Library of
Emory University
66095
JNjj_193t_
THE END
of the
pstfllk
A DEBATE
between
MESSRS. YERGER AND SMEDES,
editors op the church herald, vicksburg,
and
THE BEY. K. ABBEY,
in 'which
the high church doctrine of a chain of successive ordi¬
nations is clearly and specifically surrendered.
ibridged, revised, and improved.
EDITED BY THOMAS 0. SUMMERS, D.D.
NaspiIIi, :
PUBLISHED BY E. STEVENSON & P. A. OWEN, AGENTS,
for the methodist episcopal church, south.
1855.
Entered, according to Act of Congress, by
STEVENSON & OTYEN,
In tbe Office of the Clerk of the district Court for the District of Tennessee.
STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY A. A. STITT,
SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE, NASHVILLE, TENN
teintfs.
PAGE
PREFACE V
INTRODUCTION vii
CHAPTER I.
THE QUESTION STATED 15
CHAPTER II.
THE SUCCESSION IN THE ENGLISH AND AMERICAN
CHURCHES 21
CHAPTER III.
COMMUNICATION OF R. ABBEY..., 37
CHAPTER IV.
THE HERALD AND MR. ABBEY 90
CHAPTER V.
COMMUNICATION OF R. ABBEY 191
(iii)
r*fm.
Several letters and parts of letters on both
sides of this debate, in the forepart of it, relate
more or less to local and individual matters.
They are omitted. But every thing that is relied
upon by the parties respectively as argument on
the question in debate is retained, and several
important alterations are made. Thus the abridg¬
ment is thought to be better, adapted to the use
of the general reader.
It ought, perhaps, also to be remarked, that
the whole debate has been in circulation in Vicks-
burg and surrounding country several months—
the editors of the " Herald," of course, having
been furnished with copies immediately after
publication; and as yet no reply has been made
to it in the " Herald," or elsewhere.
An effort was made to send the debate to a por¬
tion of the subscribers of the " Herald;" but the
privilege of doing so could not be obtained. They
have, therefore, probably, as yet seen but one side
of it. It was also attempted to publish a very
1* (v)
vi
PREFACE.
short advertisement in the "Herald/' notifying
its subscribers that the debate would be sent to
them, or to such of them as would furnish the
writer with their address) but its insertion could
not be procured.
It is hoped that a liberal press and, a liberal
public will abate this sectarian exclusiveness, and
unloose these intolerant restrictions.
it. A.
July, 1855.
tttrfffottftiflw.
It is usually in the collision of mind that the
truth is educed; and though argument oftentimes
results in the establishment of truth, it is by no
means always the case, that the party in the wrong
is proved to be in the wrong by his adversary. He
himself oftentimes furnishes the proof of his own
error. The question in debate may be so narrowed
down to a point, that there remains but one single
thing to be said. And, when this is the case, the
truth is sure to appear. Reply will establish it—
silence establishes it.
It is matter of but little concern, however, for a
question to appear to fail in feeble hands; for, in
such case, the victory is most likely over the man,
and not over his cause.
But when a cause, in the hands of jnen of acknow¬
ledged and distinguished talent and learning, opposed
by an adversary far their inferior, and, who, perhaps
justly, is spoken of as " ignorant," and compara¬
tively unacquainted with his subject, -is seen utterly
to fail, and palpably to sink below the point of utter¬
ance or reply, all fair and right-thinking men are
(vii)
Viii INTRODUCTION.
obliged to feel and know that that question is no
longer debatable. And, further: when such advo¬
cates give up the question in issue, either in terms
or by necessary consequence, or in both ways, surely
the debate must cease.
Some questions may be settled. They may be so
settled, that afterwards it would be worse than folly
to attempt to debate them, and men will be ashamed
to undertake to speak or write in their defence.
That the High Church notion of " Apostolic Succes¬
sion" is one of those questions, the following corre¬
spondence is submitted in proof. The best defence,
most probably, that it is capable of receiving—cer¬
tainly a defence put forth with great ability, and
by its ablest advocates—is here presented to the
reader.
Few Southern men need be informed of the cha¬
racter of George S. Yerger and William C. Smecfes.
As lawyers of ability and eminence, they may have
equals, but common fame does not allow them supe¬
riors in the South, if in the Union. They are gen¬
tlemen of fortune, and edit the " Herald," at the
earnest desire of their Church in this country, and
for their love of religion and the peculiar views they
espouse. They are men of mature age, and enjoy,
very deservedly, no doubt, the reputation of being
not only thoroughly read generally, but peculiarly
so in those branches which qualify them for a de¬
fence of the High Church doctrines.
The writer is aware that great ability in the dis-
introduction. ix
cussion of theological or ecclesiastical questions is
not generally looked for among laymen. The pre¬
sent instance is an ekception to this general rule.
It is -well known that such is their reputation in this
country, that Mr. Yerger and Mr. Smedes would be
selected by High Churchmen to defend their pecu¬
liar doctrines before any other men in the South,
either in or out of the ministry. Their well known
ability in this field of polemics, places them at the
head of the " Church Herald," the organ of High
Churchmen in the South.
It may, therefore, be regarded as an act of uncom¬
mon temerity in. the writer, to engage in debate with
such opponents. He certainly never would have
dared to set foot upon such a threshold, but for a
previously acquired knowledge that the doetrine of
Apostolic Succession, as held by High Churchmen,
was empty as an echo. ,
He well knew he had no means of contending,
even-handed, with such opponents as Mr. Yerger and
Mr. Smedes, much less with both together. He very
confidently believed, however, that if by possibility
his opponents could be induced to keep to the ques¬
tion, they_ would, by the bare assistance of a sugges¬
tion or an explanation from himself occasionally,
soon work a work of destruction upon themselves.
Human means, however great, cannot long contend
with truth, if the attack be made fairly and in
front.
The letters of the editors are, in the estimation of
X
introduction.
the writer, by far the most complete triumph of
truth ever achieved on this subject. Never before,
he very confidently ventures to believe, was the fact
of a succession of episcopal ordinations plainly, flatly,
and in terms, givein up by a High Church writer.
It is simply notorious, that the fact of a succession
—that is, the proof of it—has always, and invaria¬
bly, been stoutly and distinctly Claimed by all High
Church writers. In truth, this fact, and the reasons
why it should be true, are the only matters in issue.
The fact of a succession of ordinations through an
" unbroken chain of bishops," has heretofore been
vauntingly " proved" by the production of " lists of
bishops coming down in regular succession from the
apostles." See, they say, our " lists of bishops"—
see the tl- catalogues of our bishops."
This fraud is exposed,! They have no "list"
that purports to give a succession of ordinations.
The writer, however, is entitled to no credit—he
claims none—for the issues of this debate. His dis¬
tinguished opponents have done it all themselves.
In fact, it is attributable to their logical education,
talents, and character. For had they possessed, as
has been unfortunately too often the case with High
Church writers, dispositions of more loose and dis¬
jointed logical frame-work, it would have been
impossible to keep them to the point, so as to procure
a discussion of the questions in issue, to the exclu¬
sion of cumbrous and irrelevant matters. That is
all that was believed to be necessary.
INTRODUCTION'.
xi
Let any Succession writer, no matter what may
he his abilities, discuss the questions in issue, touch¬
ing this so-called doctrine, and with an occasional
suggestion from an opponent, he will very soon- run
himself ashore.
The object of this pamphlet is to give more gene¬
ral publication to the arguments of the editors. My
own are thrown in as mere memoranda and expla¬
nation, to give clearness and understanding to their
remarks. It is believed to be important that it be
published to the world, that by authority no less
high than that of my distinguished opponents, the,
doctrine of " Apostolic Succession" has been given
up—clearly, plainly, fairly.
