 what it ivas. — And to this work, we address our- 
 selves in the present discourse. 
 
 What, then, is the nature of that succession, 
 which the ascending Saviour had in view, when 
 he said to his apostles, — " Lo, I am with you al- 
 ways, even unto the end of the world"? 
 
 If we judge rightly, the meaning of this pro- 
 mise is clearly determined, by the connection in 
 which it stands. It was addressed to the apos- 
 tles, in connection with a distinct definition of the 
 work^ in the performance of which they were to 
 expect its fulfillment. They were commanded 
 to "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost"; in other words, they were to 
 preach the gospel, and to baptize those who 
 should believe, and embrace it, in the name of 
 the Trinity. It was in doing this, that he promis- 
 ed to be with them ; He gave them no promise 
 extending to any thing else. And this considera- 
 22* 
 
258 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 tion inevitably and effectually sets aside all popes, 
 patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, priests, and dea- 
 cons, who are not actively engaged, either direct- 
 ly or indirectly, in preaching the gospel, as their 
 main business. Instead of being the only succes- 
 sors of the apostles, they are no successors at all ; 
 because they are not engaged in the luoj'k, to 
 which the succession relates. Nothing can be 
 more evident than this ; and yet nothing more is 
 needed, to overturn the foundations of all the 
 hierarchies that have ever existed. Bishop Jew- 
 ell says, — "These nine hundred years, since Gre- 
 gory, the first of that name, it can hardly be found, 
 that ever any bishoj) of Rome was seen in a pul- 
 pit." — " Christ said unto Peter, Lovest thou me ? 
 Feed my sheep, feed my lambs, feed my flock. 
 But our great clerks, our popes, our cardinals, our 
 bishops, would seldom, or never, make a sermon. ^^ 
 The same remark will apply to the multitudes, 
 in connection with the Anglican hierarchy now, 
 who are ministers of Christ merely in name — who 
 live on the emoluments of their office, without 
 performing its duties ; or who preach the gospel 
 to their charges, by proxy, while they themselves 
 are living abroad, in idleness and self-indulgence. 
 To say that Clirist has promised to be with such 
 ministers as these, is to pervert the obvious mean- 
 ing of his own language. They were not in his 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 259 
 
 eye, when he gave the final commission ; and any 
 attempt to assign them a place, in that succession 
 which he had in view, is as contrary to scripture, 
 as it is absurd in itself. 
 
 With this remark for our guide, then, we pro- 
 pose to recapitulate the false principles^ on Avhich 
 the prelatical succession depends ; and to exhibit, 
 in opposition to these, as we proceed, the main 
 principles which define and distinguish the true 
 
 SUCCESSION. 
 
 1. The doctrine of succession which we have 
 been considering in these discourses, depends for 
 its support, upon the fundamentally erroneous po- 
 sition, that the ministerial character and office are 
 'perpetuated by a mere external ceremony — by 
 imposition of hands, performed by a prelatical 
 bishop, and accompanied by the use of certain 
 words which he is supposed to utter. Let the 
 fact be ascertained, that such a ceremony has 
 been performed by such an individual — we are, 
 then, supposed to know, with infallible certainty, 
 that another genuine and perfect link has been 
 added to the chain, which connects, at the supe- 
 rior end, with the apostles of Christ. — Now this, 
 we afiirm, is altogether an anti-scriptural, irra- 
 tional, and popish doctrine : it exalts an outward 
 ceremony to a degree of importance, which is 
 never assigned to it in scripture ; and shifts the 
 
260 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 succession in the ministry, from its true and 
 proper ground, to that, on which the sacred wri- 
 ters never supposed it to rest. 
 
 We have ah'eady shown, that, however impor- 
 tant the ceremony of ordination may be to the 
 regulation of the ministry, it is no where repre- 
 sented in scripture, as that which confers the min^ 
 isterial character . This character, in all its essen- 
 tial features, is described as consisting of things 
 which lie back of ordination. Ordination is the 
 act of induction to the ministerial office ; but, be- 
 fore this act can be justified, there must be evidence 
 that the substantial qualifications are already pre- 
 sent. In itself, it produces no change in the indi- 
 vidual on Avhom it is performed — it procures no 
 alteration in his mental or moral character — it 
 makes no addition to his knowledge, piety, pru- 
 dence, or aptness to teach; but is a mere visible 
 and public inauguration, which is grounded upon 
 the belief, that he is one, to whom it is proper 
 that the duties and responsibilities of this office 
 should be committed. 
 
