LIBRARY OK THK PRl]«€ETO^, X. J. DONATION OF S A M i; K L A G N K W , Letter No. Jui ...hi^^^-^J^i^. i«^. BX 5840 .P7 no. 156 Perceval, A. P. 1799-1853. An apology for the doctrine of apostolical succession f;^=' AN APOLOGY FOR THE DOCTRINE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION; WITH AN APPENDIX, ON THE ENGLISH ORDERS. SY T^rfE HON. & REV. A. P. PERCIVAL, B. C. L. CHAPLAIN IN ORDINARY TO THE QUEEN, *c. Kew-yoRk: PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL TRACT SOCIETY. 1840. ADVERTISEMENT. I DESIRE to express my obligation to many of the Right Reverend Prelates and others for courteous and obliging answers to enquiries con- nected with the Appendix to this work ; and to acknowledge, with many thanks, the facilities for searching Records, afforded me by his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, and their officers, especially by Mr. Lewis, the keeper of the Records at Lambeth, and by the Very Rev. the Dean of Bristol, Master of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. To my friend and brother-in-law. Sir W. Heathcote, Bart., and to my friends the Rev. Dr. Hook, (at whose request I undertook the subject,) the Rev. H. H. Norris, Joshua Watson, Esq., and the Rev. Ed- ward Churton, I am also mvich indebted. East Horsley, June 29, 1S39. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Introduction. — The Authority of God necessary for the vahdity of the acts of the Christian Ministry — Question as to the mode of conveying this Authority — Behef of the English Church, and of the Church Cathohc and Primitive — Presbyterian scheme, origin of it — Congregationalist or Independent scheme — Proposed com- parison of testimony, scriptural and ecclesiastical, in behalf of the three schemes respectively ----- pp, 5 — 10 Chapter I. — Congregationalism. Scriptural passages and prece- dents resembling the Congregationalist system examined, and shown to be either condemnatory of it, or irrelevant — Micah — ■ Dathan and Abiram — Jeroboam — The sons of Sceva — Apollos — The man casting out devils^ — Matt, xviii. 20 — The transactions at Antioch — 2 Tim. iv. 3 — The seven Deacons - - pp. n — 15 Chapter II. — Congregationalism. Ecclesiastical precedents for the Congregational scheme, None p. 16 Chapter III. — Presbyferianism. Scriptural passages and prece- dents resembling the Presbyterian system examined and shown to be either condemnatory of it, or irrelevant — Korah — 2 Cor. x. xiii. Acts XX. — Diotrephes — The followers of Korah — False Apos- tles— Indiscriminate application of titles in Scripture — Our Lord called an Apostle, a Bishop, a Deacon — The Apostles called Pres- byters and Deacons — their office a Bishopric — Consideration and ret\itation of the Presbyterian argument on Phil. i. 2 — Acts xx. — The Epistles to Timothy — Especially 1 Tim. iv. 14 - pp. 16 — 24 Chapter IV. — Preshytei-ianisjn. Ecclesiastical precedents appealed to by the Presbyterians — Corinth — Alexandria — lona — In all these the very contrary established — Waldenscs, doubtful — The expres- sions of individual writers how to be understood - - pp. 24 — 33 Chapter V. — Freshyterianism. This scheme suicidal, even if the theory could be admitted pp. 33 — 35 Chapter VI. — Episcopacy. This system unassailable, even if tho evidence of Divine institution should fail — Antecedent objections to it considered — Uncharitableness — Exclusivcness — Popishness — Judaism — Matt, xxiii. ; Mark x. ; Luke xxii. — Protestant Re- formers— Historical evidence — Corruption of the cliaimcl — Non- importance pp. 35 — 52 IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Chapter VII. — Episcopacy. Ecclesiastical testimony in support of Episcopacy — Universal consent of the Christian world for 1500 years — Clement of Rome — Ignatius — Irenseus — Clement of Alex- andria— Tertullian — Origen — Cyprian — Firmilian — Clarus a Mus- cula — Ante-Nicene Code — Catholic Code ... pp, 53 59 Chapter VIII. — Episcopacy. Scriptural testimony in support of Episcopacy^ — Churches of Asia Minor — Churches of Crete and Ephesus — All the Churches during the Apostles' lives — The whole Church during our Lord's abode on earth — Our Lord's Addresses to the Apostles — Corroborative incidental passages — ^Appeal to the Presbyterians pp. 59— 64 APPENDIX. Objections urged by the Romanists against the English orders, con- sidered and refuted— Nag's Head story— Office for consecration- Office for ordination — Consecrators of Parker— Papal supremacy Marriage of Clergy pp. ^5-67 A. Record of Archbishop Parker's consecration in the Lambeth ^^S'st^'- pp. 68, 69 B. Record of the same in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge pp. 70, 71 C. Offices for consecrating Bishops— Ante-Nicene— Eastern— An- cient Western— Later Western— Southern (Coptic)— Northern (English) pp_ 72_84 D. Offices for ordaining Priests— Ante-Nicene— Eastern— Ancient Western, with the later additions— Southern (Coptic)— Northern ^English) pp. 85_9g E. Consecrations in the Enghsh Church from those of Archbishop Cranmer and his Consecrators inclusive, in which it is shown that those of Archbishop Parker and his colleagues were canonical as well as valid - - pp. 99—127 F. The truth of our records, and the legality of Parker's consecration established, by Parliamentary Evidence - - - pp. 127 128 G. The proofs from existing records of the Episcopal succession of' Parker compared with those of the succession of Pole, Thirlby, Bonner, Heath, and Gardiner p. i^y H. Episcopal descent of the present Archbishop of Canterbury traced in full for five successions - - - .p. 130 I. Episcopal descent of the present Archbishop of Canterbury from ' Archbishop Warham, traced in a single line - - pp. 131, 132 K. Consecrations among the English Nonjurors - - pp. 132—135 L. Episcopal succession in Scotland - - - - pp. 135 139 M. Episcopal succession in America - - - - pp. 139—141 N. Succession of Bishops in the Irish Church- - - p. 141 O. Concluding Remarks p. 143 APOLOGY, INTRODUCTION. That tlie Christian Church is the kingdom of God upon earth, and that (he office of the Christian Ministers is to invite and admit men into the Church in the name of GoDj to convey declarations and blessings from God to the members of it, and to have the superintendence of their interests as such, are points so generally admitted, that I will not stop to dwell upon tlie numerous passages of Scripture which warrant and certify them : e. g. '• Go ye, 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 whatever I have com- manded 3^ou." " God hath committed unto us the minis- try of reconciliation." " We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us." " Let a man so account of uS; as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God :" — and the like. I will assume these as points already granted ; or rather will confine my address to those who, in some degree or another, ad- mit thus much of Christian doctrine ; namely, that God mrfkes use of the instrumentality of man to convey His blessings to men ; and that in His Church or kingdom, the Ministers of it are the instruments Vvdiicli He ordina- rily makes use of for this purpose. 1* 0 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. Now it is an essential and fundamental principle of every well-ordered earthly kingdom, that no man may presume to exercise any public office within it, nor to act and speak in the king's name, without express warrant from him, or from those whom he has empowered to grant such commission. Nor is it enough for any man to fancy and persuade himself that he has such a commission ; the ordering, nay the very existence of the kingdom, re- quires that he shall be able to adduce to others reasonable proof of this ; otherwise, as in the case of a magistrate, neither will the king enforce, nor even the turnkey obey, the warrants lie may sign. Common reason would lead us to conclude, that if the Church is God's kingdom upon earth, the same principle must obtain in it, as essential and fundamental; and that no man may presume to exercise any public office in the Church, nor to act and speak in the name of God, without express warrant and commission from Him, or from those whom He has em- powered to grant such commission. Accordingly, in the Articles of the Church of England we find it expressly laid down ; "It is not lawful" {Go(Vs law is here intended, '"\ "for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching or ministering the Sacraments in the congregation, before he is lavv^fulJy called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in {not hy'\ the congregation, to call and send ^Ministers into the Lord's vineyard." Art. 23. This, which is thus clearly set forth in the Articles of the Church of England, ever held a place among the fun- damental doctrines of the Church at large ; being intended and included in the Ninth Article of the Creed, " the Holy Catholic Church," "the one Catholic and Apostolic Church." And it is generally admitted by all persons professing the Christian religion, that their Ministers APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. J ought to have, and it is by them generally supposed that they have, commission and authority from God. But, with regard to the channel or means, by which such authority and commission are derived and received, there are three distinct opinions. The Church of England, in common with nineteen-tweutieths of the Christian world, 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 to preach the Gospel, and to administer the Sacraments, and to ordain other clergy to assist in all these duties, in the hands of a cer- tain class of chief pastors, (to w^hom in very early times the term hisJiop was appropriated ;) that this power and commission has been handed down in the Church from their time till now, by Bishops ordaining Bishops ; and that none who have not received Episcopal ordination are lawful Ministers of the Church, or warranted to perform any acts in the name, and with the authority of God. This is clearly expressed in the preamble of the Ordina- tion Service Book of the Church of England, drawn up about the middle of the sixteenth century. " It is evident unto all men diligcntiy reading the Holy ScriptuvPF;, and ancient authors, that fiom the Apostles' time there have been these orders of IMinisters in Christ's Churcii; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which offices were evermore had in such reverent estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same ; and also by public prayer, with imposition of hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful authority. And therefore, to thfe intent that tiiesc orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed, in the Church of England, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in the Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter fol- lowing, or hath liad formerly Episcopal consecration or ordination." O APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. Tlie doctrine here laid down at length, by reason of the troubles then prevailing, was in ancient times, ere men had learned to question it, embodied in these simple rules, which formed part of the code of discipline of the Church in the three first centuries, which was for many centuries received by every one professing the faith of Christ, and which speaks of the Bishops only, having power to ordain. " Let a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops : a Presbyter and a Deacon, and the rest of the Clergy, by one Bishop." Canons called Apostolical. 1, 2. From the Apostles' times, downwards to those troub- lous ones which formed the eera of the Reformation, no instance can be clearly adduced of any one single body of Christians, in which persons were received as Ministers of Religion, who had not had Episcopal ordination. During all that period, none dared to hazard their salva- tion upon any other scheme of Christian Ministry. But when, in process of time, by reason of ignorance long prevaiUng, many corruptions in doctrine and practice had been introduced into the Church ; and upon the revival of letters, men were led to see how different a thing Chris- tianity had become, from what it had been instituted at the first, and received in the primitive ages, and became eager to reform and correct these abuses, the Bishops, in many places where this desire was awakened, especially in Switzerland, Germany, and Scotland, from different motives, more or less reprehensible, set themselves against the correction. Hereupon the people, in their impatience, discarded the authority of their Bishops, and set up con- gregations in opposition to them : and having been joined by some of the Inferior Clergy, broached doctrines and practices, till then unknown in Christendom ; namely, that the Inferior Clergy had power to confer orders as APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. the Chief Pastors ; Presbyters equally with Bishops. This is the doctrine, and practicCj upon this point now received by the Lutherans in Denmark and Germany; by the Calvinistsin Fiance, Switzerland, Germany, and Holland ; by the Presbyterians in England, Scotland, Ireland, and North America ; and by the Wesleyan Methodists. These all claim to have received their orders from some episco- paljy ordained Presbyter. Since the setting up of this scheme, another has been broached by those who, discarding all idea of any personal succession at all, are content to believe that every collec- tion of private Christians has sufficient power in itself to or- dain its own ministers ; and that such ministers, so appoint- ed, are efficiently ordained for all the offices