It is true they do not say, in so many words, "We
give up the argument, and acknowledge we were in
errorbut they do say that which is of the same
import. They repeatedly and clearly give up the
fact—that is, the proof of it—of a continuous chain
of ordinations. They admit in so many words:
" There is no list of successive ordinations." Then
there is no further debate so far as this fact is con¬
cerned. And then, if they still hold to the theory
of succession as being necessary to the existence of
a Church, it follows, simply and inevitably, that a
true Church does not exist.
It is not pretended to reconcile or explain the
many inconsistencies and self-contradictions which
the reader will be surprised to find in the arguments
xii
INTRODUCTION.
of the editors. They must take care of these. We
are entitled to the benefit of their admissions, clearly
and repeatedly made.
The reader is requested also to bear in mind that
the editors—as do all men of reading—admit, that in
the apostolic age, the terms presbyter, or elder, and
bishop, denoted the same office, and were used indif¬
ferently and interchangeably of the same persons.
After the apostolic age, the term bishop came to be
used exclusively of rulers of presbyters and churches.
How long after the apostolic age closed this change
came to be general or universal, men do not so
readily agree. That it ocpurred by any particular
movement, by the decrees of councils, or the wish
or intention of any person or persons, is not pre¬
tended. Then it occurred gradually, in the course
of ages, imperceptibly, and in different countries in
different ages, most probably, as other changes take
place in the signification of descriptive terms, as used
in common parlance.
The reader is particularly requested to bear this
point in mind ; for he will oftentimes find, in what
the editors evidently consider their best arguments,
the term " bishop" used with great emphasis and
stress, to denote a ruler of churches and ministers,
as it now does, in those periods when, by their own
admission, it could mean no more than "presbyter"
or " elder."
In fact, almost every thing which, in any kind of
INTRODUCTION.
xiii
charity, can be called argument, in the debates of
the editors, is based upon this palpable misuse of a
descriptive term.
Upon the whole, these writings of Messrs. Yerger
and Smedes are deemed to be important to the
Christian public. The concessions of such men,
under such circumstances, ought not to be lost to
the world, or be confined to a small newspaper cir¬
culation. They ought, as is sought in this publica¬
tion, to be made to minister to the cause of Christian
truth.
These admissions are of three different kinds,
though all are deemed to rank equally in import¬
ance, and to minister equally in the elucidation of
truth. We have,
1. A judgment, by confession, in open court.
2. A j udgment upon issue joined, argument and
verdict. And,
3. Judgment by default, after the engagement of
counsel, and the case being carefully and thoroughly
examined.
Or, to speak without a figure, we have,
First. Those admissions which are specifically
made in terms.
Second. Those which result, necessarily, of logi¬
cal consequence.
Third. Those which are virtually made, in their
entire failure to notice several vital points brought
forward on the opposite side, when the letters in
2
xiv
INTRODUCTION.
which they appear are extensively and laboriously
controverted.
Finally, the writer respectfully submits the argu¬
ments of two as able men as, in his judgment, ever
attempted to defend this doctrine in America, with
his own replies thereto, to his fellow-citizens of this
enlightened Christian country—especially to those
who think and act for themselves—in the firm and
abiding trust that God, in his mercies and provi¬
dence, will make them instruments of much good to
the churches and the people.
R. A.
Yazoo City, May, 1854.
DEBATE.
CHAPTER I.
the question stated.
Aeter the " Letters" had been reviewed in
the Church Herald, and a reply and rejoinder, I
addressed a note to the bishop in the colums of
the Herald—which the editors regarded as ad¬
dressed to themselves—and from which the fol¬
lowing is an extract.
Your reviewer says: "Bishop Green decides
two important points in his sermon, namely, that
there is an unbroken succession of ordinations
from one ordained person to another since the
time of the apostles, and that the right to ordain
is vested, not in mere presbyters, but in bishops."
I did not know before that your sermon con¬
tained an argument on either of these two points;
but since this was the intention, I now propose to
you, that if you will produce a list of names,
which you will say is entitled to some reasonable
(15)
16 end of the apostolic succession.
historic credit, and which purports to show an
unbroken succession of ordinations from one or¬
dained person to another since the time of the
apostles, I will give up the argument, knock un¬
der, and retire !
Of course you will not present, as in the ap¬
pendix to your sermon, a mere list of the incum¬
bents in office, in some one or two particular epis¬
copal or archepiscopal sees, for a list of ordina¬
tions, unless there be something to show that
they were the ordainers of each other, from one
ordained person to another. I doubt your ability
to show such a list. I do not believe it is in
print, either of good or bad history !
To this and another remark previously made
with regard to Jerome, the editors replied as fol¬
lows :—
"Again, Mr. Abbey, to sustain his views, quotes
from Jerome, who lived in the fourth century. We
give his quotation, and on the opposite side the
correct one:
Mb. Abbey's quotation
from Jerome.
'A Presbyter, therefore,
is the same as a Bishop.'
Jerome, as written
by himself.
'A Presbyter, therefore,
is the same as a Bishop, ex¬
cept in the matter of ordina¬
tion.'
END OP TIIE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 17
"Here the very thing which proved the supe¬
riority of the bishop, to wit: the right of ordain¬
ing, is left out by Mr. Abbey. The power of
ordination is the main and substantial difference
between the bishop and the presbyter. We ask
if such quotations are fair ? Are they not dis¬
graceful ? . . .
" Episcopalians say that since the times of the
apostles, the office of bishop has been distinct
from that ofi presbyter and superior to it, and has
continued in unbroken succession to this day;
and, as a proof of it, they refer to the list of
bishops who, in regular order, have filled the sees
of certain cities. Mr. Abbey demands that a list
of such bishops be produced, each of whom was
ordained to the bishopric by his immediate pre¬
decessor, and so back to the apostolic times, and
on its production he magnanimously proposes to
withdraw from the contest. He knows such a
list could not, in the nature of things, be pro¬
duced : it is, even at this day, an exceedingly
rare thing that on the death of a bishop his suc¬
cessor is one on whom he himself laid hands. It
is generally the case that the new bishop is con¬
secrated after the death of the old, and so, with¬
out a miracle, the latter could not ordinarily par¬
ticipate in the ordination of the former. In the
2*
18 END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
case of assistant bishops, and some others, it
might now be the case; but the general rule is
otherwise. Every candid and intelligent man,
however, will at once perceive that, for the point
to be established—to wit: the continuation, in
unbroken succession, of the order of bishops to-
the present day-—it is precisely the same thing,
if the line of bishops continued, whether they
were ordained the one by the other or not. As
none but bishops could ordain or pietend to or¬
dain to the ministerial office, the fact of the con¬
tinuance in regular succession of a line of bishops
in a particular see, is conclusive and irrefutable
proof that that line was unbroken; and the false
and sophistical issue presented by Mr. Abbey can
deceive no one but those, foretold of old, 'who
hearing, shall hear and shall not understand; and
seeing, shall see and not perceive.' "
[It is seen that the editors still insist that they
have a list of ordinations. They do not object to
my demand of a list of ordinations, but only com¬
plain that I demand a list which is confined to
any one particular diocese. They explain—and
very correctly too—how such a demand would be
unreasonable. No difficulty about a list of ordi¬
nations at all, but only such a restricted and un¬
reasonable one as they say I require.]
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 19
The following is that part of my reply which
relates to the list of ordinations.
You say : " Mr. Abbey demands that a list of
bishops be produced, each one of whom was or¬
dained to the bishopric by his immediate prede-
decessor." The italics are yours.