 We deny, therefore, that the act of ordination 
 is sufficient of itself, under any circumstances, to 
 determine who are, or who are not, the true min- 
 isters of Christ. And in opposition to this, we 
 cow specify some things which do characterize 
 the ministerial character, and which therefore 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 261 
 
 distinguish the true succession wherever it is 
 found. 
 
 As occupying the first place, we specify per- 
 sonal PIETY. Without this, no man is in a state 
 of reconciliation luith God. And is it credible, 
 that "the ministry of reconciliation" can be law- 
 fully committed to one, who is i^nreconciled in 
 the temper of his own mind ? Would any human 
 being employ an individual, at en7nity loitli him- 
 self, to effect a reconciliation with a third party, 
 in relation to whom some ground of difference or 
 alienation might exist ? And, if it would be ab- 
 surd to suppose this, must we not believe, on the 
 same principle, that personal reconciliation to God 
 is a fundamental requisite, in the constitution of 
 the ministerial character ? Mark the significant 
 declaration of Paul in relation to this point. In 
 speaking of himself and his brethren, as having 
 received the ministry of reconciliation, he repre- 
 sents God as having reconciled them to himself, 
 before this gift was conferred upon them — '' who 
 hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and 
 hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation." 
 This is the order established by divine wisdom, 
 and proclaimed as necessary by the nature of the 
 case. So that a thousand ordinations would be 
 ineffectual, towards conferring the ministerial cha- 
 racter upon one, who is in a state of enmity against 
 God. 
 
262 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 Again, without personal piety, there can be no 
 love to Christ. And how is it possible, that an 
 individual can be the duly commissioned servant 
 of one, for whom he entertains no affection? The 
 question was put, significantly, to the apostle Pe- 
 ter, " Lovest thou me" ? before he received the 
 command^ "feed my lambs," " feed my sheep." 
 All the apostles were distinguished, by the posses- 
 sion and exercise of this strong affection. " The 
 love of Christ constraineth us," was the language 
 in which they described, at once, the most promi- 
 nent trait of their character, and the main secret 
 of their activity and success. "Without this prin- 
 ciple, they would not have been qualified, either 
 for the labors, or the sufferings, to which they were 
 called. And that which was essential to the min- 
 isterial character in them, must be equally so in 
 the persons of their true successors. 
 
 Once more, we remark, that, without personal 
 piety, there cannot be consistent and uniform ho- 
 liness of life. And can an individual be lawfully 
 appointed to preach the gospel, who is living in 
 such a way, as to defeat the very object of the 
 message which he brings ? In answer to this, it 
 is enough to quote the plain declarations of scrip- 
 ture, as to what a minister of Christ must be, in 
 respect to his personal deportment. He must ap- 
 prove himself, " by pureness," as well as "by 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 263 
 
 knowledge," and " by the armor of righteous- 
 ness, on the right hand, and on the left" — he must 
 be "blameless," ''giving none offence in any 
 thing, that the ministry be not blamed" — he must 
 be "a lover of good men," "sober," "just," 
 "holy," "temperate." Such were the apostles 
 of Christ, and such are their true successors in all 
 ages of the world. Unconverted and wicked 
 men are not " shepherds" but " luolves^'' among 
 the sheep — they are hirelings w^ho care not for 
 the sheep — they are thieves and robbers who, in- 
 stead of entering by the door into the sheep-fold, 
 have climbed up in some other way. 
 