of the Chris- tian Ministry. This is the case with the Brownists, now called Independents, or Congregationalists ; and with the Baptists, in Holland, some parts of Germany, England and North America. Besides these, who are all agreed in requiring so??ie outward appointment for their Ministers, there are others, Quaker?, Primitive Methodists, and some other small bodies, which require none : but of these it is not intended to treat in the present paper. Circum- stances in England have for the last few years occasioned the doctrine of the Apostolic or p]piscopal succession, as held by the Church of England, to be brought more under notice and consideration than it had been for some time previously. This has naturally awakened the jealousy of those who reject this doctrine, and who find themselves condemned by it. According]}^, it has been assailed in every way, and by every means : the truth of it has been openly denied ; and every argument been raked up, which seemed calculated to throw a doubt upon it. In short, the Church of England has fairly been put on her defence, and been called upon to allege the grounds on which she 10 AI»OSTO-MCAL SUCCESSION. receives and maintains this doctrine. Under such cir- cumstances no man can he hlamed, who desires, after the Apostle's instruction, "to give ati answer to them tliat ask a reason of the hope that is in him, with meeknescj and fear ;" accordingly, I have not hesitated to comply with the request of a valued friend, to draw up a paper on the suhjectj as hriefiy and as plainly as the case will admit. The most satisfactory course, I think, will be to state, as impartially as I can, the evidence which Scripture and ecclesiastical antiquity furnish concerning Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, and Congregationalism, respectively. If I shall succeed in showing that the testimony in favour of Episcopacy is not only incomparably greater than can be urged in behalf of either of tbe other schemes, but is actually greater than can be alleged in support of many, I may say most, of the doctrines which Christians profess to receive, — though I may still, unhappily, fail of leading others to embrace Episcopacy, I shall have done enough, in reason, to stop the mouths of Christians from reviUng those who hold this doctrine; and so, I would hope, under God's blessing, in some degree to promote Christian peace. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 11 CHAPTER L CONGREGATIONALISM -SCRIPTURE. First, let us consider what from Scripture or ecclesi- asLicnl precedent can be urged in behalf of the Independent or Congregational scheme, which considers every assem- bly of private Chvistians who agree to unite together, to be a Church in themselves, and independent of all au- thority beyond themselves ; and to be vested with power to commission persons to act and speak as Christian min- isters. I must confess myself to be perfectly at a loss wliere to find in Scripture precedents for such a course — or sanction for such a principle. In the Old Testament we have, indeed, the instance recorded (Judges xvii.) of tlie man of Mount Moriah, who undertook something of the sort ; for he, being a private individual, '• consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest." But the thing appeared so monstrous in the eyes of the sacred historian, that he thinks it necessary to explain immediately how such a thing could have occurred : saying, " In thos-e days there was no king in Israel, every man did that which was right in his own eyes :" which he repeats at every monstrous tale which he has there collected together, with a view, apparently, of impressing upon the reader the calamitous state of society when there is no settled order of government. § 2. We have also the case of Dathaii and'Abiram, — thatof Korah, and the other Levites who were in tlic same conspiracy, will come under consideration hereafter — who, being mere laymen of the tribe of Reuben, set theniDclves up against God's appointed High Priest, 12 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. on the very plea made use of by the Congregationalists: — > " Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congrega- tion are holy^ and the Lord is among them ; wherefore then hft ye up yourselves above the co7igregation of the Lord* ?" But the ruin which fell upon these men, one might have thought would have been enough to have deterred all from countenancing their course; did we not read that the very next day the people who had been eye-witnesses to the destruction of these impious men, dared to murmur on account of it. § 3. We have in- deed also the case of Jeroboam ; who may be considered as representing in his own person the body of people who together with him had separated themselves from the constituted ministry ; and who set up in Samaria '' independent" worship; "and made the lowest of the people priests of the high places, who were not of the sons of Levit ;" but the sacred historian does not com- mend this as an example to be followed ; for he adds, *' this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the eartht." § 4. We have also, in the New Testament, the case of the seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew ; not, indeed, strictly parallel, but sufficiently so, perhaps, to be worthy of notice. These men, it seems, had agreed among them- selves to perform some offices of the then Christian min- istry ; for " they took upon themselves to call over them that had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus, whom Paul preacheth§:" which might, perhaps, have been turned into a precedent, if St. Luke had not subjoined the reply of the evil spirit: "Jesus I know, but who are ye ?" Whereupon " the man, in whom the evil spirit was, leaped on them, and overcame them, so * Numb. xvi. X 1 Kings xiii. 34. + 1 Kings xiii. 33 ; xii. 31. § Acts xix. 13, 14, 15. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 13 that they fled out of the house naked and wounded." If they had been commissioned by Christ or His Apostles, the evil spirit, it seems, would have obeyed them , but because they had no authority beyond what their " vol- untary principle" gave them, not only did no success attend their efforts, but the evil spirit avenged himself upon them for the mockery they had used towards him. So that tliis story tells rather against the independent congregationalists, than otherwise ; for, if it was so hazard- ous a thing to attempt the extraordinary ministrations without Apostolic warrant, it should seem that it cannot be very safe to attempt the ordinary, unless fortified by such warrant. § 5. The case of ApoUos'' might be cited, who taught at the first, as it should seem, without com- munication with the Apostles, even before he had received Christian baptism, but it v/ill not afford much counten- ance to the Independents ; because he, as soon as he was accosted by Aquila and Priscillat, the Apostle's "fellow helpers tj" was willing to receive guidance and instruction from them ; and instead of setting up congregations - inde- pendent" of them, was ever afterwards in close communion and co-operation with them§. Whereas the Independents broke off from them who up to that time had ever been looked upon as standing in the place of the Apostles, and have ever since remained in opposition to them. § 6. The case of him, whom the Apostles mentioned to the Lord as casting out devils, and yet not following with them, looks more like a case in point ; but, that while the mira- cle which he wrought gave such an attestation of Divine san(;tion to his course, as is not, I believe, alleged on the part of the Independents, the very request of the Apostles to our Lord to forbid him, and the very ground assigned * Acts xviii. 24. ■\. Rom. xvi. 3. t Acts xviii. 'l-e. ^ 1 Cor. iii. 6 ; Tit. iii 13. X4 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. by our Lord for not doing so, namely, for lliat he had wrought a miracle*, lead us to conclude that, but for that miraculous attestation, it would have been a reprehensible irregularity ; or, if we take the reason subsequently added, " lie that is not against m is for ust," this will afford little consolation to the Independents, who set up their congregations in direct opposition to the successors of the Apostles. § 7. The saying of our Lord, Matt, xviii. 20. if it might be taken absolutely, and without reference to the rest of Scripture, would be the strongest in their fa- vour : " Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them ;" but if taken, as it must be, with the context together vv^ith the rest of Scrip- ture, " obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls," and (he like, its applicability will turn upon the point in dispute: namely, whether Christ has left any settled government in His Church. For if He has, we shall see reason to conclude that none can be truly said to be gathered to- gether in Christ's na??ie, except it be in conformity to the government, and in subordination to the officers He has ap- pointed. § 8. Sometimes the passage. Acts xiii. 1, 2, has been appealed to in support of congregational ordination, by some who suppose that St. Paul was then ordained an Apostle. But as it is clear by a comparison of Gal. i. ii. with Acts ix. that he had exercised the office of an Apostle which he distinctly declares himself not to have received either from men, or bi/ men, but immediately from Christ, — for many years, at least ten, before the occurrence at Antioch, that transaction can only be re- garded as the valedictory benediction on the part of that portion of the college of Apostles situated at Antioch to * Mark ix. 39. Compare Numb. xi. 26, | Luko ix. 50. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 15 two of their nuinber, on the occasion of their undertaking a new mission, and not as ordination ; and therefore is not a case relevant to our present enquiry. § 9. There IS only one other text which I think it necessary to cite ; but that is apparently more conclusive against the Congre- gationalists than any of tliose Vv^e have yet consiclered. It is that where the Apostle, foreseeing the dissent which would disturb the Church, spake of it in this wise, " The times will come when they will not endure sound doctrine ; but after their own lusts shall heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears* ;" which how far it fitly describes those who think themselves free at every impulse, to set up new teachers in opposition to their old ones, and who apparently consider the hearing sermons the chief part of religious worship, I had rather leave to the consideration of those most nearly concerned, than express an opinion of my own upon the subject. § 10. The method adopted in regard to the seven dea- cons, shows, indeed, that, in that instance, the choice of the persons was left with the congregation ; but it equally shows that the appointinent was reserved to the Apostles. ''Look ye out seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom loe may appoint over this businesst."' To alter this testimony, during the reign of the Independents under Cromwell, the text was changed, and the Bibles printed with '• whom ye may appoint ;" which if it showed nothing else, showed, at all events, how much importance tliey attached to the passage. * 2 Tim. iv. 3. t Acts xvi. 16 ArOSTOI.ICAL SUCCESSION. CHAPTER II. CONGREGATIONALISM-ECCLESIASTICAL ANTIQUITY. From ecclesiastical antiquity I am not aware that a single precedent is, or ever has been, alleged in favour of the Independent or Congregational scheme. -:o:— CHAPTER III. PRESCYTERIANISM-SCRIPTUKE. The Presbyterian scheme is this, that in Churches where there are Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, the Presbyters have authority by divine right to ordain, equally with, and independently of the Bishop ; and may therefore lawfully and validly separate from the Bishops, and exercise the power of ordination when occasion re- quires. Let us see what ground there is in Scripture for such an opinion. § 1. In the Old Testament, I know of only one case corresponding to this, namely, that of Korah and his company*, who, being Levites, and invested with a share * Numl). xvi. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 17 in the Ministry, conceived themselves equal to their supe- riors, and therefore undertook to perform their offices. But as all who were joined in that act were burned with fire from the Lord, as all who abetted them w^ere swallowed up by an earthquake, and they who murmured at this judgment destroyed by the plague, it does not seem to be a precedent which men should be glad to follow. " Hear, Presbyters I pray you, ye sons of Levi, seemeth it but a small thing Son of God unto you that the God of Israel hath separated you from Christian pepple the congregation of Israel to bring you near to Himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the cono^resration to minister unto them ? . . . and Episcopate seek ye the Priesthood also?"* Let the sentence be para- phrased, as it is here overlined, and it is read)^ made to our present purpose. § 2. In the New Testament we have several instances of teachers, probably Presbyters, behaving themselves unruly tovv^ards their Chief Pastors, and setting themselves up as equal -with them; for instance, those spoken of 2 Cor. xi. 12, who "transformed themselves into Apostlesof Christ;" against whom, therefore, the Apostle threatens "sharpness" according to the power which the Lord heal given him :]' those again, of whom, St. Paul speaks in his address to tlie Presbyters at Ephesus, " Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them ;" against whom he therefore gives a caution. § 3. Diotrephes, mentioned by St. John, in his third epistle, is another instance ; he not only in his own person, set at nought his Chief Pas- * Numb. xvi. 8, 9, 10. t 2 Cor. xiii. 10; Ibid. x. 2. 