No sir ! Such language, or such an idea, is
not to be found in any thing I have written. I
stated precisely the contrary. This is, therefore,
a very great and a very' grave error.
I expressly assented to Dr. Henshaw's proposi¬
tion, quoted by Bishop Green, that a succession
in any particular diocese was not necessary. I
stated that I did not ask for a succession in any
one diocese, but in the world—in any or in all
the dioceses.
" Episcopalians," you remark, " say that since
the times of the apostles, the office of bishop
has been distinct from that of presbyter and su¬
perior to it; and has continued in unbroken suc¬
cession to this day."
Well, if you will produce a list of bishops,
showing an " unbroken succession" of ordinations,
I am done. I have never seen such a list. I do
not believe it is in print. We have many lists
of bishops, published by Bishop Green and others,
not one of which, however, so far as I have seen,
20 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
purports to be a list of successive ordinations.
They are only lists of incumbents in office.
I asked for a list of bishops who were ordained
—not 11 by their immediate predecessors," in the
same diocese—but by any body. I asked, and
still ask, for a consecutive list of bishops who
were ordained at all, so as to show a succession
of ordinations. Produce such a list from any
thing you will say is history, and I am done. I
beg that this point may not be evaded. Do not
offer me a list of bishops who held office succes¬
sively, in lieu of'a list who were ordained succes¬
sively. Let this issue be met fairly, or let it be
acknowledged that you have no list of successive
ordinations. This is a vital point.
To this the editors replied that no list of ordi¬
nations of any hind existed, and then brought
forward the following argument.
end op the apostolic succession. 21
CHAPTER II.
the succession in the english and amer¬
ican churches historically proved.
We are aware that all writers who oppose " the
Apostolical Succession," lay great stress on what
they suppose to be the want of historical proof
of a complete chain of successive Episcopal ordi¬
nations from the apostles. The Rev. Mr. Abbey
forms no exception to this rule. He says: " I
asked for a list of bishops who were ordained,
not by their immediate predecessors, in the same
diocese, but by any body. I asked and still ask,
for a consecutive list of bishops who were ordained
at all, so as to show a succession of ordinations.
Produce such a list from any thing you say is
history, and I am done. I beg that this point
may not be evaded. Do not offer me a list of
bishops who held office successively, in lieu of a
list who were ordained successively. Let this
issue be fairly met, or let it be acknowledged
that you have no list of successive ordinations.
This is a vital point."
22 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
The reverend gentleman will pardon ns if we differ
from him. We do not consider the want of such
a list, if it were true that none exists, as a vital
point. We do not deem it a point at all. If it
cannot be historically proved, (as it can, how¬
ever,) it does not follow that it is not true. Mr.
Abbey would find it difficult to prove historically,
by a succession of births from Adam down to
himself, that he has descended from Adam; yet
if he believes the Bible, he has proof sufficient to
establish the fact. We think the "vital point"
is to inquire whether the ministry in three orders
was divinely appointed; and whether the manner
of its continued existence was directed. If the
inquirer satisfies himself on this point, he need
not trouble himself about the "Apostolical Suc¬
cession for God will provide and take care that
his own work shall not fail or be marred by the
inventions of man. The Jews never doubted as
to the Aaronic priesthood. The succession then,
as has been truly said, depended always on the
faith of a woman. Infidelity on the part of the
wife might destroy the natural succession from
Aaron, yet the Jews knew it was ordained of
God, that those who descended from Aaron only
should succeed to the priesthood; and "they be¬
lieved."
END OF THE APOSTOLIC) SUCCESSION. 23
But we will proceed with our historical proof.
We mean such testimony as would, in a court of
justice, according to all the rules of evidence, be
sufficient for any honest jury, upon their oath, to
say the fact was proved. This evidence consists
of two kinds : 1st. Positive. 2d. Inferential, or
presumptive. The latter is that kind which
must, according to those necessary presumptions
that accompany certain facts, be legitimately in¬
ferred from the former. For when an express
fact is positively proved, that which experience
shows usually or necessarily accompanies it, is
proved also.
We established in our former number, from
the admission of Mr. Abbey, and also from
Ignatius, and other writers, that in the apostles'
times there were three orders in the ministry—
and -that the highest order, the bishops, alone
had the power to ordain. The " succession of
Episcopal ordinations" from the apostles, was
considered in the primitive Church as one of
those settled principles of Christianity of which
no man could doubt. Thus, Eusebius, the great
father of ecclesiastical history, who wrote his
history prior to the year 320, begins it in these
words: "As it is my purpose to record the suc¬
cessions of the holy apostles, together with the
24 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
times since our Saviour/' etc. And again, at page
148 he says: " There were many others noted in
these times, who held the first rank in the 'Apos¬
tolic Succession."' So at page 109 he says : " But
the manner and times of the 'Apostolical Suc¬
cession' shall he mentioned," etc.
Irenmus, A. D. 175, who was ordained Bishop
of Lyons by Polycarp, (see Grail. Chrs. vol. 1. p.
519, 540,) says 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 churches.
(Work upon Heresies, book iv.)
Clement says, A. D. 194: " In the Church
the orders of bishops, presbyters, and deacons,
are, I think, imitations of the angelic glory."
(Stromato, book vi.)
Tertullian, A. D. 200, says : " Let the heretics
set forth the origin of their churches—let them
turn over the order of their bishops so descending
by succession from the beginning," etc. * *
" For in this manner the apostolical Churches
bring down their registers, as the Church of
Smyrna had Polycarp placed over them by St.
John: as the Church of Borne had Clement
ordained by Peter: as the other churches also
end of the apostolic succession. 25
set forth those who were made bishops over them by
the apostles." (Heretical Prescriptions, chap. 32.)
Many other authors name the same thing.
As bishops then alone were the ordaining
power, the Church, during or immediately suc¬
ceeding the apostolic age, proceeded to regulate
and to prescribe the manner in which ordinations
should be conducted.
The first and second of the apostolical canons,
adopted, according to the best authority, as early
as the year 200, are as follows:—■
Canon 1. Let a bishop be ordained by two or
three bishops.
Canon 2. Let a presbyter, deacon, etc., be
ordained by one bishop.
These canons are called apostolical, not because
the apostles dictated them, but because they
existed as early as the beginning of the second
century 5 so near apostolic times that they were
based upon apostolic teaching.
At the General Council of Nice, which was
held A.D. 825, the following canon was ordained:
It is most proper that a bishop should be con¬
stituted by all the bishops of the province, but
if this be difficult, etc., that at all events, tlpee
should meet together, etc., and then the ordina¬
tion be performed." (Hammond 33.)
3
20 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
These facts, then, are clearly proved:
1st. That during the apostolic and succeeding
ages there were in the Church three orders of
ministers—bishops, priests, and deacons.
2d. That the power and duty of ordaining was
in the order of bishops.*
3cl. That as early as the end of the second
century, the regulations of the Church pointed
out the number of bishops who should ordain.
And, we may add :
4th. That these facts were undisputed in the
Christian Church all over the world for fifteen
hundred years.f
It is a rule of common sense, as well as of evi¬
dence, that when, by the constitution and laws
of a State, or government, or society, its officers
* But you have forgotten that as yet you have not
attempted to produce any testimony to prove that
bishop was a different order from presbyter. I insist
that the "bishop" was merely the chief presbyter, or
pastor of the Church. How can you then speak of
"bishop," as being a superior order to presbyter,
until you meet my objection and show that fact?
Until you do this your argument fias no meaning.
j- This may be true as to the name of "bishop,"
but it is abundantly untrue as to the functions of the
office.