 But I remark farther, that, in connection with 
 personal piety the true succession will always 
 consist of those who preach the true gospel. 
 Paul speaks of committing the gospel " to faith- 
 ful men"; and a faithful man he describes as 
 "holding fast the faithful ivord, as he hath been 
 taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine, 
 both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." 
 He says, — " Though we, or an angel from 
 heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than 
 that which w^e have preached unto you, let him 
 he accursed." "If there come any unto you," 
 says the apostle John, "and bring not this doc- 
 tri7ie, receive him not into your house, neither bid 
 him God speed." This language is decisive, as 
 
264 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 to the fact, that no bearer oi false doctrine can be 
 a true minister of Christ, or should ever be ac- 
 knowledged as such, by the churches of God. 
 The tendency of his work is not to build up, but 
 to cast down, and destroy ; instead of being a 
 *' worker together ?d;z7/t God," he w^orks against 
 him, with all the force of his influence and exam- 
 ple; he is a successor to Satan, in whom is "the 
 spirit of error ^''^ and not a successor to the Apos- 
 tles, in whom was "the spirit of truth.^' 
 
 To this, we add, that the true succession will 
 always be found exclusively in the line of those 
 ministers who are divinely sent — who, in con- 
 nection with their outward ordination, have an in- 
 ivard call to the work — or who, as the ordination 
 service of the Church of England expresses it, are 
 " imvardly moved by the Holy Ghosts This is 
 the foundation of all that is valuable, as connect- 
 ed with this office . Bilney, the martyr, says, in 
 a letter to Tonstal, bishop of London — " This is 
 the root of all mischief in the church, that they 
 (the ministers) are not imvardly sent of God. 
 Without this inward calling, it helpeth nothing be- 
 fore God, to be a hundred times elect and con- 
 secrate by a thousand bulls, either hj pope, kingy 
 or emperor.^^ This is the language of truth and 
 soberness ; it accords, too, with the language of 
 scripture on the same subject. The true ministry 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 265 
 
 are there described, as those who have their com- 
 mission /?*om God — they are "laborers," who are 
 sent into the field by " the Lord of the harvest" — 
 they are " stewards," whom God has appointed 
 over his own " household" — they are " the gift 
 of Christ ^''^ to those to whom they are sent — and, 
 as their call is from Him, so it is to Him, immedi- 
 ately, that they must render their account. A 
 ministry, thus called of God, we have no doubt 
 will always exist ; and it is to such a ministry, 
 that Christ has promised his presence, till the end 
 of the world. 
 
 We conclude, then, that the true succession in 
 the ministry, runs, not so much in the line of a 
 mere outward ceremony, as in the line of an in- 
 ward call from God, accompanied hy personal pie^ 
 iy and the faithful preaching of '-Hhe truth as it is in 
 Jesus." — And, to strengthen this conclusion, we 
 call your attention to the fact, that it falls in pre- 
 cisely with the RULE prescribed in the Bible, for 
 distinguishing between a genuine and a spurious 
 ministry, in particular cases. 
 
 " Beloved," says the apostle John, " beheve 
 not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they 
 are of God : because many false prophets are 
 gone out into the world." This is a case direct- 
 ly in point. It refers, expressly, to public teach- 
 ers, or preachers of the gospel — it assumes that 
 23 
 
266 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 the church is bound to exercise its judgment up- 
 on the question, whether they are ti'ue^ ox false — 
 it assumes, also, that, in doing this, they are to 
 be guided and governed by a certain standard, 
 or rule of judgment. Now, ivhat is the rule ? 
 How are the spirits to be tried ? By what marks 
 are the false prophets to be distinguished from the 
 true ? Are Ave to inquire first, most of all, or ex- 
 clusively, who ordained them ? whether the 
 hands of a prelate have been imposed upon them ? 
 and whether certain words were used, in perform- 
 ing the ceremony, without omission, or altera- 
 tion ? Or are we to inquire, in the light of the 
 general principles laid down in the word of God, 
 into tlie spirit, the doctrine, and the lives of the 
 men themselves ? Yes, says the apostle, — 
 " Hereby know ye the spirit of God : every spi- 
 rit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the 
 flesh, is of God : and every spirit that confesseth 
 not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not 
 of God." And, in another place, he answers the 
 question, still more distinctly and fully, when he 
 says — " Many deceivers are gone out into the 
 world" — "look to yourselves" — ''whosoever abi- 
 deth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. 
 He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath 
 both the Father and the Son. If there come any 
 unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 267 
 
 not into your house, neither bid him God speed." 
 Here every thing is plain, rational, and satisfac- 
 tory. It is as if he had said, — 'When you meet 
 with an individual, who professes to be a minis- 
 ter of Christ, try him at once by his own doctrine 
 — if he preaches Jesus Christ and him crucified, 
 as the foundation of the sinner's hope, receive this 
 as evidence in his favor — if he does not, reject 
 him without hesitation.' 
 