18 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. tor's aiiUioiily, '• praling against liiiii witli malicious words," but proceeded to turn those out of the Church who acknowledged it. Just Hkc the Scottish Presbyteri- ans at this moment, among whom proceedings have been instituted against one of their ministers for showing so much respect to Episcopacy, as to let his children receive Episcopal baptism.* But as St. John threatened to "remember" Diotrephes' deeds, it is plain he did not ap- prove of such conduct. § 4. Nor does this appear to have been a solitary case, for St. Jude uses the plural number, when he mentions, with reprobation, those who " spoke evil of dignities"t and " perished in the gainsaying of Korah ;" yet even these had not gone so far as to set up separate worship, for he speaks of them as partaking of the feasts of charity. + The very last book of the Bible is occupied on this point of ecclesiastical order, the Angel of Epliesus being commended, because he had tried some who said they were Apostles, and had '-found them liars."§ It must be admitted, I think, that these prece- dents, which in appearance, very much resemble the course adopted by the Presbyterians, have little in them to sanc- tion or encourage any to follow them. The Presbyterians will perhaps deny that these are cases in point, for they will say, We admit that the Apostles themselves had a superiority by divine appointment; but we deny that such superiority was ordained for a continuance, and con- tend that, after their death, all superiority among Pastors was of merely human origin, and might therefore safely be set aside by human authority alone. II ^ 6. Let us, * Case or Mr. Stevenson, Licentiate in the Presbytery of Chirn side. t Jude V. 8. 11. :}; Jude v. 12. § Rev. ii. 2. 11 Such being the only argument by which, with any show of decency, the Presbyterians can avoid the force of the apostolic examples, charity has led me to use it in their hehalf. But truth requires me to add, that I APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, 19 then, enquire fuilher into the grounds on which this alle- gation rests. I heheve it will be found to depend very much upon a dexterous interchange of certain names, which at the first were used in common, but have since been, by common usage, appropriated to distinct offices, such as Bishops, Apostles, Presbyters, Deacons. Our Lord Him- self is sometimes designated as an Apostle,* sometimes as a Bishop,t sometimes as a Deacon. t The Apostles are not only designed by that tille,§ but their office is called a deaconshipjll and bishoprick*^ and they themselves fre- quently styled Presbyters'"* and Deacons.ft Again, tlie Pastors at Ephesus whom St. Paul addresses, are called in- discriminately Bishops It and Presbyters, §§ and the same indiscriminate use of the terms is observable in St. Paul's 1st Epistle to Timothj'llii and in that to Titus.i'lF From this they sagely argue, that as the Apostles are called Pres- byters, therefore the Presbyters, such as are now known by the name, are equal to the Apostles ; but seeing that the Apostles are still more frequently called Deacons, this argu- they do not stick at denying that the Apostles themselves had any sole jurisdiction. According to them the commission, Matt, xviii. 20, was given to all Ministers equally. " There is no very clear evidence that they h;id this sole power and authority." " I think we find no declared authority solf.ly belonging to them as Apostles, to call any Ministers to account or depose them." Such are the assertions of one of the latest writers on the Presbyterian side. One might have thought that the sen- tence concerning certain false teachers, "whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme," 1 Tim. i. 20, had been proof sufficient of such authority, and of the exercise of it. But thus it is that one evil step draws another; they who begin by carping at the au- thority of Bishops, presently proceed further to carp at that of the Apos- tles, and will probably, not be deterred from carping at that of our Lord Himself. f Heb. iii. 1. ** 1 Pet. v. i. 2 John 1. 3 John 1. " t 1 Pet. ii. 25. tt 1 Cor. iii. 5. 2 Cor. iii. 6. Ibid. vi. 4. i Rom. XV. 8. :|:^ Acts xx. 28. §Luke vi. 13. ^§ Acts xx. 17. I Acts i. IS. 25. Ijli 1 Tim. iii. 1, 2. and v. 17. 1 Acts i. 20. ^1 Tit. i. 5. 7. 20 APOSTOLIC A r. SUCCESSION. ment if wortli any tiling, would make the Deacons equal to them also; nay, as Chuist Himself is called a Deacon more than once, and never a Presbyter, iheir argument would go to show that Deacons are equal to Jesus Christ, and superior to Presbyters. Their argument there- fore destroys itself, and suiliciently shows that it is not by the mere application of terms, thus indiscriminately used, that anything can be determined as to the fact or kind of sub- ordination in the Ministry warranted by the Scriptures. § 7. But, say the Presbyterians, in St. Paul's Epistle to the Phihppians he sends salutation to the Bishops and Deacons,* with no allusion to any other office, therefore there were only these two instituted by the Apostles, and any thing beyond this is of human origin. Answer 1st. So do the Prophets Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and Ezekicl, uniformly designate the Jewish ministry as Priests and Levites, with no allusion to any other office ; and a man might as well argue, that therefore, at that time, there was no superior office, no high priesthood among the Jews, as that there was no superior office, no chief episcopate^ among the Christians when St. Paul wrote. Answer 2nd. If tliey will stand by this text, and ad- here to the letter, it w4il prove that Bishops and Deacons are of divine institution ; Presbyters not, and therefore not so highly to be accounted of; and prove ordination by a Deacon to be safer than by a Presbyter. Answer 3rd. The very fact of St. Paul addressing a pastoral letter of directions and instruction to these per- sons, proves that there was a class of Ministers superior to these ; nor was he alone in doing so, for the Epistle was not in his name only, but in that of Timotheus also, thus * rhil. i. 2. apoj;toi.ical succession. 21 clearly proving that the superiority or cliief pastorship was not confined to the first Apostles only, hut was exercised hy them in common with those whom they had admitted to their own order ; not to mention Epaphroditus, wliom St. Paul, in that very Epistle, designates as the Apostle of the Philippians. § 8. Again, say the Presbyterians, when St. Paul ad- dressed the Presbyters at Ephesus whom he also called Bishops, he made no mention of any superior, which, sure, he would have done, had they had one. Answer 1st. Neither did he make mention of Deacons ; if the argument .therefore is worth anything, it will show that there were no Deacons at Ephesus. So in Hosea, Joel, Micah, Zephaniah, and Haggai, Priests only are mentioned, and neither High Priests nor Levites ; so that if the Presbyterians' argument from Acts xx. will hold, we shall he bound to conclude that in the time of these prophets there was but one order of Ministers among the Jews. The argument therefore destroys itself. Answer 2nd. The fact of St. Paul's strict and authori- tative charge to their pastors, shows that he himself ex- ercised superiority and authority over them. Nor was he alone in this, but it is plain froju tliat chapter that he had loith h'un at the time aiiolJier^ joined therefore probably with him in his address, to whom by comparison of dates, it appears, that he had already^ during his ovv'n absence, committed the particular superintendence of these very Pastors, even Timothi/ : as he says in his first Epistle to him, •' I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, while I went into Macedonia, that thou inigJitest charge some-^ that they teach no other doctrine r* el clear superinten- dence over the Pastors. Now it was on St. Paul's retura * 1 Tim. i. 3. 22 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. from Macedonia, tliat having- Tifnoth?/ wilh hwi. he gave this pastoral charge to the Pastors at Ephesiis, ren- deredj probably, the more necessary on this account, namely, because their chief Pastor Timothy was to ac- company him on his journey. § 9. Again, say tlie Presbyterians, in the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy we have mention of two classes of Ministers: 1. That to which the terms Bishops and Presbyters are equally applied, as they are also in the Epistle to Titus ; 2. The Deacons, with no instructions about any other. Answer. It is very true ; but equally so that Timothy is vested with authority over both these classes. And equally true, that while the commission to execute such superintendence runs in the sole name and person of St. Paul, so it is addressed to Timothy in the singular num- ber. "I besought THEE to abide still at Ephesus, that THOU mightest charge some." " This charge I commit to TEiEE, son Timothy :" and that not the slightest in- timation is given of either the Deacons, or the Presbyter- Bishops, having any share whatever in the responsibility of the superintendents' duties. Timothy is not required to take any of them into consultation, neither in receiving accusations against any of their number, nor in adminis- tering rebuke to them, nor in judging of the qualifications of those who were candidates for either of these offices ; nor in appointing or ordaining men to these offices. All the instructions to Timothy are given to him in the sin- gular number^ "receive thou," "rebuke thou," "lay THOU hands," and the like; and afford incontrovertible testimony that both the offices under consideration were quite subordinate to his. § 10. Lastly, say the Presbyterians, what do you make of the Presbytery, 1 Tim. iv. 14, who are said to have or- APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 23 dained Timolhy ? Surely, this must be understood of Presbyters such as we now liave them, and must be con- sidered conckisive warrant for their conferring orders. Answer 1st. As it is undeniable from the Epistles of St. Peter and St. John, that the Apostles frequently de- signated themselves as Presbyters, we are at perfect liberty, provided there be nothing in the context to forbid it, to understand tlie College of the Apostles to be intended in this place. In this sense, accordingly, in the early ages, when there was not a single Presbyterian community existing in Christendom, all the commentators understood the passage. Thus Chrysostom observes, "He does not speak here of Presbyters, but of Bishops, for Presbyters- did not ordain a Bishop." Theodoret observes, " In this place he calls those the Presbyters, who had received the grace of AposileshipP Theophylact, " That is of Bishops, for Presbyters did not ordain a Bishop." Is there, then, any thing in the context, which shall oblige us to set aside this interpretation as unsound? So far from it, that in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, the persons whom the Presbyterians would hold competent to ordain a Chief Pastor over tliemselves, are not spoken of as competent to ordain even a Deacon. Moreover, in the second Epis- tle, St. Paul ascribes Timothy's ordination to his own act.* The Presbyterians would represent this last passage to relate to miraculous gifts ; but as there is nothing in the context to warrant such a supposition, but the con- trary, it cannot be urged. The first passage runs thus, " Neglect not tlie gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presb'ytery." The other, " Slir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands." I would * 2 Tim i. ^. 24 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. only fuilher observe, that if we are to resort to accurate criticism of the force of the texts themselves, there is a dif- ference between the prepositions used, which deserves to be noted. Tlie preposition in the latter signifies an in- siriimental cause, <^ia, through, " bj/ means of the lay- ing on of my hands :" in the former it has not that force, being jura, together with, or ^^ accompany in g the laying on of hands of the Presbytery." So that, even if it could be shown, which it cannot, that by the Presbytery were meant merely Presbyters, such as we now understand by the term, it would still remain that Timolhy's ordination was ascribed to St. Paul as the inslrumental cause; and not to the Presbytery exce[)t as assisting in tlie rite. These, as far as I knov\', are the only Scripture grounds which have been adduced in behalf of Presbvterianism. ■:o: CHAPTER n^ PRESBYTERIANI3M.-ECCESIA3TICAL ANTIQUITY. Next let us consider the support which the Presbyte- rians think their scheme can deriv^e from ecclesiastical antiquity. Four, and, as far as I am aware, only four, precedents have been appealed to by them. § 1st. That of the Church of Corinth. St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, the companion of St. Paul, and '• whose name is in the book of life," wrote an epistle, in the name of the Church of Rome, to the Church of Corinth, on occasion of some disputes which had arisen in the latter. In several places in this epistle he bids tlie Corinthians be subject to their APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 25 Presbyters ; in another, says that the Apostles, when they founded Chiirchesj ordained of the first fruits of tlieir con- versions, Bishops and Deacons. Lo ! in this latter place, say the Presbyterians, there are only two orders men- tioned ; and, in the former, he speaks only of Presbyters : it is clear, then, that he acknowledged only two orders of Ministers, and that Presbyters and Bishops were the same thing in his days. Ansice?' 