END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 27
are required to be appointed in a designated
mode, all who are proved to have been appointed,
and to have filled these offices without being
questioned or called to account for want of au¬
thority at the time, are necessarily presumed to
be legally and properly appointed.*
We will illustrate this. If a bishop is in office,
* Then how is it in the English Church? Arch¬
bishop Parker was the first Protestant bishop in the
see of Canterbury. The subsequent English bishops
derive their ordination |rom him, it is admitted on all
hands, so far as they derive them from a bishop at all.
And Parker's ordination was abundantly questioned at
the time, and has been denied and disbelieved ever
since by more than a full half of Europe and America.
And not only was his ordination denied at the time,
and ever since, but it was and is denied that Barlow,
his supposed ordainer, was ever ordained bishop. Your
argument,- therefore, whether good or bad in itself, has
no application here.
You say the ordination Imust be-presumed-to be good
when not called in question at the time. But Parker's
ordination, on which hang the entire orders of the Eng¬
lish Church, was boldly and stoutly questioned at the time,
and has been ever since. So that this argument, whe¬
ther a good or a bad argument abstractly, is no argu¬
ment at all so far as the high-churchmen of England
and America are concerned, at least.
28 ENt) OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
exercising his functions, and his authority is not
questioned hy the Church at the timej and, if it
required one or more bishops to appoint him, it
follows from the very nature of evidence, that he
was regularly and legally appointed. The king
of England has the power to appoint the judges.
When we find in history, a list of judges appoint¬
ed, without stating hy whom, we all know the
historian means they were appointed as the law
directed, by the king. The fact of their appoint¬
ment, and undisputed exercise of the functions
of office, are sufficient proof of this. So, if two
hundred years hence the American historian were
to state that Washington, Adams, Jefferson,
Madison, etc., were elected Presidents of the
United States, without stating how, would not
every man know he meant they were elected by
electors appointed by the different States, such
being the mode of election at the time ? So if
historians state that A, B, C, D, and others, were
appointed Bishops of Lyons or Lo.ndon, do we
not all know he meant they were ordained by
other bishops, as the existing law of the Church
required ? I now state that Bishop Seabury,
Bishop White, Bishop Provoost, were the first
bishops appointed over the American Church:
does not every one know that I mean they were
END OP TIIE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 29
the first regularly ordained, according to the law
of the Church, by other bishops. Surely, surely,
the deepest infidelity would not require other
proof. Mankind has acted on this proof for ages,
and no instance can be found in which it has
failed. In the nature of things, many records,
in the course of ages, must be lost. But where
historians agree in stating the fact, it cannot be
questioned; and as they must frequently state it
without all the accompanying circumstances,
these, when the act required them to make it
valid, are always included. Thus, Eusebius, who
wrote his history prior to the year 820, says
Premus was the fourth from the apostles to whom
the functions of the episcopal office were allotted
fit Alexandria; so, when speaking of Rome, he
says: " The blessed apostles transmitted the
episcopate to Linus, who was succeeded by Anen-
cletus, and after him Clement held the episcopate,
etc. (See page 213.) Does any one doubt but
that he meant Anencletus, etc., were appointed
as was required by the Church, by regular ordi¬
nation, either by the apostles or by bishops ? In
his whole history, he scarcely ever states how
those who succeeded the apostles were appointed,
and yet we all know thai it was by episcopal
consecration, and that he so understood it.
3*
30 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
According to these plain and common sense
principles of evidence, we will now proceed to
produce a list of successive ordinations in the Eng¬
lish and American churches. And we here take
occasion to say, that we are greatly indebted to
Mr. Chapin, who has collected in a small compass
all the proofs on this point.
The succession in the English and American
churches may be historically traced thfough va¬
rious channels. We shall, however, for the sake
of brevity, prove it through the archbishops of
Canterbury.
Augustin was the first archbishop of Canter¬
bury. He was consecrated by Yirgilius, Bishop
of Aries, assisted by JEtherius, Bishop of Lyons.
This English history proves. (Bede, i. 27, 28.
Gallia, Christiana, i. 5-40.) In the great historical
work, " Gallia Christiana," a list of all the bish¬
ops of "Aries" and of Lyons, is given from the
apostles down to Augustin. (See vol. i. pp. 519
to 540.) All of whom are proven by history to
have been appointed bishops, though the names
of their consecrators and the time of consecration
are not stated in every instance. Thus St. John
ordained Polycarp • Polycarp ordained Pothinus,
who was the first Bishop of Lyons. Irenaeus is
stated to be the second ; Zacharias, the third; and
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 31
so the name of each bishop is given down to JEthe-
rius, who assisted in consecrating Augustin. So,
Trophimus is proved to be the first bishop of
Aries; Regulus, the second, and so on, naming
each bishop, down to Yirgilius, who consecrated
Augustin. (See the list in Mr. Chapin's Prim.
Church, p. 202, and the authorities which prove
it.) Now, although it is proved by history that
there were regularly and successively bishops of
Aries and of Lyons, it is not stated in each indi¬
vidual case, by whom or when they were conse¬
crated. But history proves they were appointed
bishops, and, as we have shown, no bishop could
be appointed without being consecrated by one,
two or three others assisting ;* and as history does
not show they were appointed in any other than
the way prescribed by the Church, and their au¬
thority never was called in question, it inevitably
follows that each one was consecrated according
to the order of the Church. Thus, Augustin's
apostolical descent is proved historically through
both the sees of Lyons and Aries.
From the time of Augustin down, the English
* When or where did you prove, or attempt to prove,
this ? I never saw such an attempt, by yourselves or
any one else. You said so, but did not attempt to offer
any proof.
32 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
Church kept regular records of the consecrations
of its bishops, with the names of the consecrators.
The originals are in many instances lost, but they
are all kept in English ecclesiastical history. The
proof on this point is clear and conclusive. The
authorities are all cited by Mr. Chapin, p. 297 to
327.
Thus we find Lawrence, the second archbishop
of Canterbury, was consecrated by Augustin on
the 2d February, A. D. 619. (Bede's His. ii. 4.)
Mellitus was third archbishop of Canterbury, con¬
secrated bishop of London, A. D. 604. Trans¬
lated to Canterbury. (Bede's His. ii. 3, 7.) Jus¬
tus was third, Henorious fourth, and so on regu¬
larly, down to John Moore, archbishop of Can¬
terbury. The consecration of each bishop, with
the names of the consecrators, are proved from
historical records and annals, all cited by Mr.
Chapin, and other authors. A consecutive list
of all, with the proofs, may be seen by reference
to page 296 .to 327 of Chapin's His. Prim.
Church.*
* You improve fast. In a former argument you said
"history lias not preserved the names of the consecra¬
tors," and that you had "no list of'ordinations."
If Chapin's "consecutive list" is a list of ordinations,
why not produce it? And if it is not a list of ordina-
END' OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 38
John Moore, the ninety-sixth archbishop of
Canterbury, and the one hundred and eighteenth
bishop from St. John, was consecrated by the
bishops of Canterbury, Ely and Oxford, on the
12th February, 1775.
The succession in the American Church begins
with Bishops Seabury, White, Provoost, and Ma¬
dison. The first was consecrated in Scotland, by
Bishop Kilgour, assisted by Bishops Petre and
Skinner. The three last were all consecrated by
John Moore, archbishop of Canterbury, from
whom we traced the succession hack to the apos¬
tles, assisted by the archbishop of York—'the
bishop of Bath and Wells, the bishop of Roches¬
ter, the bishop of London, and the bishop of
Petersburg. All the American bishops derive
succession through Bishops White, Provoost, Ma¬
dison and Seabury. The consecration of each
one is preserved. Our own diocesan, Bishop
Green, can thus historically trace his 'episcopal
descent from the apostles. He was consecrated
at Jackson by Bishop Otey, assisted by Bishop
tions, why mention it at all, since consecutive ordina¬
tions is the only question in issue ? Lists of bishops
that do not show consecutive ordinations, have no more
to do with this question about Apostolic Succession than
lists of generals or judges, or any other persons.
