could not have been wholly excluded without a perpetual miracle; and that no such miraculous interference existed, we have even historical proof. Amidst the numerous corruptions of doctrine and of practice, and gross superstitions that crept in during those ages, we find recorded descriptions, not only of the profound ignorance and profligacy of life of many of the clergy; but also of the greatest irregularities in respect of discipline and form. We read of Bishops consecrated when mere children; of men officiating, who barely knew their letters; of Prelates expelled, and others put in their places by violence; of illiterate drunkards, and profligate laymen admitted to holy orders; and in short, of the prevalence of every kind of disorder and reckless disregard of the decency which the Apostle enjoins. It is inconceivable that any one, even moderately acquainted with history, can feel a certainty, or any approach to certainty, that amidst all this confusion and corruption, every requisite form was in every instance strictly adhered to by men, many of them openly profane and secular, unrestrained by public opinion through the gross ignorance of the population among which they lived, and that no one not duly consecrated or ordained was admitted to sacred offices.""Even in the memory of persons now living, there existed a Bishop concerning whom there was so much of mystery and uncertainty prevailing as to when, and where, and by whom, he had been ordained, that doubts existed in the minds of many persons whether he had ever been ordained at all.""The ultimate consequence must be, that any one who sincerely believes that his claim to the benefits of the Gospel covenant depends on his own minister's claim to the supposed sacramental virtue of true ordination; and this again on perfect Apostolical succession; must be involved, in proportion as he reads and inquires, and reflects, and reasons on the subject, in the most distressing doubt and perplexity." "It is no wonder, therefore, that the advocates of this theory studiously disparage reasoning, and deprecate all exercise of the mind in reflection; decry all appeals to evidences, and lament that even the power of reading should be imparted to the people. It is not without cause, that they dread and lament an age of too much light,' and wish to involve religion in a solemn and awful gloom.' It is not without cause, that having removed the Christian's confidence from a rock, to base it on sand, they forbid all prying curiosity to examine its foundation."

6

Chillingworth takes the same view. "In fine, to know this one thing (viz. that such or such a man is a Priest), you must first know ten thousand others, whereof, not any one can be known." "He that shall put them together, and maturely

consider all the possible ways of lapsing and nullifying such a priesthood, will be inclinable to think that it is a hundred to one, that amongst a hundred seeming Priests, there is not one true one."

Archbishop Whately roundly declares, that on this dogma of succession, "there is not a minister in all Christendom who is able to trace up, with any approach to certainty, his own spiritual pedigree."

The present English Bishop of Hereford says, in a charge to his clergy," You will exceed all just bounds, if you are constantly insisting upon the necessity of a belief in, and a certainty of, the Apostolical succession in the Bishops of our Church, as the only security for the efficacy of the sacraments."-" To spread abroad this notion, would be to make ourselves the derision of the world."

We may now demand what possible security can any High Church Prelatist have, on his own grounds, that he can be saved by any provision or promise of the Gospel? He must believe in God's Word; he must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. But it is more important that he believe, that his Priest derives a sacerdotal virtue by a personal succession from the Apostles. Does God's Word tell him anything of this succession? Not a syllable. Does any authentic record, divine or human, assure him that the pretended list of the succession is true? There is no such record. Can he trace out the lists and satisfy himself, by substantial evidence, with regard to even half of the particular names in those lists, that they are names of persons who regularly received and transmitted the Apostolical virtue? No man living can do it. The earliest, and most competent uninspired historian of the early times of Christianity, confessed that it could not be done with any certainty.

What then is the belief of the jure divino Prelatist? It is not FAITH; for faith must rest upon the Word of God. It is not REASON; for reason bases her conclusions on evidence; of which there is, in this case, an utter deficiency. The belief of the High Church Prelatist, and of every one who, like Bishop Brownell, builds anything upon this Apostolical succession in the Order of Diocesan Bishops, is A PALTRY SUPERSTITION; a mere dogged credulity; the raving of bigotry and fanaticism; for after all that is said of fanaticism, there is no fanaticism on earth more wild and baseless, than that of a man who coolly pretends to have received the Apostolic office, with power to confer the Holy Ghost; to "transfer" men by virtue of his priestly prerogatives and efficacious administration of sacraments, "out of the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God." I speak soberly, when I declare my conviction, that the Papist, when he blindly believes

.

that his Priest, by virtue of transubstantiation, can create the body and blood of his Saviour, and give it whole and entire to each one of a hundred communicants, is not guilty of more credulity and superstition, than the man who believes in the prelatic doctrine of priestly prerogatives derived through a pretended Apostolical succession; and who ventures, in that faith, to commit his soul to the efficacy of sacraments administered by the hands of any particular man, in the confidence that that man possesses such a transmitted Apostolical virtue.