1st. But, as we have seen above, that the Propliets, through many centuries, designated the Jewish Ministers, as Priests and Levites, or Priests only, with no mention of High or Chief Priest ; and, as no one ever thought it reasonable to contend, that, therefore, in their days there was no Higli Priest; so, neither in this case does it appear reasonable to argue that there was no High or Chief Presbyter, because St. Clement has not expressly named him in these places. Answer 2d. The unsoundness of the Presbyterian in- ference is shown beyond redemption, when we find St, Clement expressly ascribing to Divine appointment, obligatory in his time, the triple order of ministry. These are his words: "It will behove us [this is an epistle from a Christian Bishop to a Christian Church,] 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 supremos will and authority, both where and by ichat persons 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 to the L^iviTES appertain their proper ministries ; and the lay- man is confined within the bounds of what is com- manded to laymen." § 4'\ Thus the negative testimony of Clement in one place would not only not fairly bear the construction which the Presbyterians put upon it, 26 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSIO^^ even if it stood alone ; but is utterly and completely over- thrown by his positive testimony in the passage last cited. So that the Church of Corinth must be returned " not guilty" of the charge of Presbyterianism. § 2. The next precedent cited is that of Alexandria, where it is pretended that, for about 250 years after Christ, the Presbyters or- dained the Bishop. This rests upon the supposed testi- mony of two witnesses : " St. Jerome, who lived 150 years, and Eutychius, who lived 750 years after the time mentioned. I wonder wliat would be said of any Churchman who should attempt to found a precedent on two single \vitnesses so far removed. However, let us consider what their evidence amounts to. St. Jerome speaks thus: "At Alexandria, from the Evangelist Mark, to Heraclas and Dionysius the Bishops, the Presbyters always gave the name of Bishop, or nominated to be Bishop, one chosen from among themselves, and placed in a higher degree." " Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu coliocatum, episcopum, nomi- nabant." Observe, 1st, The utmost that can be made of this passage, by itself, is that the Presbyters at Alex- andria had a voice in the appointment of the Patriarch, which, in other places, rested w^ith the Bishops of the province. And even this is not distinctly stated ; Jerome does not say, the Bishop was chosen hy the Presbyters, but from among them. Nor does he say hy wJcom he was placed in the higher degree. Observe, 2d^ That St. Jerome proves, by his very next sentence, that he did not mean that the Presbyters ordained the Patriarch ; for he subjoins, "For what does a Bishop do, except ordination^ which a Presbyter 'inay not do .?" Observe, Sd, That from the very passage appealed to by the Presbyterians, it appears that, from the days of St. Mark, the founder of the Church of Alexandria, inclusive, tlie Church tion the power to ordain, that the Presbyterians of Ger- many, Denmark, France, Scotland England, Ireland, and ' North America, derive their pretended orders. The per- APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 35 sons on whom Bugenhagen, Calvin, Knox, and Wesley laid hands, fancied that power of ordination was conferred upon them by those, who, even if the Presbyterian theory were admitted to be true, are shown never to have received such power themselves. ■:o:- CHAPTER VI, Since then, not only do all the proofs, whether Scrip- tural or ecclesiastical, adduced in behalf of the original Apostolical constitution of tlie Church for which the Pres- byterians contend, fail to support it; but that very consti- tution, if admitted, proves indisputably tlie untenableness of the Presbyterians' position, and the invalidity of their orders; I think we may safely, without fear of being charged with a desire to avoid ftdl discussion, proceed to consider whether more satisfactory and consistent testi- mony both fi-om Scripture and from antiquity can be ad- duced in behalf of the claim of some other scheme to a Divine origin J Let us examine, then, the grounds on which Episcopacy lays claim to a Divine origin. But; as I concluded the examination of Presbytcrianism by showing, that, even if their scheme of Apostolical con- stitution for the government of the Church w^ere freely admitted, it would utterly fail of vindicating their course, and ATOuld prove the first ordaincis of their Ministers to have been incompetent to discharge such an ofTice ; so I will commence the Episcopalian section by showing, that ■tb aiter ffiilii)'.^ ■ v;;ri:-r. o-n,- 1 N^ ,.v.:.-, <.. . r-,:^.],,^ -■ri-)-!^ 36 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. will not avail to clear the Presbyterians of guilt. For whensoever and whencesoever the order and authority of Bishops, as single superintendents over other orders of Ministers, and over the whole Church within their respec tive districts, took its rise, yet this is admitted by the Pres- byterians themselves, that wherever such an order exists, it ought to be respected and obeyed, unless it exceeds i power. Mr. Powell, the latest writer on their side, spea ing of a passage of St. Ignatius, says that it " signifi that where a superintendent had been appointed for th sake of order, that order ought to be kept:" and then adds, *' Very right ; so say all Churches where a superinten- dency has been established, thougli making no pretensions to Divine right for it." ""' Again, he says, "It is a plain Scriptural principle that Ministers are to govern the peo- ple, that they are to govern according to the letter and spirit of their commission ; and that whilst they so go- vern, the people are bound by the authority of the word of God to submit to their government, and to honour them as those who watch for thek souls ; but when Ministers violate the law of their commission, their authority so farf ceases, and the people are, in that proportion, free from "^ obligation to obey them."t Calvin, one of the fivet leaders of this scheme, had said long before, that those persons were worthy of anathema, who would not submit to truly Christian Bishops, if such could be had.t And, ages before him, the second general Council, that ofConstan- tinople, (which is one of the four to which the Englis statutes § since the Reformation appeal, as the Enghsl Canons did before,!! as the test together with the Scri tures, for determining heresy,) declared those persons * Powell on Apostol. Succession, p. 5 1 . \ Tract, de Reform. Eccles. t Powell on Apostol. Succession, p. 89. § 1 Eliz. c. 1, § 36. 11 Canons of jElfric APOSTOLICAL SUCCESBI05. Sit he heretics ivhoj however sound their profession of faith may be, made separations and gathered congrega- tlo7zs contrary to our Canonical Bishops.* Whe- ther, therefore, the origin of Episcopacy be Divine or human, yet this is clear from the above; namely, that seeing the British Churches were and are actually governed by Bishops, the Presbyteiians can no other- wise avoid the condemnation of heresy denounced by the Council of Constantinople, and acknowledged and ratified by the English parHament, nor the sentence of anathema awarded by Calvin, nor the testimony of Mr, Powell of open violation of the written Law of Gon, against those who break that established order, than by proving that the British Bishops, either are not truly Christian Bishops, or have violated the law of their commission ; a totally different question from that under consideration. But though it thus appears of what comparatively little importance it is as regards the justification of the Presby- terians, whether the claim of Episcopacy to a Divine origin can be established or not, still I believe the proof of it to be such as must carry conviction to every mind open to embrace the truth, as strong and full, I verily believe, as can be advanced in behalf of an}?^ other religious truth which Christians receive; sufficient for all, in short, who are content to " walk by faith and not by sight," But before proceeding to the proofs, I will endeavour to remove certain popular objections, irrespective of Scrip- tural or ecclesiastical testimony, which not only avail to prejudge the question, and to prevent men fKom making an impartial examination of the grounds on which it rests, but &lso have a s'till more fatal effect, in that they inchne men, if perchance they do enter into the examination, to do violence to the conviction of their own minds, and to Canon vi. 4 3S APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. set aside tlie impression conveyed by the testimony, under the idea that there must be something essentially wrong in the Episcopal scheme itself. § 1. Objection I. The Episcopal scheme is uncharita- ble, for it condemns all others. Answer. As charity aims, or should aim, at the wel- fare of mankind, and as the welfare of men is inseparably involved in their reception of and adherence to the truth, it follows that that which is most true, must be most chari- table. The only question, then, is, whether the Episcopal scheme is iriie ; if so, charity requires that we should teach it; and forbids our keeping it back. § 2. Objection II. But is exclusive, therefore it must be untrue. Answer 1 . As truth is one and not manifold, the ex- clusiveness of the scheme is, at first sight, an argument m favour of its being true. Answer 2. As the Christian religion, of which Episco- pacy professes to be a tenet, is itself exclusive, " I am God and there is 7ione else f "no man cometh unto the Father but by me -^ " neither is there salvation in emy other /' " there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved ;" — the exclusive- ness of Episcopacy makes in favour of its being a genuine Christian doctrine ; and as there is to Christians not only " one (only) Lord, and one (only) God," but also "one (only) Faith, and one (only) Baptism," the. exclusiveness of that which professes to be an article of this one Faith and to be the authority for that one Baptism affords a pri?nd facie probabihty of its being a genuine article of that one faith, and the true authority for tliat one Baptism. It is, I believe, chiefly, if not wholly, on account of the exclusiveness of the doctrine that we who maintain it are exposed to hatred and reviling ; and if we may judge APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 39 from llie language of oiu" revilers, shall have to endure persecution, if it shall be in their power to inflict it. If we would be content to teach Episcopacy as one among many schemes equally true or equally doubtful, it should seem from their latest writings, that we should not be dis- turbed ; but l^ecause we teach it, as the Scriptures and the Church have dehvered it to us, exclusively, therefore the world hateth us. Just so, if the early Christians could have been content to profess their religion, as one of the six hundred tolerated by heathen Rome, and had been liberal enough, according to the modern abuse of the term, to regard all religion as pretty much alike, they would have had no need to endure the cross, the stake, or the teeth of wild beasts : but because they taught their reli- gion, as the Scriptures and the Church had delivered it to them, exclusively, therefore the world hated them. While, therefore, the charge of exclusiveness is an argu- ment in our favour against whom it is brought, seeing that we bear it in common with the primitive martyrs ; it is an argument against those who bring it, seeing that they do so, in common with the very heathen. Objection 3. But you hold it in common with the Papists, therefore it must be Popish and unchristian. Answer 1. This is an old device of the Papists, to weaken the hands of the defenders of the Church of Eng- land, the great bulwark of Protestantism, by contriving to raise up imputations of Popery against them, that by thus confounding in men's minds the distinction between Catholic and Ro??ian Catholic, they may beguile them to the latter, under pretence of the former ; or may lead them through aversion to the latter, to cast off some por- tions of the former, and so render themselves open to re- proof; or, at any rate, may weaken and divide the Catho- lic opposers of Popery, by infusing among them doubts, 40 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. and suspicions, and jealousies. One main instrumenl made use of by the Papists, in former days, for this pur- pose, was the dissenting pulpits. In the 16th century, ©ne Cummitij a friar, contrived to be taken into the Puritans' pulpits, where as he stated at the councils, " I preached against set forms of prayer, and / called Eng^ lish prayers English mass, and have persuaded several to pray spiritually and extempore ; and this hath so taken with the people that the Church of England is become as- odious to that sort of people whom 1 instructed, as the mass is to the Church of England, and this will be a stumbling-block to that Church as long as it is a Church." For this the Pope commended him, and gave him a re- ward of 2000 ducats for his good service. Are there not many at the present day, of whom, if they were to apply to the Pope for a reward on the same score, all the world could witness that they have well deserved it at his hands 7 Surely our opponents have some reason to feel misgiving, when they find themselves thus treading in the footsteps of the heathen revilers of Christianity, and of the Popish hireling underminers of the bulwark of Protestantism. Attsiper 2. The question is not. whether the doctrine be held by Papists, but whether it be Scriptural. If it be Scriptural, of which I hope to afford reasonable proof, then either we must be content to hold it, as we do many other things, e. g. the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, in common with the Papists, or we must be content to acknowledge the Popish religion to be, in this respect, more Scriptural than our own. This, I, for one, am not prepared to do ; and therefore, believing the doctrine of the Apostolical succession to be Catholic and Scriptural, will never so far betray the cause of truth, as to consent to surrender it to the sole use of the errone- ous Papists. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 41 Objection 4. But it is not merely Popishj it is Judaical, and therefore must be unchristian. Answer. As our Lord instituted the Sacrament of Holy Baptism in a Jewish rite, namely, in the washing wherewith the Jews admitted proselytes ; and instituted the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist or Lord's Supper in a Jewish rite, namely, in the Mincha, or bread and drink offering ; in each case exalting a carnal ordi- nance into a means of spiritual gift or grace : it is rather an argument in favour of our doctrine than otherwise, tliat it finds for the Christian Ministry, — the dispensers of these sacraments, a prototype in the Jewish dispensa- tion like that which we find for the sacraments themselves. Accordingly, St. Clement of Rome, and St. Jerome, (whom especially I cite, because especially appealed to by our opponents,) both concur in speaking of the orders of Chris- tian Ministry under the very terms, (High Pdest, Priests, and Levites,) which obtained under the Mosaic dispensa- tion. And with this agree the sayings of the Apostles. " Ye are a royal Priesthood," said St. Peter, addressing the Christian Churches in the very language which Moses had used toward the Israelites. Compare 1 Pet. ii. 9. with Exodus xix. 6. " Christ hath made us Kings and Priests unto God and his Father," saith St. John.* " The Priesthood is changed," saith St. Paul, not de- stroyed.t But if there be a Priesthood upon earth, as all these bear witness that there is, and as the Prophets fore- told there should be, in the Christian Church,t then what is there to hinder distinction of orders in the priesthood ? § 5. Objection 5. But are not these sayings of our Lord, " Be ye not called Rabbi ; for one is your Master ^ * Rev. i. 6. + Heb. Tii. 12 1 Isa. Ix. 17; Irvi. 21. Mai. i. 11. 4* 4% APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. even Christ ; and all ye are brethren ; and call no nmn your father upon earth, for one is your Father which is in Heaven. Pseither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant."* "Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exer- cise lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you but whosoever will be great among you let him be your] minister : and whosoever will' be chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be minis- tered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."t — Are not these sayings directly subversive of all claims on the part of the Christian ministry, to au- thority and degree? Answer 1. The best comment on the texts will be furnished by the lives of those to whom they were ad- dressed, even the Apostles of Christ. If we find them exercising the authority of fathers and rulers over the Christian Hock, as the Epistles of St. John, St. Peter, and St. Jude (who were of those immediately addressed,) and the Epistles of St. Paul (who was afterwards admitted to the same office,) distinctly show, then one of two things must follow, namely, either, that all these were Judaizers and Anti-Christs ; which terms the irreverence of the present age has not, as yet, I think, applied to the Apostles themselves, though it has freely done so to their compan- ions and commended disciples, St. Clement and Ignatius :t or else, that thetexts do not really furnish the objection sup- posed by those who urge them : which will, probably, be the more readily admitted, when it is considered, that * Matt, xxiii, 8— n. t Mark x, 42—45. See also Matt xx. 25 — 28. Luke xxii. 25—27. ^ See a pamphlet, entitled " Conpensus Omnium." Via Media. f I APOSTOLICAL EUCCESSIOJf. 43 immediately after uttering these words of reproof to the Apastles, our Lord added, " I appoint unto you a king- dom, as my Father hath appointed unto me."* Answer 2. The very words of tlie texts refute the ob- jections which our opponents would ground upon them ; for they unite in showing that the only way authorized by Christ, to dignity and exaltation in His Church, is by discharging the offices of the Tninistry, and thus ser- ving the Christian people. "Whosoever will be great among you, let liirn be your 7?ii?i/5/e;'; and whosoever will be chief among you, let liim be your servant'^t Nor is it possible to see how men can be more truly the servants of others, than the Christian ministers are of the people committed to their charge ; seeing that they are bound to wait upon them, and minister to their wants, whether they be high or low, rich or poor ; not only when they assemble as guests in the courts of thtir Master's house, but also at their own houses. They are the servants of those with whom the greater part of our revilers would think it scorn to come in contact. The poorest beggars, the foulest sinners, in the most noisome dwelHngs, and under the most loathsome diseases, may command the attendance of the ministers of the Church who are under a vow to afford it ; and count it a privilege and a happiness to do so, if they may have hope to save a soul from death. But they who are thus ordained to min- ister to the wants of Christ's household are said by Him to be rulers over it. " Who then is that faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season."! Objection 6. But the doctrine was unknown to, or • Lufte xxu. 29. + Matt. xx. 26, 37. ^ Matt. xxiv. 45. Luk« xii. 42. 44" APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. unnoticed by, our Protestant Fathers [i. e. the Divines who in the 16th century opposed the Church of Rome,] and therefore we Protestants need not concern ourselves about it. Answer 1. Tiie Divines of the sixteenth century were neither the founders of the Christian Church, nor the writers of the Sacred Scriptures ; and, therefore, neither the Scriptures nor the Church are to be tried by them, but they and their doctrine are to be tried by the testimo- ny of the Scriptures, and by the voice of the Church. To these they appealed;* by these in their lifetimes they claimed to be tried.t If, therefore, it could be shown, * Cranmer, martyr. "I protest that it was never in my mind to write, speak, or understand any thing contrary to the most holy ivord of God, or else against the holy Catholic Church of Christ, but purely and simply to imitate and teach those things only, which I had learned of the sacred Scripture, and of the holy Catholic Church of Christ from the beginning, and also according to the exposition of the most holy and learned fathers and martyrs of the Church. And if any thing hath, peradventure, chanced otherwise than I thought, I may err ; but heretic I cannot be, forasmuch as I am ready in all things to follow the judgment of the most sacred word of God, and of the holy Catholic Church.'^ Appeal from the Pope to a General Council. Ridley, martyr. " When I perceive the greatest part of Christianity to be infected with the poison of the see of Rome, I repair to the usage of the primitive Church.''^ Farrar, Hooper, Taylor, Philpot, Bradford, martyrs.- and Miles Cover- dale. " We doubt not, by God's grace, but we shall be able to prove all our confession here, to be most trae, by the verity of God's loord, and consent of the Catholic Church." Confession at Oxford, 1564. t Philpot, martyr. His fourth examination. 1556. — Bishop of Glou- cester. " I pray you, by whom will you be judged in matters of contro- versy which happen daily 1" Philpot. "By the ivord 0/ God, for Christ saith in St. John, the word that He spake shall be judge in the latter day." Gloucester. " What, if you take the word one way, and I in another way, who shall be judge thenl" Philpot. "The primitive Church." — Determination of the Protestant restorers of our Church in Queen Elizabeth's reign, made in convocation, 1571. "But chiefly they (preachers) shall take heed that they teach nothing in their preaching, which they would have the people religiously to observe and believe, but that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old or New Testament, and that which the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have gathered out of that same doctrine.''^ , APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSIOrC. 45 that in any instances, through defective information, or through the provocation occasioned hy the Papal abuses of true doctrhie, or through any other cause, they omitted any pouit of doctrine whicii can he clearly shown to he Scriptural and Catholic ; we have the sanction of their solemn and reiterated appeals for making good their unin- tentional defects ; and must he convinced that men would be acting most contrary to their intention, if, on the plea of personal regard to them, they should assist in either breaking off, or preventing the restoration of any particle of Scriptural, Catholic, and Christian truth. *- Answer 2. Nothing can he more contrary to the truth, as far as the Church of England is concerned, than the allegation which forms the ground of this objection, namely, that our Protestant fathers, in the sixteenth cen- tury, were either ignorant or unmindful cf this doctrine, as the following documents will show. In 1536, Henry VIII., we have the following statement signed by Cran- mer, Latimer, and Shaxton, and some other of the Re- forming divines, in common with Stokesly, Tonstall, Sampson, and others, who in many things adhered to the Papal errors. " Christ and His Aj^osilcs did institute and ordain in the New Testament certain ministers or officers^ ivhic/i should bear spiritual power ^ authority y and comniission under Christ, to preach and teach the word of God unto His people ; to dispense and ad- minister the Sacraments of God unto them, and by the same to confer and give the grace of the Holy Ghost ; to consecrate the blessed hody of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar ; to loose and absoil from sin all persons which be duly penitent and sorry for the same ; to bind and ex- communicate such as be guilty in manifest crimes and sins, and will not amend their defaults ; to order and conse- crate others in the same room., order, and office, where- 46 ArOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. unt€ they be called and admitted themselves This office, this power and authority, was committed and given by Christ and His Apostles, unto certain persons only, that is to say, unto Priests or Bishops, whom they did elect, call and admit thereunto by their prayer and imposition of their hands The invisible gift or grace conferred in this Safcrament is nothing else but the power, office, and authority before mentioned ; the visible and outward sign is the prayer and imposition of the Bishop's hands^ upon the person which receiveth the said gift of grace. And to the intent the Church of Christ should never be destituted of such ministers, as should have and execute the said power of the keys ; it ivas also ordained and commanded by the Apostles^ that the same Sacrament [of orders] should he applied and MINISTERED BY THE BisHOP from time to time, and unto such other persons as had the qualities, which the Apostles ver}' diligently descrybe, as it appeareth in the first Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, and his Epistle to Titus." In 1548, Edward VL, we find the following statement put forth by the authority of Cranmer, in a sermon on the Power of the Keys. •' The ministration of God's word, which our Lord Jesus Christ Himself at first did in- stitute, ?i7a5 derived from the Apostles unto others after them^ by imposition of hands, and giving the Holy Ghost, from the Apostles' time to our days. And this was the consecration, orders, and unction- of the Apostles, whereby they, at the beginning, made Bishops and Priests, and this shall continue in the Church even to the toorld^s endy In 1549, Edward VI., we have the following declara- tion in the ordinal of the Church of England, already given above, but which it may be as well here to repeat. " It is evident unto all men diligently reading the Holy! APOSTOLfCAl. SUCCESSION. 