34 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
Cobb and Bishop Polk. Bishop Otey was con¬
secrated on the 14th January, 1834, by Bishop
White, assisted by Bishop Doane, H. U. Onder-
donk, and B. T. Onderdonk, each of whom had
been previously consecrated by Bishop White,
and other assistant bishops. Thus Bishop Green
was consecrated by Bishop Otey) he by Bishop
White; he by the archbishop of Canterbury •, and
he through a succession of bishops, as we proved,
back to Augustin, and Augustin by a succession
of bishops of Lyons and Aries, to the apostles.*
* Tlie list of ordinations in the Church in the United
States, from Bishop White down, is not, nor was it ever
questioned. Have they such a list previously ? They
have none. In the olden ages of the Church, particu¬
larly towards and before the Reformation, they do not
pretend to offer lists of ordinations—only lists of bishops,
that they do not pretend ordained each other in suc¬
cession.
And the reader will please to bear in mind that the
mere historic correctness of these lists is not in ques¬
tion in this debate. He ought perhaps to be informed,
however, that their pretended lists of bishops in the
ancient churches, is, as the best, historians inform us,
mere guess-work. Their correctness is affirmed by
none but Roman Catholics and high-churchmen of the
most partisan character. They do not deserve to be
called " history." They are mere sectarian opinions of
partisan writers. They rest upon no authority, properly
END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 85
If this is not complete historical proof of the
"Apostolical Succession/' there is no use in hu¬
man testimouy. We have furnished and proved
historically, a list of ordinations. The proof is
more clear and strong than that Julius Caesar
lived and was murdered in the senate-house at
Rome. It is as clear as that Charles the First
reigned and was beheaded. It is much clearer
than Mr. Wesley's ordination of Dr. Coke.* We
hope our reverend friend will be now as good as
his word, and will at once say, "I am done/' "I
give it up." One thing is certain, if the Apos¬
tolical Succession has failed, as Mr. A. ■ igno-
rantly supposes, he is not, even according to his
own theory, a Methodist minister. • They derive
their ministry through presbyters alone, to wit:
John Wesley and Dr. Coke. Their doctrine is,
that a succession through presbyters is sufficient.
But as Wesley and Coke were both ordained by
British bishops, if the episcopal succession failed,
these bishops had not even the power of presby¬
ters—consequently they could impart none to
so called, and are repudiated by most Episcopalian
writers.
* And yet—strange indeed—not one person in about
five hundred in the United States can be made to be¬
lieve it. It is repudiated by a full half of your Church.
36 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
Wesley and Coke, and they could impart none to
the Methodist ministry. So, that, if our rev¬
erend friend is right, he and all the Methodist
ministry are merely laymen, upon their own prin¬
ciples.
[The reader will be so good as to notice that
the foregoing argument does not relate to the
question in controversy.
What is called the "positive" argument, is an
attempt to prove that which is not denied so far
as this debate is concerned. It attempts- to prove
that there has been continuously in the Church,
an existing ministry; whereas it ought to have
attempted to prove a succession of ordinations in
bishops. This, therefore, is a mere ruse to call
the mind of the reader away from the real ques¬
tion in issue.
The other portion of the argument, which they
call " inferential or presumptive," is signally de¬
fective. It attempts to prove that bishops suc¬
ceeded each other in office, "but does not attempt
to prove any thing about a list of bishops who
were successive ordainers of each other.]
end oe the apostolic succession. 37
CHAPTER III.
communication oe e. abbey.
To George S. Yerger and William C. Smedes, Es¬
quires, Editors of the Church Herald, Vicksburg,
Miss.
Gentlemen,—Your paper, which I believe to
be one of the ablest edited papers in this country,
has, for some time past, been the theatre of a
most singular debate between you and myself.
The singularity consists in the disparity in space
occupied by the parties respectively. Your side
of the argument fills, if I have counted right,
something over twenty columns of your paper.
Mine contains nearly one column.
At this rate, and considering, too, the still
greater odds, in point of talent, against me, I
have hardly been able to sustain my side of the
debate, so as to keep it in a proper and healthful
condition before the public. This has been ow¬
ing, as you inform us in your paper, to your
4
38 END OE TIIE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
inability, in justice to your subscribers, to publish
more than one side of the argument. You inform
your readers, in your own way—and, as I think,
not very fully—of the substance of my arguments,
without taking the trouble to publish them. The
degree of liberality exhibited in the making of
arguments somewhat plenteous on the one hand,
and of suppressing and commenting upon unpub¬
lished letters on the other, has, it is true, nothing
to do with the question of the truth or falsity of
the matter in issue, any further than it gives no¬
tice of a dislike, on your part, that my arguments
should be seen by the readers of yours. Whether
you found that my arguments would have some
effect upon yours, or would merely unnecessarily
consume the time of your readers, I do not know.
Not being exactly satisfied with this mode of
conducting an argument—at least, it being new
to me—I have thought it best to change my po¬
sition somewhat, and resort to another mode of
circulation. I hope this will meet the approval of
both yourselves and the public.
The debate is on the famous, and, to all Chris¬
tians, the very important and interesting ques¬
tion or doctrine of Apostolic Succession; and i't
has grown out of a small book of Letters on that
subject, which I had the honor, some months ago,
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 39
of addressing to our mutual friend, the lit. Rev.
Bishop Green, of our own State, in reply to a re¬
cent sermon of his, in which he advocates that
doctrine.
The first article in the Herald reviewing the
Letters, we are informed, was written by the late
lamented Rev. Mr. Patterson, who was .associated
with you in the editorship. Of that article, or
of any thing it contains, I will say nothing. The
other articles, some eight or ten, perhaps, in num¬
ber, were written by both the gentlemen I have
now the honor to address, as I infer from private
correspondence I have had with both in the course
of my efforts to get an explanatory observation or
so, touching the argument, into the columns of
the Herald.
Of the arguments you have made with me,
gentlemen, touching this matter, you will, if you
please, allow me to make the following observa¬
tion. And I will first, if you will allow me, call
your attention to my alleged
FALSE QUOTATIONS.
This question occupies a large portion of your
paper of the lGth December last, and refers mainly
to an alleged perversion of the language of Je¬
rome, a very learned and celebrated Christian
40 END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
writer, who lived in the fourth century. I
had quoted from him in the Letters as follows,
viz. :—" A presbyter is therefore the same as a
bishop."
On this you remark: " Mr. Abbey, to sustain
his views, quotes from Jerome, who lived in the
fourth century. We give his quotation, and, in
the opposite side, the correct one.
JIR. ABBEY'S QUOTATION
FROM JEROME.
'A presbyter is there¬
fore the same as a bishop.'
JEROME, AS WRITTEN BY
HIMSELF.
'A presbyter is there¬
fore the same as a bishop,
except in the matter of ordi¬
nation.'
u Here the very thing which proved the supe¬
riority of the bishop, to wit, the right of ordain¬
ing, is left out .by Mr. Abbey. The power of
ordination is the main and substantial difference
between the bishop and the presbyter. We ask
if such quotations are fair ? Are they not dis¬
graceful ?"