 Similar to this, is the rule prescribed by the 
 apostle Paul. He speaks of false teachers, as 
 existing in his time in the church at Corinth ; and 
 has no hesitation in declaring them to be " minis- 
 ters of Satan." But how did he know that they 
 were '' ministers of Satan," and not ministers of 
 Christ ? Not by inquiring into the mode of their 
 ordination^ and finding that this was defective ; 
 but by the fact, that they handled the word of 
 God deceitfully — corrupted the word of God — 
 denied the resurrection^ — and thus showed, that 
 the doctrine which they preached was not the doc- 
 trine of Christ. 
 
 And in reference to the same point, what can 
 be more explicit than the teaching of our Saviour 
 himself? He says to his hearers — "Beware of 
 false prophets^ which come to you in sheep's cloth- 
 ing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." 
 Here, again, the persons referred to are public 
 
268 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 teachers : all is supposed to be right, as to their 
 ouhvard appearance ; and yet, the fact is, that they 
 are false teachers. Now, how is this to be ascer- 
 tained ? Not by inquiring into their ecclesiastical 
 pedigree — not by tracing the line of their descent, 
 along a series of ordination acts, performed in a 
 certain way — but by looking immediately, and di- 
 rectly, at their own character and conduct. Yes, 
 says the Saviour, — '' By their fruits ye shall know 
 them." " Do men gather grapes of thorns, or 
 figs of thistles ? Even so every good tree bring- 
 eth forth good fruit ; but a corrupt tree bringeth 
 forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth 
 evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth 
 good fruit." This is a standard of judgment 
 which is plain, and palpable : it is a test of cha- 
 racter, which commends itself to the reason and 
 common sense of every reflecting mind ; and, in 
 its connection, it proves beyond all contradiction, 
 that the true succession in the ministry is to be 
 determined, by other and more substantial consid- 
 erations, than those which relate to the circum- 
 stances attending their ordination. The ministry 
 to whom Christ promised his presence, is com- 
 posed of those who are reconciled to God, who 
 love Christ, who hold the truth and preach it, 
 and who commend their message to others by the 
 holiness of their own lives. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 269 
 
 2, Again, the false succession not only supposes 
 the ministry to be perpetuated by a mere ceremo- 
 ny, but it proceeds npon the monstrous assump- 
 tion, that this ceremony extends the line of suc- 
 cession ivitli equal certainty, v^hether the person on 
 whoin it is performed be a good, or a bad man — a 
 saint, or a sinner — a servant of God, or a servant 
 of Satan. That there is no exaggeration, or mis- 
 take, in this statement of the doctrine, we have 
 already shown, by quoting the opinions of its ad- 
 vocates. They contend, that '•^ the umvorthiness 
 of man cannot i^revent the goodness of God from 
 flowing in those appointed channels in which he 
 has destined it to flow." Let the individual or- 
 dained be as wicked as he may; it is still main- 
 tained, that he is a minister of Christ, if the hands 
 imposed upon him have been those of a prelatical 
 bishop. And from this it results, that hundreds 
 of men have been clothed Avith the ministerial 
 character, and have transmitted it to others, 
 who have lived openly in the indulgence of the 
 grossest vices, and done more than almost any 
 others to banish true religion from the w^orld. 
 
 Now reason and scripture unitedly judge, that 
 a succession ascertained on this principle, is not, 
 and cannot be, the succession which has the pro- 
 mise of Christ. To suppose this, is to overturn 
 the very foundations of the christian system — to 
 23* 
 