47 Scripture anJ ancient authors, tliat from tlic Apostles' time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church ; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Wliich offices were evermore had in such reverend estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same ; and also by public prayer, with imposition of hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful authority. And. there- fore^ to the intent that these orders may be conihiued, and reverently used and esteemed, in the Church of Eng- land, NO MAN SHALL BE accouuted or taken to be a law- ful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in the United Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said FUNCTIONS, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter fol- lowing, or hath had formerly episcopal consecration OR ordination." In 1552, Edward VI., we have this Article, Twenty- third, of the Church of England. " It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching or ministering the Sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard." Lastly, in 1558-9, Elizabeth, we find the following emi- nent Divines, Scory, Bishop of Chichester; Grindal, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury ; Cox, afterwards Bishop of Ely ; Elmer, afterwards Bishop of London ; Guest, afterwards Bishop of Rochester ; Jewell, after- wards Bishop of Salisbury; and Horn, afterwards Bishop of Winchester, who was the mouth-piece of the party, 4.S APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSlOIf. Divines selected to conduct the Protestant Controversy^ maintaining, in the Council Chamber at a conference with the Papists, this asseition, " The Apostles' AUTHORiTy t5 derived upon after ages, and conveyed to the Bishops their succes- sors."* § 7. Objection 7. Though the principle be admitted, yet there is ^'no sufficient historic evidence of a personal succession of valid Episcopal ordinations." Ansioer 1. If nothing will satisfy men but actual de- monstration, I yield at once : neither this nor any succes- sion in the whole world, can be actually demonstrated. But if probable evidence, such as can be adduced in behalf of no other succession, may be deemed sufficient for all who are willing |.o walk by faith and not by sight, such evidence I will venture to present. If it be a moral im- possibility that any man, who had not been duly conse- crated, could be accouiUed a Bishop of the Church of England at the present time, then the onns rests upon the objectors to say how that, which is morally impossible now, could have been morally possible at any other pe- riod ? seeing that the same rules which regulate this matter have ever obtained in the Church ; rules recognizing the Bishops only as vested w ith power to ordain ; and seeing that no one point of ecclesiastical regulation was more jealously guarded than this. The rule of the Church of the first three centuries we have before seen — "Let a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops," a rule so universally received, that we find it repeated not only in general councils, as at Nice,t "A Bishop ought to be con- stituted by all the Bishops of the province, but if this be not practicable by reason of urgent necessity, three must • Collier's Ecclwiastical History, ii. 414—418. + Canon iv. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION'. 49 by all means meet together, and with the consent of those that are absent, let them perform theordination;" but repeat- ed in the provincial regulations of every Church, the British, the Gallican, the Spanish, the Roman, the Carthaginian, the Alexandrian, the Antiochian^ and the rest. And when, by any pressing necessity, it fell that a Bishop was consecrated by less than three Bishops, the discussions to which it gave rise siifficienlly show how keenly alive the Church has in all ages been to this point; and therefore liow morally impossible it is that in any age a man could have been received and allowed as a Bishop, who had not been ordained by Bishops. So that though it may be a matter of curiosity for a man to trace up the lists of Arch- bishops of Canterbury or Bishops of any other see, and thence, upvv'ards, tlie lists of the Bishops of Rome, or of Aries, of Lyons, or of any other Church, concerned in conferring orders on any of our Bishops, it is only of mo- ment so far, namely; as proving that these were always Episcopal Churches, and therefore that it was morally imj)ossihlc that any man should be accounted a Bishop by them, if he w^ere not ordained by Bishops. And there- fore whether, for instance, Clement w^as the first, or the second, or the third Bishop of Rome, is perfectly irrelevant ; the very discussion sufficiently testifying that during all that time Rome was governed by Bishops. If the ob- jectors can show reason for supposing that at any g-iven time, any of the Churches through which we trace our orders, was governed by those who had not received Epis- copal orders, the objection will be worthy of attention.* But as long as this cannot be done, the objection is crushed by the weight of the moral imposeibihty which is opposed to it. Sec Appendix. 5 50 ArOSTOLICAI. SUCCESSION. Answer 2. Strong as the evidence in favour of ibe succession liaving been preserved is tbus sbown to be, when viewed absobitdf/, its strength will appear im- mensely increased, when viewed in comparison with that upon the force of which men are content to admit any other succession. Take, for instance, the succession of the Aaronic Priesthood, which w^as transmitted by carnal descent ; on what, and on luhat only^ did the truth of that succession depend ? simply, in eacli descent, upon the single word of a woman as to a point of which no human being besides herself could have any certain knowledge. The Aaronic Priesthood was propagated in secret ; depending in every step upon the fidelity of a single witness^ a woman, the case admitting of no other certain evidence. The Christian Priesthood is propagated in jynbllcj transacted by many persons^ in the presence of many loitnesses. Yet the former is received without exception, the latter is excepted against. What is this but the spirit of wilful scepticism ? Objection 8. But many of the individuals, through whom you must trace the commission, were men of cor- rupt life and conversation, and even unsound in doctrine; a commission traced through such persons must, surely, be worthless. Anstvcr. Is earthly gold rendered worthless by passing through soiled hands? If not, why should heavenly trea- sure be? Is a king's commission rendered void, by reason of the unworthiness of the person on whom it is bestowed ? c. g. a profligate magistrate, or a dishonest counsellor ? If not, why should God's commission be? Let the objectors further consider this, that as the Holy promised Seed of salvation was neither tainted nor destroyed by passing through the meretricious womb of Rahab, and the incest- APOSTOLIC \L SUCCESSION. 51 uous womb of Tliamar,* so neither can it in reason be sup- posed that the spiritual seed for the ministration of that salvation, has suffered injury, because some of the agents for transmitting it have shown themselves as unworthy the high honour vouchsafed to them, as those pointed out in the former succession. Before the objection can be maintained, it must be shown that Judas, who was known to be the son of perdition from the beginning, and was a traitor, murderer, and thief, was not an Apostle; whereas not only did our Lord so call him, and so emploTj him, but -'his Bishoprick"t was not filled up till after his death. Objection 9. But the doctrine, at any rate, is of no im- portance, and therefore you do ill to insist upon it. Ansioer. If it be a part of God's truths no man living can possibly tell the extent of its importance. But this all men can see, that, as in the affairs of this world, it is of importance to know that a magistrate, or a herald, or an ambassador has been duly appointed, sent and accredited, by the king in whose name he speaks ; and that, among private individuals, one who acts in behalf of another has been authorized by his power of attorney ; so, if there be any meaning in the term, "Ministry of Reconciliation." ap- plied by St. Paul to the office of the Christian Clergy, it must be of the deepest importance to know, that it has been truly committed to those who profess to exercise it: important in- deed, if it be admitted to be even possible (which who can deny?) that men's interest in the kingdom of CHRisT,and covenant claim to its privileges, may be in the remotest de- gree affected by the insufficient appointment of those who administer the sacramental seals, tokens, means, pledges, (let men choose what term they like best,) of the covenant. At any rate, let its importance be what it may, they who * Matt. i. 3. 5. t Acts i. 20. 62 APOSTOLICAL SUCCE!^SION. believe the doctrine to be true, are only acting faithfully to God and to His people, when they calmly vindicate, and bear witness to, the truth ; which is all tliat I have here attempted. Moreover, let men consider, that, in common life, those subjects which occupy men's minds at the time of their departure from this world, and those about wliicli their last pubhc acts are concerned, are usually supposed to have been of importance in their eyes. If no reason can be assigned why this principle should not be ap})lied to affairs of religion, then let them further consider, that the last w^ords of our blessed Lord, before His ascension into heaven, were employed in giving the commission now under consideration f' that the last public acts of St. PauFs life, which the Scriptures have recorded, were (ho writing the Epistles to Timothy and Titus concerning their discharge of this same commission which he had transmitted unto them ; and that in the closing book of the Sacred Volume, the Revelation of St. John, the Spirit's directions to those in the seven Churches, who had received this same commission, occupy a conspicuous place. All these uniting on one and the same point, it is not surely too much to affirm, that the Sciiptures (hejp.selvcs have borne ample testimony to the importance of the subject. I am not aware of any other general oitjections v/hich deserve to be noticed. * Matt, xxviii. 20. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, 53 CHAPTER Vll. EPISCOPACY-ECCLESIASTICAL ANTIQUITY. I PROCEED, therefore, to cite the witnesses from Scrip- ture and ecclesiastical antiquity in support of the Episcopal scheme: that is, that our Lord Jesus Christ, before his bodily departure from tlie world, and from the Church which He had chosen out of it, did, for the well-being and good government of this His spiritual kingdom, and for the work of the Ministry, grant a commission of regency, which he placed in the hands of one class of His Ministers, the Chief Pastors of His Church, designing it to be a per- petual commission until His own return. That this com- mission, which He left in the hands of the Chief Pastors, has ever since continued, and must continue till the world's end, in their hands, they only being competent to exercise it who have been admitted to the order of Chief Pastors by those \vho were Ciiief Pastors before them. In the first place, then, I would call my reader's atten- tion to the following fact, which Dr. Jablonsky has clearly stated in these words, " It is very remarkable that there is no doctrine or tenet of the Christian religion, in which all Christians, in general, have for the space of 1500 years so unanimously agreed as in this of Episcopacy. In all ages and times down from the Apostles, and in all places, through Europe, Asia, and Africa, wheresoever there w^ere Christians, there w^ere also Bishops, and even where Christians differed in other points of doctrine or custom, and made schisms and divisions in the Church, yet did 5* .^4 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. they all remaiii unanimous in ihis, in retaining their Bishops."* Let this fact be weighed and it will amount to tliis, as before stated, namely, that for 1500 years no Christians dared to trust their salvation to any but an Episcopal Ministry. The correctness of this fact we have seen nega- tively proved, in tl\e complete failure of the Presbyterians to make out one single instance of Presbyterian govern- ment during the time above-mentioned. For positive proof of the same, let the following extracts suffice, a few cut of the many with which it w^ould be easy to crowd these pages, if it were desirable to make a display. Clement, as before cited. Bishop of Rome, a. d. 100, the companion of St. Paul, and whose " name is" declared in the Scripture to be " in the Book of Life ;" Phil. iv. 3. — " It will behove us, (Christians,) looking into the depths of the Divine knowledge, to do all things in order, whatsoever our Lord has commanded us to do. He has ordained^ by His supreme v»'ill and authority, both where and by what persons they [the sacred services and obla- tions] are to be performed. For the Chief Priest has his proper services, and to the Piiests their proper place is appointed; and the layman is confined within the bounds of what is commanded to laymen." — Epistle to the Church at Corinth. Ignatius, the fiiend and disciple of St. John, Bishop of Antioch, a. d. 106. " The Bishops appointed to the ut- most 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." — * Jablonsky's Reflections, in Sharp's Life, vol. ii. p. 1S7. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 55 Epistle to the Church at Ephesiis. " I exhort yoUj that ye study to do all things in a Divine concord. Your Bishop presiding in the place of God ; your Presbyterw^ 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 your Bishops and Presbyters."- — Epistle to the Church at Magnesia. "He that does any thing without Bishop, and Presbyters, and Deacons, is not pure in conscience."