There was another important point in this ar¬
ticle—rather in two very long articles in this
paper—to .which I desired to call your attention,
and believing that I could, at best, hope to occupy
but a very brief space in your paper, I passed over
END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 41
the question of false quotations with a bare alle¬
gation of their correctness, saying I quoted as far
as my present purpose—the point of argument
then in hand—required; but that there could be
no disagreement between us as to the testimony
of the Fathers, for that I assented to all that you
undertook to prove by them.
This point we will look at as soon as we are at
leisure.
In the. Herald of 10th of February you bring
Jerome forward again, and say a goodly number
of pretty hard things about the false quotation,
like the following:
"For example, he quoted from Jerome—'A
presbyter is therefore the same as a bishop.'
Here he stopped. This proved, his ' then present
purpose,' to wit, that bishops and presbyters
were equal in power; but he left out the words
which immediately followed, viz., ' except in the
matter of ordination.' If the whole sentence had
been quoted by the reverend author, so far from
proving his 'then present purpose,' it would have
proved directly the contrary.
" We did protest against this as unfair. It
misleads those who are not well informed on the
subject. If an author succeeds in proving his
1 then present purpose' in this way, he succeeds
4*
42 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
at the expense of truth. Such success we hope
never to enjoy. We are sorry our reverend friend
has attempted to justify it; for we think, with all
due deference to his judgment, it is beyond the
pale of excuse."
Shortly afterwards I addressed you a note
which I requested you to publish for the purpose
of correcting this error of fact, which you had
rendered important by your frequent remarks in
regard to it. In this note I referred you to
Chapin's Primitive Church—the work to which
you referred me for correct information—and
showed you that my quotation after all was exactly
right, and yours exactly wrong.
After about three weeks I received my note
back again from Mr. Yerger, saying it had been
referred to him by Mr. Smedes: that Mr. Y.
would write an article in the Herald on " Jerome
on Episcopacythat they did not consider it
necessary to publish my letter : that I misappre¬
hended Jerome, etc., etc. This letter being on
a different subject from that contained in my
note which it purported to answer, I felt bound,
in some way, to disprove the allegations made
against me so prominently and so repeatedly;
and so I published the note in question in a Yazoo
City paper/as follows, viz:—
end of the apostolic succession. 48
Yazoo City, March 7, 1854.
Messrs. Yerger & Smedes, Editors of the Herald:
Gentlemen,—I confess very frankly thai I
was not much disappointed at your refusal to pub¬
lish my letter alluded to in your paper of the 3d
instant. But still, I must ask you to publish
this letter; and I-expect you will do so without
hesitation.
A few weeks ago, you charged me,- in terms
pretty broad and plain, with misquoting from
Jerome. I quoted, "A presbyter is, therefore,
the same as a bishop." You say the reading is,
"A presbyter is, therefore, the same as a bishop,
except in the matter of ordination." This, you
say, you " protested against as unfair"—" It mis¬
leads those who are not well informed on the sub¬
ject." It makes me " succeed at the expense of
truth." uIt is beyond the pale of excuse," etc.
If I had quoted correctly, you say, I would have
proved by that very learned and renowned Father,
" directly the contrary" of what I desired.
Now, if you will turn to "Chopin's Primitive
Church" you will find that all the while I was
right and you wrong. On page 19G he quotes
the same passage thus : " The same, there fare, is
a preshyter, irlio also is a, bishop." Nothing is
said here about " the matter of ordination."
44 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
" The words which immediately follow" are these.
" For before, by the instigation of the Devil,
parties were formed in religion, and it was said
by the people, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos,
and I of Cephas, the churches were governed by
the council of presbyters."
Of course I am not now undertaking to debate
any question, but am merely speaking to the
fact, that my quotation in the little booh was
correct, and not incorrect; and that the error is
yours. How "unfair" it may be, I leave to
others to judge—I make no " protest" about it,
nor do I suppose the error is quite " beyond the
pale of excuse." It is, however, quite worth
correcting, for uncorrected it does both myself
and little book injustice, as well as my friends
who believe and act with me.
I did not look into this matter until the present
moment. From the very confident manner in
which you wrote several times about it, I thought
possibly I might have fallen into the error
attributed to me, though I was, I thought, very
careful in all the quotations and statements of
fact which I made in those Letters to our very
worthy and esteemed friend, the bishop.
I am very respectfully and sincerely,
R. ABBEY.
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 45
The views of "Jerome on, Episcopacy." or on
any other subject, were not just now in issue at
all. The only question before us was, whether
my quotation, or your correction was right.
I now repeat that the remark from Jerome in
question, is quoted by every body exactly as I did.
And as to the "except in the matter Of ordina¬
tion," nothing like it is found out of the columns
•of the Herald. It was manufactured there. For
what "purpose" I know not. I could not for a
moment believe it was an intentional misrepre¬
sentation. I presume you were a little over¬
anxious to get hold of something to say. Mr.
Yerger's article on "Jerome on Episcopacy," at
length came to hand. It is a long, labored argu¬
ment, not on the question in issue, however, but
on another and different one; and although the
truth compels him to quote Jerome exactly as I
did, yet he still tries to make it appear that I am
wrong any how—that is, wrong about something,
no matter what. He, in fact, does not seem to
know what!—at least, he does not say what. The
sum of it is, several newspaper columns in length,
" We are right all the time, and Abbey is wrong
all the time j" but still quoting on the very point,
and only point in question, just as I did!
The only observation in it which relates to the
46 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
question then in issue, is the following: " The
Rev. Mr. Abbey has written us another letter,
which we deem unnecessary to publish, as it
merely insists that his quotation from Jerome on
the subject of episcopacy was correct, to prove
which he refers us to Chapin's Primitive Churcb,
page 196."
That, it must be confessed, was taking very
coolly a matter which had been, in previous num¬
bers of your paper, so very warmly and elabo¬
rately handled.
And ndw, as Jerome is just before us, before
we dismiss him, allow me, if you please, to say a
word on the subject of his testimony, although,
as I once before stated, and as I will shortly more
fully explain, I assent to all that I understand
you to attempt to prove by those early Christian
writers. So we will look a moment at
"JEROME ON EPISCOPACY."
I believe you quote him correctly. I copy the
following from your paper of the 31st March,
which you copy from J erome :
"A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a
bishop and before there were, by the Devil's in¬
stigation, parties in religion, and it was said
among the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollos,
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 47
and I of Cephas, (1 Cor. i. 12,) the churches,
were governed by a common council of presby¬
ters. Afterwards, indeed, when each thought
those he baptized were his, not Christ's, it was
decreed through the whole world that one chosen
from the presbyters should be put above the rest,
to whom all the care of the Church should belong,
and the seeds of schism be taken away. Should
any one think that it is not the view of the Scrip¬
tures, but our own, that bishop and presbyter are
the same, and that one is the name of age, the
other of office, let him read the words of the apos¬
tles to the Pliilippians, saying: (Paul and Tim¬
othy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in
Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops
and deacons, grace be unto you, and peace,'
(Phil. i. 12,) and so forth. Philippi is a city of
Macedonia, and certainly in one city there could
not be more bishops,, as they are now called. But
at that time they called those bishops whom they
called presbyters, therefore, he speaks indiffer¬
ently of bishops as of presbyters."
In another place you quote from Jerome, I
presume correctly, as follows : #
u But that afterwards one was chosen who
should be above the rest, was done as a remedy
against schism, lest each drawing the Church of
48 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
Christ to himself should break it in pieces; for at
Alexandria, from the Evangelist Mark to Hera¬
cles and Dionysius, the bishops, the presbyters
always chose one from among them, placed in a
higher grade, named him bishop, like an army
should make an emperor, or deacons should chose
one of themselves, whom they know as most in¬
dustrious, and call him archdeacon; for what can
a bishop do, ordination excepted, that a presbyter
cannot ?"