270 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 level all the distinctions between religion and irre- 
 ligion — between truth, and error—between virtue, 
 and vice ; and, at the same time, to render the 
 word of God inconsistent with itself. Christ has 
 never promised to be with bad men, either in the 
 ministry, or out of it. A wicked man is not al- 
 tered, in his sight, by the mere ceremony of ordi- 
 nation ; He still vicAvs him as he is, and gives 
 him no reason to expect his presence and appro- 
 bation, in any thing that he does. And therefore 
 the very fact, that he has promised to be with a 
 ministry till the end of the world, is of itself a suf- 
 ficient proof, that the particular ministry which 
 he had in view, was a ministry composed of good 
 men ; — not of men deriving their character from 
 the mode of their ordination ; but of men renew- 
 ed and sanctified by his own spirit, and constrain- 
 ed by the power of his love to devote themselves 
 to his service. Such a ministry he will raise up, 
 and qualify, and commission, as times and cir- 
 cumstances require ; and he will never leave nor 
 forsake them, whatever may be the name which 
 they bear, or the outward form under which they 
 exist. They shall have the testimony of his pre- 
 sence and friendship in this world ; and, when 
 called to the account of their stewardship, their 
 acceptance will not turn upon any questions relat- 
 ing to their ordination, but only upon their faith- 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 271 
 
 fill performance of the duties connected with their 
 high and responsible trust. '' Well done, thou 
 good and faithful servanf^ — " enter thou into the 
 joy of thy Lord." 
 
 3. The scheme of succession, which relies ex- 
 clusively upon a line of prelatical bishops, in- 
 volves the unnatural and repulsive supposition, 
 that SUCCESS in the ministry^ is no evidence of the 
 presence of Christy or the approbatioji of God, 
 It matters not how successful an individual may 
 be, in apparently securing the direct results which 
 the ministry has in view — his preaching may pro- 
 duce an obvious and powerful effect upon the 
 minds of his hearers — the ignorant, who sit under 
 his ministry, may be enhghtened — the secure, and 
 thoughtless, may be awakened and alarmed — 
 anxious inquirers after the way of salvation may 
 find pardon and peace — the afflicted may be sus- 
 tained and comforted — the wandering may be re- 
 claimed — and those who are established in the 
 faith may abound more and more in every good 
 work ; and yet it is still true, if the hands of a 
 prelate have not been laid upon him, that he is no 
 minister of Christ : he is a usurper of the place he 
 occupies : his " supposed commission is worse 
 than a nullity": and he is ''treading in the foot- 
 steps of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, whose aw- 
 ful punishment you read of in the book of Num- 
 bers"! ! 
 
272 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 Now go with this principle, on a course of ex- 
 amination around the christian world, and see 
 what strange and startling conclusions it will re- 
 quire you to embrace. You enter a house of 
 worship, Avhere all around you are strangers — 
 you take your seat among others who enter, and 
 listen attentively to what is imparted from the 
 sacred desk. You perceive that the speaker is 
 weak in intellect — that his manner is w^ithout in- 
 terest, or life — that he has no right perception of 
 the scriptural plan of redemption — that he even 
 teaches his hearers to rely for salvation upon false 
 grounds — and that no visible effect is produced 
 by his preaching. On inquiry, you ascertain, that 
 thus it has always been — that, within the sphere 
 of his ministrations, the cause of morality and pie- 
 ty has never advanced — that the vicious remain 
 undisturbed in their sins — that the moralist goes 
 about to establish his own righteousness — and 
 that those who profess to be christians exhibit 
 nothing of the life and power of godliness ; and, 
 at this point, you are tempted to conclude, that he 
 must have mistaken his profession, and entered 
 the ministry without being called of God, But, 
 while in the act of coming to this conclusion, you 
 are told, that, in very deed, he was ordained by 
 a prelatical bishop — that the hands of a lineal de- 
 scendant of the apostles were laid upon him — and 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 273 
 
 therefore that, beyond a question, he possesses 
 the ' apostolical grace.^ And this, according to 
 the doctrine, must remove all your misgivings at 
 once, and settle you down in the assurance, that 
 notwithstanding all appearances to the contrary, 
 he is a true ambassador for Christ ! 
 