— £/pi5//e to the Church at Tralles. "Attend to the Bishop, to the Pres- bytery, and to the Deacons." " Do nothing without the Bishop." "As many as are of Jesus Christ are also with their Bishop." — Epistle to the Church at Phila- delphia. " Follow your Bishop, as Jesus Christ [fol- lowed] the Father ; and the Presbyter}^, as the Apostles : as for the Dea-cons, reverence them as the command of God. Let no man do any thing of what belongs to the Church without the Bishop. Let that Eucharist be looked upon as firm and right, which is offered either by the Bishop or by him to whom the Bishop has given his con- sent. AVheresoever the Bishop shall appear, there let the people also be: as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the Bishop, neither to baptize, nor to celebrate the Holy Communion; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, that so whatever is done may be secure and well done." — To the Church of Smyrna. Iren.'Eus, ordained by Polycarp the disciple of St. John, Bishop of Lyons, a. d. 178. " Those elders in the Church are to be obeyed who have a succession from the Apostles as we have shown, [in a former place he had given in the instance of the Bishops of Rome, the succes- sion from St. Peter,] who together with the succession have received a certain true gift, [or gift of truth,] accord- 56 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. ing to the decree of the Father ; hut the rest who shun the chief succession, and are gathered together in any place, are to be suspected as heretics and persons of bad opinions ; or as schismatics, and conceited persons, pleas- ing themselves , or, again, as hypocrites, doing this for the sake of gain and vain-glory, and all these have fallen from the truth." — Work against Heresies^ book iv. "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." — Ihkl. Clement, Presbyter of Alexandria, a. d. 194. "In the Church, the orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Dea- cons are, 1 think, imitations of the angelic glory." — Stro- 7nata^ book vi. Tertullian, supposed by many to have been a lay- man of the Church of Carthage, in Africa, a. d. 200. "Let the heretics set forth the origin of their Churches; let them turn over the order of their Bishops, so descend- ing by succession from the beginning, that he who was the first Bishop, had one of the Apostles, or of the Apos- tolical men w^io was in full communion with the Apostles, for his author and predecessor. For in this manner the Apostolical Churches bring dow^n their registers; as the Church of Smyrna had Polycarp placed over them by John ; as the Church of Rome had Clement ordained by Peter ; as the other Churches also set forth those who \vere made Bishops over them by the Apostles." — Of Heretical Prescripiiojis, c. 32. Origen, Catechist of the Church of Alexandria, in Egypt, A. D. 230. " Shall I not be subject to my Bishop, who is ordained of God to be my Father ? Shall I not be subject to the Presbyter, who, by the Divine cond-e- APOSTOl-ICAL SCCCESSION. 57 scension, is placed over me?" — 2^th Homily on St. Matt/iev\ Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, a. d. 250. " This, Brother, is and ought to be, our principal labour and study, to the utmost of our power to take care that the unity may still obtain which was dehvered b}^ our Lord and b}^ His Apostles to us, their successors." — Epistle to Cornelins. Bishop of Rome. " From thence [fron^ our Lord's appointment of St. Peter,] through tlie course of times and successions, the ordination of Bishops, and tlie frame of the Church, is transmitted so that the Church is built upon the Bishops, and all her affairs are ordered by the cliief rulers; and, therefore, seeing this is God's ap- pointmeni, I must needs wonder at the audacious daring of some who have chosen to WTite to me as if in the name of a Chinch, whereas a Church is only constituted in the Bishop, Clergy, and faithful Christians." — Epistle to the Lapsed. FiRMiLiAx, Bishop of CcTsarea, in Cappadocia, a. d. 250. " The power of remitting sins was given to the Apostles, and to the Cluirches which they founded, and to t!ic Bishops who succeeded to the Apostles by a vica- rious ordination." — Epistle to Cyprian^ Bishop of Cartilage. Clarl's a l^IuscuLA, Bishop in iho province of Car- thage, A. D. 250. " Tlic s?ntence of our Lord Jesus Christ is manifest, sending his Apostles, and to them alone committing the pov\'er given him by His Father; to whom we [Bishops] have succeeded, governing tlie Chur/:h of our liORD Viith tb.e same pov>'er." — In the Council of Cartilage. I will not tire my reader's patience by pursuing the list of individual witnesses. I will only desire him to observe, that, among the few I have cited, we have witnesses not 58 ArOSTOLICAI. SUCCESSION. from one Church or one country only, but from Europe, Asia, and Africa, the only quarters of the globe then known ; from France, from Italy, from Cappadocia, from Asia Minor, from Egypt, from Carthage ; witnesses not of that the one only order, to the Divine institution of which as paramount in the Church, and essential to the constitution of a Church, they bore their testimony ; but of the inferior orders also. Presbyters, Catechists, and one, as is generally supposed, a layman ; witnesses, not of dubious character, nor unknown persons, but the com- panions of the Apostles; themselves Martyrs, and Con- fessors to the Christian Faith ; not men living in a corrupt age, or corrupted by the supposed evil effect of a civil esta- blishment, but living in the purest ages of the Church, under the storms of persecution, and who had all passed off the stage of human life before the Christian Church received what is called an establishment. '^ I will add the collective testimony of the Christians of those days set forth in the canons called Apostolical, which obtained throughout the world, in the same pure sera. Canon 1. "Let a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops ; a Presbyter, by one Bishop, and so hkewise a Deacon, and the rest of the clergy." Canon 24. " If a Presbyter, despising his Bishop, gather a separate congregation, and erect another altar, being not able to convict his Bishop of any thing contrary to godliness and righteousness, [if he could do this, redress was open in the Provincial Synod ; and, therefore, his disorderly conduct inexcusable ;] let him, and the clergy- men that conspire with him, be deposed, and the laymen be suspended from communion, after a third admonition from the Bishop." Canon 32. '' Let the Priests and Deacons do nothing APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 59 without the knowledge and consent of the Bishop ; for with him the people of God are entrusted, and of him an account of their souls will be demanded." Canon 47. "If any clergyman do unjustly calumniate a Bishop, let him be deposed ; for it is written, ' Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy People.' " I will add, lastly, the testimony of the Catholic Code of Canons received throughout Christendom, beginning with the Nicene Council, which universally treats of Bishops, and Bishops only, as having power to ordain. :o:- CHAPTER VIII. EPISCOPACY— SCRIPTURE. Now what, let every calm and reasonable man ask himself, and well consider, what ought to avail to shake or set aside such testimony as this? Not, I think, a gratuitous suggestion by men in these later ages, that these martyrs and Confessors to the Christian truth, these planters, and teachers of Christian Churches, these companions of the Apostles and lights of the world, were all Judaizers and Antichrists, who, with one ac- cord throughout the world, without remonstrance from others, or hesitation on their own part, agreed to cast aside the divinely-constituted order of ministry, and sub- stitute another of their own devising in its stead ; of which supposed universal ecclesiastical revolution no monument can be produced, nor can any tcra be as- signed to it. If such an objection without warrant is to 60 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. avail to overthrow the Churcii's testimony on this point of Christian doctrine, a similarly gratuitous allegation from any persons skeptical on other points, must needs avail to destroy the Church's testimony altogether, and shake every doctrine and every tenet to be found in the Christian religion. How, then, can these witnesses in favour of Episcopacy be tried ? " By the law and by the testimony ; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no truth in them." Let us turn, then, to the sacred Scriptures, and see whether they afford contradiction or confirmation to the doctrine of Episcopacy. § 1. In the last book which closes iUo volume of In- spiration, Rev. ii. iii.,we find directions from the Spirit to seven Churches in Asia Minor; each of which is represented as governed by a single officer, termed an angel, (a word signifying in the Greek the same as Apostle, namely, a messenger ; and applied elsewhere to a minister of religion, Mai. ii. 7 ;) who is held respon- sible for the doctrines taught in his Church, has cogni- zance of the orders of the clergy, and the care of the whole body. In other w^ords, the Churches of Asia Minor^ in St. John^s time, were Episcopalian. § 2. We have St. Paul, in the last public acts of his life which the Holy Scriptures have recorded, (1 and 2 Tim., Tit.,) concerned in giving directions to single officers in the Churches of Ephesus and Crete, con- cerning their superintendence of those Churches, their control of the ministers in them ; their ordination of the clergy ; their responsibility for the public service, and discipline. In other words, the Churches of Ephesus and Crete^ in St. Paul's time^ were Episcopalian. § 3. We find the Apostles exercising in their own persons the superintendence of the Churches w^hich ArOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 61 they founded : e.g. Philippi, (Phil, i.,) and Ephesus, (Eph. i.,) and of the clergy whom they ordained to them ; visit- ing them by themselves, or by their coadjutors, (Acts XV. 36 ; Acts xix. 22 ; 1 Thcss. iii. 1 ;) sending to them pastoral letters, uttering sentences of excommunication, and recalling them ; giving directions about the public service, and discipline. In other words, all the Churches^ during the Apostles' lives, were Episcopalian. § 4. We find our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, during His abode on earth, exercising in his own person the superintendence of the Church, ordaining the clergy, (of whom He had two other orders under Him,) admin- istering reproof to them ; giving directions for the public worship and discipline. The true Head of the Church tlicn exercised visibly and spiritually that Chief Pastor- ship or Episcopate which, since His departure from the world, he has spiritually continued to exercise, whence He is still styled the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls; but visibly by his servants, the Bishops and Apostles of the Churches, who will continue it till He "the Chief Shepherd shall appear." In other words, the Church of Christ, i}i our Savioiifs time, was Episcopalian. § 5. Our Lord, before His departure from the world, addressed these words, not to all the ministers He had ordained under himself, — who consisted of, 1st, Apostles ; 2d, The Seventy; — but to the Apostles only; "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." " I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me." " I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." From which, until the Presbyterian scheme was in- vented in the sixteenth century, it had always been understood to be our Lord's intention, that the Church should coiUinuc Episcopalian until His return ; as we 62 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. have seen that, during His own abode on earth, and during the lives of the Apostles, and for the first fifteen centuries, it did universally continue Episcopalian. § 6. In corroboration of which view, it may be well to cite some of the single texts or passages which har- monize and correspond with it, but which are at vari- ance with all the other schemes. Take then that char- acter of the Catholic Church given in Acts ii. 42, "These continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fel- lowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." How can they be said to continue steadfastly in the Apostles' fellowship, who have separated from the fel- lowship of those who up to the time of their separation, were accounted to be the Apostles' successors, to stand in their place, and to be in their age the Apostles of the Churches ? But the Episcopalians have steadfastly ad- hered to it. Take those passages* in which St. Paul affirms that Christ ordained divers orders of Ministers, the chief of whom were Aj)ostles^ not for a temporary object, or only for a season, but in perpetuity until the completion of the Christian system " for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edify- ing of the body of Christ, until we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." How is this ordinance fulfilled by them who cast away the Apostolic office as super- fluous in their scheme of ministry ? The Episcopalians have been careful to preserve it. Take Heb. vi. 2, where the Apostle speaks of "the laying on of hands," by which men are made " partakers of the heavenly gift," i. e. either in confirmation or ordination, or in both, as one ■' - •'■1 Cor. xii. 28. Eph. iv, 11-14. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 63 of " the first principles of the doctrine of Christ," part of "the foundation" of the Christian religion. Now it cannot be shown from the Scriptnres that this means of grace was ever exercised by any who were not of the Apostolic order. But if it be a fundamental doctrine, it must be of perpetual obligation, and if it be of perpetual obligation, then it follows necessarily that there must be always in the Church officers of the Apostolic order competent to exercise this office. Tlie Independents and Presbyterians have cast aside this order : the Epis- copalians have continued it to this'day. And no single passage has been or can be produced by our opponents, intimating that the Apostolic order would cease with the lives of those who were first called to it. With this agree, likewise, all those numerous exhorta- tions to unity to be found in our Lord's Discourses, and in the epistles of His Apostles ; and this indeed our very opponents witness, for they are ever fond of citing those passages in Tertullian, Jerome, and others, which affirm that Episcopacy was necessarily instituted for the pre- servation of unity. But if unity be a necessary end in the Church, and Episcopacy the necessary means for attaining that end, then how can the inference be set aside, that the Lord of glory, wi;io ordained the end, must Himself likewise have ordained the means neces- sary for attaining that end ? Thus the testimony of the inspired records of the Church is as harmonious and distinct as that of the un- inspired : seeing that from the commencement of our Lord's Ministry — nay, if it is of importance to refer to things under the Mosaic " Law," which had " a shadow of good things to come ;" we may say that from the appointment of Aaron — until the closing of the sacred Canon, no Church of God on earth is spoken of in the 04 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, aacred Scriptures which is not Episcopalian ; and that from thence dovmioards to the end of the fifteenth cen- tury^ no Church can he shoun to have existed which was not Episcopalian. Here I conclude. I will not ask the reader to compare with this accu- mulation of proof, inspired and uninspired, the would- be-proofs adduced by the Presbyterians, by perverting single words or half-sentences ; e. g. interpreting a single word, Presbytery,* in a sense which is destroyed by the context of the epistle'in wiiich it occurs; and building a theory upon the 2d verse of a chapter,f which is de- stroyed by the 1st verse of the same chapter, as I have shown above ; but I will ask the Presbyterians, " How many of the points of Christian doctrine which you now hold, can you support with stronger evidence than has been here adduced in behalf of Episcopacy ?" And I will say to them, remember that if in any case you hold doctrines in behalf of which your proofs do not exceed these, you must either acknowledge our faith to be reasonable, or your own to be unreasonable. And may God give you grace to lay these things to heart, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. • 1 Tim. iv. 14. t Philippian* i. APPENDIX I HAVE stated (p. 49,) that, " if the objectors can show reason for sup- posing that, at any given time, any of the Churches through which we trace our orders, was governed by those who had not received Episcopal orders, the objection would be worthy of attention." As the adherents to the Bishop of Rome in this country, whose position, condemned by every general and provincial council, if our orders are good, can only be justified by invalidating them, have taken such a task in hand, I feel bound, for the satisfaction of my readers, to refute their objections. These objections relate to the consecrations of Archbishop Parker and his colleagues, at the commencement of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. 1. Their first objection is, that these consecrations were irregularly per- formed, at a place called the Nag's Head, by a single Bishop, Scory, who placed a Bible on the heads of the candidates, as they knelt before him, and said, " Take thou authority to preach the word of God sincerely." I will not stop to show that, even if the story were tme, our orders would still be better than those of the Roman party in England, which, accord- ing to their own records, have been irregularly performed by single Bish- ops, in obscure places, not recognised by the laws of our realm, and with rites not recognised by our Church: the diiTerence being, that Scory was a Bishop of the province in which the consecration took place, which is more than can be aflirmed on behalf of the Roman consecrators in Eng- land. Nor will I stop to dwell upon the negative proof of the falsehood of this story, furnished by all the Romish writers lor f5>rty years after the consecration, during Which time, though they ransacked their imaginations for objections to urge against our Church, not a whisper of this story reached the air; neither Staplcton, nor Harding, nor Alan, nor Reynolds, nor Parsons, had heard a word of it ; nor Sanders, nor Bonner; though, according to the story, it was Bonner's own secretary, Neale, sent by him to be a spy upon the occasion, who was the witness of the proceed- ing. He who can believe that Bonner could have been ignorant of the transaction, if his own secretary, sent by him as a spy, had been witness of it ; or can believe that Bonner, who took open proceedings against our Bishops, could have held his peace concerning this story, had he known Hi, or that such a story, if known to any of the Roman party, could have lain quietly in their breasts, without being mentioned until forty years had elapsed, is perfectly welcome to believe as much of it as lie pleases. I do not dwell upon these things, because the registers and records of our Church will furnish the reader with the official accounts of 00 APPENDIX. the consecration of Archbishop Parker and the rest, not by one Bishop» but by four; not at the Nag's Head, but at the Chapel of Lambeth ; not by an irregular rite, but by the duly appointed ordinal of the Church of England. The reader will find two documents to this effect ; the first, marked (A.), is copied from Archbishop Parker's Register, at Lambeth; the other marked (B.), is copied from a manuscript among Archbishop Parker's papers at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. 2. The next ob- jection of the Romanists is, that the form for consecrating Bishops in use in the Church of England since the time of Edward VL, is essentially defective. To remove this objection, the reader will find below, (C.) the forms for consecrating Bishops in the Eastern and Southern Churches, and the ancient form for the same purpose used in the Western Churches ; by comparing these with the English ordinal, which is likewise given, the reader will be able to see the childishness of the Roman objection. 3. Their next objection is, that, at any rate, our office for ordaining a presbyter was and is defective ; and that, therefore, candidates for the Episcopate, ordained according to this ordinal, were on this ground dis- qualified. I will not stop to remind them of the many instances to be found in Church history of persons consecrated to the Episcopate from the laity, (e. g. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who presided at the Deutero-Nicene Council, the darling of the Papists;) which show that the objection would be of little weight, even if the fact were true ; but I have furnished the reader below, (D.) with the forms for ordaining Presbyters as used in the Eastern and Southern Churches, and the ancient form of the West, by comparing which with our English order, it will appear that the allegation on which this objection rests is as destitute of all real foundation as the proceeding one. 4. To remove all doubts about the consecration of the consecrators of Archbishop Parker, I have given (E.) the records of their consecrations, and of all from the consecra- tors of Cranmer inclusive ; in the course of which I have taken occasion to show that the consecrations of Archbishop Parker and his colleagues were as canonical as they were valid. 5. Another objection urged by the Romanists arises from the rejection of the authority of the Bishop of Rome by the Church of England, on which they ground a charge of schism. The shortest answer to this objection is furnished by the follow- ing regulation of the third general council, Ephesus, which Council the Romanists profess to receive equally with ourselves, by which it was decreed " that none of the Bishops, beloved of God, take another province, which has not been formerly and from the beginning subject to him. But, if any one has taken another, and by force placed it under his control, he shall restore it; that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed, nor the pride of worldly power be introduced under the cloak of the priest- hood, nor we by degrees come to lose that liberty wherewith our Lord Jesus Christ, the deliverer of all men, has endowed us by His own blood. It seemed good, therefore, to the holy and general synod, that the proper rights of each province, which have bcforetime, from the be- ginning, bj' ancient custom belonged to it, be preserved to it pure and inviolate." For, seeing that at the beginning, and for many centuries. APPlIfDIX. 07 ttie British provinces were wholly free from the Bishop of Rome, it i» dear from this decree, that when our fathers, in the sixteenth century, renounced in open synod the yoke which the Bishops of Rome had " by degrees" fastened upon the neck of the English Church, they were acting in plain accordance with the express injunctions of the third general Council. 6. The only other objection of the Romanists of which I am aware, is grounded upon the fact of some of the consecrators of Arch- bishop Parker being married men ; which, in their error, they consider a disqualification for the performance of holy offices. The answer to thi» is still shorter than to the last, St. Paul himself having supplied it, when in his own behalf, and that of Barnabas, and that of every other person called to the like Episcopal or Apostolical office, he asks, " Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and as Cephas?" — 1 Cor. ix. 5. By which it ap- pears that St. Peter, even when he went on his mission, was accompanied by his wife; so that every stone which the Romish party hurl at us on this account falls upon the head of St. Peter ; a sample of their reverence for him, whose successor, exclusively, or at least par excellence, the Bishop of Rome claims to be. So favourable an opportunity for setting forth all the English consecrations has not been lost. The reader will find below a full collection of records on this subject, down to the present time, by means of which every clergyman in England and the colonies, in Scot- land, and in the United States of America, may trace his Episcopal gene- alogy to Archbishop Warham. Upon which it may suffice to make one remark, — namely, that, as the annals of our country, and perhaps the an- nals of the world, present no times of greater trouble to a nation than what our nation knows as those of the Reformation, Rebellion, and Re- volution, during which the ecclesiastical and civil governments underwent the greatest changes, and the Church had to endure the bitterest perse- cution ; if we can show, that during all these the Episcopal or Apostolic succession was providentially and religiously preserved, we have much reason to suppose, in the absence of all proof or pretended proof to the contrary, that the same providence has guarded the transmission of the commission from the first, as carefully as from the beginning of the six- teenth century, and may rest perfectly satisfied that such has been the case. [One more proof of God's providence watching for the fulfilment Of His promise to "be always with his Church" may be produced by the American Episcopalian, in the history of the transmission of the pure Episcopacy to his own country across the ocean, after revolution and civil war had failed to destroy the imperfectly planted Church, and natural hostility proved ineffectual to break the bonds of Christian fellowship, or snap the chain of Apostolical Succession.] 68 APPENDIX, [A.] CONSECRATION OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER. RECORD OF THE CONSECRATION OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER, IN THE REGISTER AT LAMBETH. Rituum & Cercmoniarum ordo in Consccratione Reverendissimi Dni Matthci Parker, Archiepi Cantuar in Capella infra Manerium suum de Lambchith die Dominico (videlicet) Decimo Septimo die Mensis Decembris, Anno Domini Millesinio Quingentesimo Quinquagesimo Nono. Prindpio Sacellum Tapetibus ad orientem adornabatur, solum vero panno rubro insternebatur, Mensa qiioq ; sacris peragcndis necessaria, Tapeto pulvinarique ornata ad orientem sita erat. Quatuor preterea Cathedre, quatuor Episcopis quibus munus conse- crandi Archiepiscopi delegabatur ad Austrura orientalis Sacelli pailis erant posite. Scamntim preterea Tapeto, pulvinaribusq ; instratum, cui Episcopi genibus flexis inniterentur ante Cathedras ponebatur. Pari quoque modo Cathedra Scamniimq ; Tapeto pulvinariq ; ornatum Archiepiscopo ad Borealem orientalis ejusdem Sacelli partis plagam posita crant. lliis rebus ita ordinc sue instructis, mane circitcr quintam aut sextam per occidentalem portam ingi'editur Sacellum Archiepiscopus, Toga Ta- lari Coccinca, Caputioq ; indutus, quatuor prcccdentibus funalibus, & quatuor comitatus Episcopis, qui ejus consccrationi inscrvirent ; (videli- cet") Willimo Barloe quondam Bathon & Wellen Episcopo, nunc Electo Ciccstren, JohanneScory quondam Cicestren Episcopo, nunc Hcrefordai Electo, Milone Coverdalc quondam Exon Episcopo, & Johanne Bedforden SufTraganco, Qui omnes postquam scdes sibi paratas ordine singuli suo occupasscnt, Preccs continuo Matutine per Andrcam Peirson Archiepis- copi Capcllanum clara voce recitabantur, Quibus peract, Johes Scory, de quo supradiximus, suggestum conscendit, atq ; indc assumpto sibi in Thema, Scniores ergo qui in voMs sunt obsecro consenior