Now, if the equality between bishops and pres¬
byters cannot be more clearly and more fully
stated than Jerome thus states it, I am at a loss
to see what language he would use. In the days
previous to those in which he lived, he says the
elder bishops were called presbyters; and after¬
wards, when harmony in the Church required it,
it was arranged throughout the whole Church, or
the whole world, that the presbyters should chose
one of their number, who should be " put above
the rest," that is, I suppose, act as their presi¬
dent—a chief among equals. Precisely so. Ex¬
actly as it is now in all Presbyterian, Methodist,
and Baptist churches. So far, then, as Jerome is
concerned, this explanation is conclusive. The
superiority of the bishop over other presbyters
was this, he was " one chosen from the presby-
END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 49
ters" to preside over them. And this was not done
by Divine command, as must have been the case
according to your theory. It was a late thing in
the days of Jerome, and was done to put away the
seeds of schism in the Church—an ecclesiastical,
and not a Divine arrangement.
This whole argument might be safely rested
right here, upon Jerome's testimony as you tjuote
him.
And upon your testimony, too I For you have
already said, in commenting upon my alleged false
quotation above alluded to, that, as I quoted Je¬
rome, he was directly against you, but with the
"except in the matter of ordination" added, it
reversed his meaning, and made him say just the
contrary. But now, since it appears that no such
language is there, his words stand as I placed them,
and his meaning as you stated it. Your argu¬
ment was as good, I suppose, before this error in
Jerome's language was corrected as it is after¬
wards.
Perhaps it would* have been, better for you to
have done as Bishop Hobart does in the " Church¬
man Armed," "reject the testimony of Jerome,"
and quarrel with him as a mere Presbyterian;
but this is too late now.
You also quote another passage from Jerome.
5
50 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
setting forth, the same doctrine; viz., that a
bishop was nothing more than a chosen president
among the presbyters for motives of supposed ex¬
pediency. Any one may see this in your paper
of 31st March. Jerome's testimony, then, against
you, is absolutely conclusive.
TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS.
Allow me now to call your attention to another
point respecting the testimony of the Fathers. In
my very short letter to you, of the 20th January
last—the only one from me in this protracted de¬
bate for which you have found room in your paper
—I made, in reference to this point, the follow¬
ing remark : " There can be no issue between us
here, however, for I assent to all I understand you
to attempt to prove by these quotations, (from the
Fathers,) viz., That anciently there was a dis¬
tinction as to grade, between bishop, presbyter,
and deacon : that the bishop was the superior, and
it was his duty to ordain. I understand the dis¬
puted point to be, whether this superiority, on the
part of the bishop, resulted from a Divine com¬
mand, or from an ecclesiastical arrangement.
That the difference existed as you state and prove
by those writers, I do not question."
From this language of mine you argue very
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 51
lengthily to " prove'' that I am a High Church
successionist of the first water. I have learned
by experience that a debater with the whole argu¬
ment in his own hands, the mouth of his com¬
petitor being stopped, can prove, or, at least, say
he proves, almost any thing.
The above language covers not only my own
views, but those of every theologian or writer on
the subject, whose opinions I have seen expressed.
Whoever douhted that you can prove by the
Fathers, that after the churches had found it ex¬
pedient, as Jerome explains it, to assign certain du¬
ties of presidency and the like to some one bishop,
that his duties were peculiar to his office : that the
duty of the presbyter who did not exercise these
functions of presidency and control, were of a lower
grade ; and that those of the deacon were still dis-
similar ? Why, these things result naturally and
necessarily. The bishop is superior to the ordi¬
nary presbyter, in what respect ? Why, in re¬
spect to the duties which naturally attach to the
office of president, and to any other duties that
may be assigned to him, such as pastoral care, or¬
dination, and the like. This is the case now in
all the churches around us. Go to a Presbyterian
synod or assembly, and you will find a presiding
officer. Go to the Baptist Church, where any ec-
52 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
clesiastical business is transacted, and you will
find tbe same thing. The Methodist bishop is
also a president. Now, these presidents, call them
by what name you please, are superior to the other
ministry in respect to these duties. Whether
these presidents hold their office for a day, or a
year, or a lifetime, matters not so far as the prin¬
ciple "goes. They receive the office from their
fellows, from considerations respecting the good
order of the Church, and not in virtue of ordina¬
tions, derived from a preceding superior.
The bishop was the pastor of the congregation.
The other presbyters who were not bishops were
not. We need go no further than Bishop Otey
to prove this. In his Discourses, p. 50, he says
of St. Clemens, that he was " chosen by the apos¬
tles, and appointed to' preside as bishop over one
of the churches which they had planted."
All this is precisely as Jerome explains it as
you quote him. " But that afterwards one was
chosen who should be above the rest, was done as
a remedy against schism, lest each drawing the
Church to himself should break it in pieces."
So it was not originally the case. You call this
two " orders" of ministry, and I see no particular
objection to your great fondness for the term
order. It is a word of very latitudinous meaning.
END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 53
The order, however, or grade, or whatever you
may choose to call it, results from the office and
the ditties attaching to it.
In your paper of 17th of February, you say on
this point:—" The facts then admitted by Mr.
Abbey are, that, in the apostolic age, whilst the
apostles, or some of them, were living, the min¬
istry consisted of three orders; the duty of ordi¬
nation being in the highest order, bishops."
G-entlemen, I am here compelled to state, as I
have attempted to do before in your paper, that I
deny utterly ever admitting either one of the two
things contained in the above statement. I have
no doubt you can prove any thing by me, if you
make my admissions for me. But you must ex¬
cuse me. I said nothing whatever about any
order of ministers; for I was aware of the very
exclusive and stringent meaning you attach to
this word in this.connection. Secondly, I said
nothing whatever about the condition of the mim
istry in the apostolic age. Will the Herald cor¬
rect this error ?*
Again : " Thus we have proved by Mr. Abbey's
own admissions—admissions which the force of
truth compelled him to make—that the ministry
* It has not yet done so.
5*
54 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
was divinely appointed, and that the order of
bishops alone had the divine power of ordination."
Gentlemen, I think it is not only " unfair," but
decidedly wrong, for you to publish my name in
your paper as having given testimony, the like or
appearance of which never escaped my pen. I
respectfully ask you to correct this error in your
columns.
You can prove by my admissions what I stated.
By what rule of controversy do you seek to prove
more ? The circumstance of your having a news¬
paper in which to publish your side of the debate
does not annihilate my common rights as your
competitor. You not only suppress the argu¬
ments I did make, but you make and publish
others for me. I think I might safely adopt your
own language and ask, is this fair? I forbear
to pursue the still harsher inquiries which you
made when by some strange and fanciful dream
you supposed I was misquoting Jerome.
I expect to treat you, in this debate, with the
utmost fairness, the most nicely balanced judg¬
ment of which I am capable. I think that this
rule has so far marked my course, both towards
our mutual friend the bishop, and yourselves. At
the same time I am frank to say, I expect to treat
END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 55
you with great plainness. I am not able to write
in any other style.
In conclusion then, in regard to the testimony
of the Fathers, I repeat that I assent to all I un¬
derstand you to prove, or, to try to prove by them.
You, with all other writers of any fairness or in¬
telligence, admit, that, in the days of the apostles,
presbyter and bishop were terms used synony¬
mously. Subsequently, you prove that the term
bishop came generally to be applied to such pres¬
byters or bishops only as discharged the higher
duties of the church, and that the deacon was a
still inferior office. All this I assent to. It was
the case then. It is the case now, except in the
mere use of the terms which are sometimes ap¬
plied to those several offices, in all the churches
I know of in this country.