 After leaving the scene of his performances, 
 you enter another place of worship, which is 
 crowded with an attentive and serious audience. 
 You are interested at once, in the appearance and 
 manner of him, who rises to address them — you 
 perceive, as he proceeds, that he not only under- 
 stands the scriptural plan of salvation in theory, 
 but that he seems to feel the power of its great 
 principles upon his own heart — you observe that 
 his hearers drink in the truths which he delivers, 
 with evident avidity and delight — that all are in- 
 terested, and some deeply affected. And, on in- 
 quiry, you learn, that these indications are not 
 equivocal — that an evident influence from on high 
 attends the ministrations of this individual — that 
 many cases of repentance and reformation occur 
 — that the tone of morality is high and healthy — 
 that piety flourishes, and good works abound. 
 But when ready to infer, from these indications, 
 that this must indeed be a man of God, bearing a 
 commission from heaven, and guided by the Holy 
 Spirit, you are told that he was ordained by a 
 
'r 
 274 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 presbytery, and not by a prelatical bishop ! The 
 consequence is, that you must start back from the 
 conclusion which you were about to form. You 
 have heard that, Avhich puts an entirely different 
 face upon the whole scene. You must now con- 
 sider, that these favorable indications, which at- 
 tracted your attention, are all deceitful — that they 
 are no signs whatever, of the presence of Christ, 
 or the approbation of God — that the person, in 
 connection with whose agency they appear, is no 
 minister of Christ at all ; but one of those dissent- 
 ing, sectarian pretenders, who run without being 
 sent, and wickedly intermeddle with the solemn 
 duties of an office, which has never been con- 
 ferred upon them. 
 
 These are the monstrous conclusions which an 
 adherence to the prelatical succession requires us 
 to embrace. It drives us to the necessity of ad- 
 mitting, that such men as Laud, Bonner, Swift, 
 and Sterne, who did a thousand times more to 
 demolish the church of God than to build it up, 
 were true ministers, while Luther and Knox, 
 "Watts and Doddridge, Edwards and Davies were 
 gross impostors — preaching without authority — 
 and pretending to administer sacraments, while 
 they had " no real sacraments to give." In short 
 it is the manifest and revolting absurdity of this 
 system, that it casts out of the ministry the very 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 275 
 
 best men and admits the very ivorst ; and thereby 
 confounds all distinction between fitness and un- 
 fitness — between virtue and vice- — between right 
 and wrong. 
 
 We say then, in opposition to all this, that the 
 true succession is to be found in every age, in 
 the line of a successful ministry. Paul said, in 
 looking upon those who were coverted through 
 his instrumentality, " the seal of mine aposileship 
 are ye in the Lord." And this declaration exhi- 
 bits the truth in the case, with great simplicity and 
 distinctness. It proceeds upon the supposition, 
 that the blessing of God upon his labors was a 
 visible authentication of his call to preach the 
 gospel, which might be '' known and read of all 
 men." His argument is, that if his preaching 
 had produced no effect, his claim to be regarded 
 as an apostle of Christ, might well have been 
 doubted ; but that success is so sure a proof of the 
 presence of Christ, and the approbation of God, 
 that he beheld a seal of his apostleship, in every 
 individual among his spiritual children. 
 
 And surely the test, which determined the true 
 ministry in his day, must be equally available to 
 the ascertainment of the true succession, in all 
 ages and countries. If the call of an individual 
 to this work is of God, it is to be expected, that 
 the blessing of God, in the way of success, will 
 
276 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 attend him : he will see the fruit of his labor, in 
 those results which the ministry is designed to se- 
 cure : and this will be an outward and visible sign, 
 that he belongs to the line of descent, which has 
 the promise of Christ. 
 
 Very instructive, as relating to this point, was 
 the incident between our Saviour and his disciples 
 concerning the man, who was not of their compa- 
 ny, and yet was seen casting out devils in his 
 name. They say unto Christ, — ''We forbade 
 him, because he folloiveth not us ;" their views, at 
 that time, were precisely the views of those per- 
 sons now, who would ascertain the true ministry, 
 by external relations, or lines of distinction alone : 
 the man in question did not belong to their num- 
 ber ; and, for this reason, they set him down, as 
 having no right to cast out devils, or perform any 
 other service in the name of their Master. The 
 answer of the Saviour stands, as a permanent re- 
 buke, to all such exclusive pretensions — '' Jesus 
 said. Forbid him not : for there is no man that 
 shall do a miracle in my name that can speak 
 lightly of me.'' His approbation rested upon 
 what the individual did, and not upon any thing 
 appertaining to his outward relations : he was suc- 
 cessful in his operations against the kingdom of 
 Satan, and in support of the kingdom of Christ : 
 and this, to the mind of the Saviour, determined 
 
, APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 2*77 
 
 his true character, and placed him among the 
 number of his friends and servants. 
 