Yet this is the ground on which it is claimed that there can be no Church without a Bishop! This is the ground on which Episcopal clergymen tell the ministers of all other denominations of Christians, that they are no ministers of Christ, but followers of Korah! And though low churchmen reject these claims, yet they allow themselves, by the unchristian and wicked canons of their Church, to be compelled into this unkind and contemptuous treatment of all other ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ! They sometimes tell us, "We would if we could treat you as ministers of Christ; but the Canons forbid us." Ought they not seriously to reflect upon the right of any Christian men, and especially of Christian ministers, to treat the Lord's ministers and people in this injurious manner, out of obedience to any mere human canons? Would not the same principle have justified them in acquiescing in canons which sent the people of Christ to the dungeon, or to the stake, had they lived at the times when such canons were in force?" He that is unjust in the least, is unjust also in much." Obedience to such canons, countenances the pestilent false doctrine on which such canons are grounded; it abets the turning of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ into substantial Popery; and more than this, obedience to such canons, contrary to one's own conviction of their justice, is treason against one's own conscience and against the Lord Jesus Christ. There is a great eternal law of truth and righteousness, which is paramount to all canons of Church enactment; and low churchmen should see to it, that they do not, out of obedience to the traditions of men, make void the law of God.

Such, then, is the Apostolical succession as a DOCTRINE, and as a FACT: as a doctrine, unfounded in Scripture, and contradictory to it;-injurious to the sole and eternal priesthood of Christ, and constituting the fundamental principle of Popery. As a fact, it is ten thousand times over a falsehood: the pretended succession being broken and shivered at every turn. Rome may be challenged to produce a doctrine more erroneous in theory, more false in fact, or involving a greater amount of mischief and absurdity. Mormonism itself is not a combination of greater superstition,

fanaticism, and folly. And yet this is the doctrine on which the exclusive claims of Prelacy are all based! The alternative of Bishop Brownell is true and inevitable: "If a regular ministerial succession in the order of Bishops be not conformable to Scripture and Apostolic usage, Episcopacy is an unjustifiable usurpation." It is even so. Whoever receives a jure divino Episcopacy, must of necessity swallow the doctrine of Apostolical succession, with all its falsehoods and absurdities. Whoever cannot swallow that doctrine, must of necessity throw the claims of Episcopacy away as an "unjustifiable usurpation."

It is not surprising to find the same charge, in which the "Bishop of Connecticut" advocates the doctrine of Apostolical succession, rejecting the "Bible alone" as the sole and sufficient standard of faith, and placing over it the interpretations of the Fathers, or of the Church. It is not surprising to find the right of private judgment treated, in the same charge, as one of "the errors of the times;" and the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration affirmed with all assurance. Pernicious doctrines, unlike other ravenous beasts of prey, are not wont to go solitary. Around the doctrine of Apostolical succession, these other false doctrines concerning the Rule of Faith, the right of private judgment, and Regeneration, cluster, as around their natural centre and sun.

In rejecting the idea that the Christian ministry is a propitiatory priesthood, we of necessity reject the doctrine of Apostolical succession. The contest comes inevitably on to the ground of the Reformation: the very identical battle-ground between the Reformation and Rome. Between the two schemes of justification by faith alone, and justification through the offices of a human priesthood, there can be no peace: and there never ought to be peace between them, while the truth, the rights of conscience, and the way of salvation, are things of any interest in the estimation of mankind.

XXXI.

ECONOMY OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

Ordination. Headship of the Church. Episcopacy and Republicanism. Episcopacy in the American Revolution. Reproaches against the PuriThe tables turned. Comparative tendencies of Puritanism and Prelacy. Conclusion.

tans.

HAVING disposed of the claims of the Bishops, and shown the falsity and essential Popery of the doctrine of the Apostolical succession, there are several other topics which call for a brief but distinct examination.

I. WHAT IS ORDINATION?

Rejecting as we do the doctrine of Apostolical succession, as well as the ghostly character which the rite of ordination is supposed to impress upon him who receives it, it will probably be asked what we make of it. The answer is at hand.

Ordination is the solemn setting apart of a person to the work of the ministry. We no more hold that any person may take upon himself the office and work of the Christian ministry, than that he may take upon himself the office and work of a civil magistrate. But ordination no more impresses an internal character upon a man, than does an induction to a civil office.

We have already seen that in the appointment of Matthias to the Apostleship, and in the appointment of Deacons, the people were called to a popular election; and this seems to be recorded as a suitable precedent and warrant for a like manner of proceeding in cases of a similar nature. And election by popular suffrage happens to be the expression of the original, where it is said, "And when they had ordained them elders."

After the election there is an induction to office. A magistrate is to be sworn into office by an accredited magistrate; but the President of the United States may be inducted into office by any magistrate who may administer a lawful oath; by a justice of the peace, as well as by the Chief Justice of the nation. But it is not from the inducting officer that he receives the power with