 Guided by this view, we shall never fail to 
 find a succession in the ministry, according to 
 the promise of Christ. But we shall see it, 
 not so often in the walks of a hierarchy of any 
 description, as in humbler, less ostentatious, and 
 more retired places. We shall see it, where the 
 truth is preached in simplicity, in faithfulness, 
 and with affection ; we shall see it, where the 
 wicked are convinced of sin and brought to re- 
 pentance — we shall see it, where believers grow 
 in grace, where the church is edified and render- 
 ed efficient, where the fruits of righteousness 
 appear, ''which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glo- 
 ry and praise of God." A ministry attended by 
 such seals as these, is a ministry, not in form, but 
 in deed and in truth. It has existed in all ages 
 that are past ; it exists now ; and the line of its 
 succession will remain unbroken, till the end of 
 the world. 
 
 These observations, we trust, will enable you 
 to draw the line of distinction where it ought to 
 be drawn, between the true and the false succes- 
 sion in the christian ministry. The false succes- 
 sion depends for its perpetuity upon the mere cere- 
 mony of ordination, as performed in a particular 
 way — the true, w'^on personal piety, soundness of 
 24 
 
278 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 doctrine, and an inward call from God to the min- 
 isterial work : the false succession supposes, that 
 the worst of men may be the duly commissioned 
 ministers of Christ — the true, includes those only 
 who are personally reconciled to God, who love 
 Christ, and are heartily devoted to his service : 
 the false succession takes in the inactive, the idle, 
 and the unsuccessful — the true, consists exclusive- 
 ly of the laborers who work in the field, of the 
 soldiers who strive in the warfare, of the servants 
 who work for their master, of the reapers who 
 gather in the harvest. 
 
 That the human eye should be able, in all 
 cases, to distinguish between the true and the 
 false, is not, indeed, to be supposed. As a wolf 
 may pass for a sheep, when " in sheep's cloth- 
 ing," so a mere pretender may pass ^ among men 
 for a true minister of Christ ; nor is it incredible, 
 that, while the deception remains undetected, the 
 truth which he preaches may be the instrument of 
 good. But there is no more difficulty here, than 
 in distinguishing between true christians and hy- 
 pocrites, among the private members of the 
 church. A succession of true christians there 
 will always be ; and the general fact will be plain 
 and palpable to every candid observer, although, 
 in visible connection with them, there will always 
 be many who have the form of godliness without 
 
APOSTOLIC SUC0Ei3SION. 
 
 279 C 
 
 the power. And so, there will always be a suc- 
 cession of pious, orthodox, laborious, and useful 
 ministers of the gospel, although, in connection 
 with them, there may be many Avho have not the 
 spirit of the office which they profess to fill. What 
 the discernment of man cannot detect, however, 
 is not hidden from the eye of Him, who walketh 
 in the midst of the golden candlesticks, and hold- 
 eth the stars in his right hand. He is acquainted 
 with his own servants ; he knows them well ; and 
 the promise which he has given them shall never 
 fail. In all the duties and trials of their work, 
 they shall find support and consolation in him. 
 And, after turning many unto righteousness, their 
 distinction will be, that they " shall shine as the 
 brightness of the firmament," and '' as the stars 
 for ever and ever." 
 
 We have now completed the outline, which we 
 contemplated, at the commencement of these dis- 
 courses. We have set aside the succession by 
 prelatical bishops, as alike unscriptural, irrational, 
 and unsustained by historical facts ; and we have 
 brought before you the succession, which, on 
 scriptural principles, we have a right to expect, 
 and which alone can claim an interest in the 
 promise of Christ. 
 
 In conclusion, we desire to say, as was ob- 
 served in the commencement, that, in projecting 
 
280 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 the line of this argument, we had no intention of 
 assaihng Episcopacy, in any other view than as 
 claiming to be, by divine right, the one essential, 
 and only form, under which the Church of Christ 
 can exist, and thereby excluding from the visible 
 family of God all other denominations of profess- 
 ing Christians. If there are those, who prefer this 
 to any other form of church polity, upon the 
 ground of expediency, we have no wish to dis- 
 turb them in the enjoyment of their opinion and 
 preference. Nay, if they should regard and con- 
 tend for this, as the form which is sanctioned by 
 scriptural example, we should not object, provid- 
 ed it were admitted, that those who dissent from 
 this opinion, may be considered as belonging to 
 the Church of Christ, as well as themselves. 
 Even on this platform, we should be ready to 
 meet them in christian friendship, and to co-ope- 
 rate with them in every good work. But when 
 the enormous pretension is put forth and main- 
 tained, that Episcopacy is essential at once to the 
 being of a church, and to an authorized hope of 
 salvation — that there can be no ministry without 
 it — and that those churches, which are differently 
 organized, are in no better condition than the 
 heathen — it is time for the friends of truth and 
 charity, and for the advocates of both civil and re- 
 ligious liberty, to arise and rebel. 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 281 
 
 This is the claim, against which we have enter- 
 ed our protest. We have argued against it, from 
 scripture, from history, from reason, and from 
 common sense ; and against it, we are determined 
 to be, as long as we have an understanding, to 
 distinguish between truth and falsehood — a heart, 
 to feel the power of motives to do right — and a 
 tongue, to speak, either for the honor of God, or 
 the welfare of man. We are as sure, as we can 
 be of any thing, that true piety does not exist, as 
 a monopoly, within the inclosure of any particu- 
 lar form of ecclesiastical polity — that the church 
 of the Redeemer, bought Avith blood, does not de- 
 pend for its existence, and perpetuity, upon any 
 one order in the ministry to the exclusion of 
 others — and that all opinions, which are contrary 
 to this, are uncharitable in their nature, and inju- 
 rious in their effects. We have never harbored 
 a feeling of unkindness towards any individual, for 
 belonging to a different denomination from our 
 own. We can give the right hand of fellowship, 
 as cordially and warmly, to a pious and liberal 
 hearted Episcopalian, as to any human being 
 that lives. But arrogance, intolerance, and ex- 
 clusive pretensions, in matters relating to salva- 
 tion, where all are beggars at the footstool of di- 
 vine mercy, we cannot bear. These things are 
 the objects of our unceasing, and incurable dis- 
 
 1 
 
282 DISCOURSES ON 
 
 gust. And we do intend, as long as we live and 
 breathe, to bear testimony against them, " in sea- 
 son, and out of season" — to hold them up to the 
 rebuke, and reprobation, of the wise and the 
 good — and to call upon those, who love the 
 truth, and would keep the unity of the spirit 
 in the bond of peace, to be of one mind in 
 endeavouring to oppose, and put them down. 
 They are not suited to the age, and country, in 
 which we live — they are too lofty, and exclusive, 
 to agree with the genius of our institutions — and 
 they partake, too much, of the bigotry, and into- 
 lerance of the darkest ages, to be consistent with 
 the faith and doings of a century, in which *' the 
 true light" is shining toward every quarter of the 
 globe, and men of every country, and clime, are 
 beginning to rejoice in the liberty of the children 
 of God. 
 
 In the ranks of opposition to these unrighteous 
 and uncharitable assumptions, may you be found, 
 with united front, whatever your denominational 
 distinctions may be ! Contend, in your respec- 
 tive spheres, for ^' the faith once delivered to the 
 saints." And never forget, that on the platform 
 of this faith, " circumcision is nothing, and uncir- 
 cumcision is nothing" — and that "he is not a 
 Jew, which is one outwardly : neither is circum- 
 cision that, which is outward in the flesh : but he 
 
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 283 
 
 is a Jew, which is one inwardly ; and circumcis- 
 ion is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in 
 the letter ; whose praise is not of men, but of 
 God." 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ^I'P'^^^Si 
 
 mm 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 01010 6716 
 
 «i 
 
 
 ' ' ' ■ H^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Hfil'MI IIHEI 
 
 
 
 
 i : 1 
 
 ^^■i 
 
 liil 
 
 ^HH 
 
 
 -''1 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 H 
 
 W