You claim further that these duties of presi¬
dency, etc., on'the part of those officers, was by
divine command. I say the Church acted with¬
out any divine command, from considerations of
expediency ; or, as Jerome says, to prevent schism
and promote harmony. Now, surely, you will
not attempt to prove a divine command by unin¬
spired men ! Grod has revealed his will to us
through the media of inspiration, and, on these
56 END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
subjects, in no other way. Any inspired man,
being required to do so, can tell you all about it.
All tbe uninspired men in the world can tell you
nothing about it. You may as well call on men
to prove a question in Chinese grammar, or the
geography of the moon, as to call on uninspired
men to prove any divine commands.
But they were, some of them " contemporary
with the apostles." Con temporary with the apos¬
tles ! And do we get our religions tenets from
men who chanced to be contemporary with the
apostles ? Your articles of religion teach that
the Bible is the whole and entire rule of faith and
practice. We get our religious tenets exclusively
from Jesus Christ. The apostles themselves, not
their " contemporaries," are accredited channels
through which we receive any divine commands
which the Blessed Saviour did not utter directly.
I will next ask your attention to your
HISTORIC ARGUMENT.
My little short letter of 20th January last, pub¬
lished by you the 11th February, your replies to
which, from appearances, I take to be about con¬
cluded, referred to a statement of yours about the
u unbroken succession." This I suppose is the
grand central point of debate around which all
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 57
the questions pertaining to this subject, revolve.
" The unbroken succession of ordinations from
the apostles to the present"—" the chain without
a flaw or a break"—u the infallible continuity
of ordinations."
In regard to it, I remarked : " If you will pro¬
duce a list of bishops showing an unbroken suc¬
cession of ordinations, I am done, I have never
seen such a list. I do not believe it is in print!
We have many lists of bishops, published by Bishop
Green and others, not one of which, however, so
far as I have seen, purports to be a list of suc¬
cessive ordinations. They are only lists of in¬
cumbents in office.
"I asked for a list of bishops who were ordained
—not 1 by their immediate predecessors,' (as you
said)—in the same diocese—but by any body.
I asked, and I still ask, for a consecutive list of
bishops who were ordained at all, so as to show
a succession of ordinations. Produce such a list
from any thing you will say is history, and I am
done. I beg that this point may not be evaded.
Do not offer me a list of bishops who held office
successively, in lieu of a list who were ordained
successively. Let this issue be met fairly, or let
it be acknowledged that you have no list of suc¬
cessive ordinations. This is a vital point."
58 END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
I thought this was the fairest proposition in
the world. I challenged the existence of the very
thing—and the only very vital thing, which, as I
understand the argument, makes up the embodi¬
ment—soul and vitals, of the doctrine of "Apos¬
tolic Succession." And if you will allow me,
just for once, to indulge in a little latitude of re¬
mark, I will say, I believed the proposition to be
conclusive and utterly irrefutable. And really,
to be candid, I think so still.
The doctrine of Apostolic Succession—if there
be any such doctrine—assorts and claims a suc¬
cession of ordinations, from one ordained person
to another—continuous, unbroken, from the apos¬
tles or some of them, to the present ministry.
There is but one other thing that makes up any
part of this doctrine; and that is, that this suc¬
cession of ordinations, in a line of bishops, is di¬
vinely commanded.
I was aware that I tad not a little of skill and
ingenuity to contend with ; but I was at a loss to
conjecture at what tangent you would fly off; for
the absence of the " list of ordinations" is the
absence of the "Apostolic Succession." They
are one and the same thing., The one is the
writing, and the other is the idea thus written.
"It is ah attempt to present a false issue," cry
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 59
out the editors. " He knew—every one familiar
with the subject knew—that no such list existed
or could be produced." Verily, I thought so.
But as to what the editors knew on this particu¬
lar point, I was entirely ignorant. And as to
what " those familiar with the subject" knew, my
reading does not inform me, for I had not seen
the point raised in debate before.
"We know," you say, "by the voice of uni¬
versal history, that bishops alone were the con-
secrators of each of these particular bishops in
these lengthened lists, and though history has
not preserved the names of the consecrators, and
the time and place of each consecration, which
would have been wholly an unnecessary work, yet
it has preserved the important fact, covering all
the other points, that none but bishops conse¬
crated or pretended to consecrate bishops, and
that no man, for sixteen centuries and upwards,
ever dared to usurp the name and title of bishop,
who was not consecrated to the holy office by
Episcopal hands."
I am at a loss to see how; "univeral history"
could, at the same time, assert and ignore the
same thing. It asserts that bishops alone were
the ordainers of each of these particular bishops ;
and yet it says nothing as to who ordained them,
60 end oe the apostolic succession.
or when or where the ceremony was performed !
If history does not tell who ordained them, when
or where they were ordained, how can it tell spe¬
cifically, that each one was ordained by a bishop ?
If history does not know who the ordainers were,
how can it assert, in each case, that he was a
bishop, and that he himself was ordained by a
bishop ? The editors ought, perhaps, to have
" leave to amend" this argument.
I must, in all good conscience, say, that this is
a bare, bald, plain begging of the question.
" Bishops were alone consecrated by bishops ;
and, therefore, all bishops were consecrated by
bishops." That is a correct and logical para¬
phrase of your argument. But, gentlemen, that
is the very question in issue. I deny that there
is any history that shows that the bishops in these
"lists" were ordained consecutively and invariably
by bishops; and you say they certainly were,
because "bishops were consecrated alone by
bishops." Is that argument? or is it what, ]
believe, you lawyers call pctltio principii, of the
very blankest sort ?
But, " As no one who has written on this sub¬
ject has, to our knowledge, intimated that such
a list as Mr. Abbey demands exists, we say it is
an attempt to present a false issue when he makes
END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 61
the demand, pronounces it a vital point, and in¬
sists that it shall not be evaded/'
I demanded a list of names that would show a
succession of ordinations in contradistinction to
a list of bishops who merely held office succes¬
sively. Let us see the point in issue. I say
many of your writers publish the names of sup¬
posed bishops, from the apostles to the present,
representing such lists as historic proof of succes¬
sive ordinations; that is, showing the reader that
the ordination descended according to these lists.
This list is, they say, the channel through which
the chain of ordinations descended, or, in other
words, it is the chain of the successive ordina¬
tions. I examine these lists, and find that this
coidd not he; for, in most cases, the predecessor
in these lists was dead before his successor was
ordained.
Upon this, you rejoin and say, that your wri¬
ters do not pretend to have a list showing the
successive links in a chain °f ordinations—they
only claim to have lists of successive incumbents
in the office, of bishop.
Well, then, what question is in debate between
High Churchmen and others, respecting Apos¬
tolic Succession ? Manifestly there is none. If
6
62 END OF THE AFOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
you claim any thing that we deny, touching this
subject, it is a succession of ordinations, and that
this was Divinely appointed. If you give that up,
then you give up the only question in issue.
There might he between us a historic question
about a succession of bishops in office, as there
might he in regard to a succession of kings or
generals or knights; hut these are other subjects
entirely from the matter in. debate.
If you claim a succession of ordinations, the
claim must he supported manifestly by history.
It does not relate to geography, or to mathema¬
tics, hut to history. Nothing, most palpably, but
the history can prove the truth of the allegation.
If you do not claim to have a historic chain of
successive ordinations, then I have no debate with
you—we are not at issue. If you claim that there
is, or has been, a succession of ordinations, hut
admit that there is no history to prove each and
every distinct and specific ordination, then, in like
manner, the debate necessarily closes; for I am
unwilling to take your word for it; and nothing
hut history can prove a historic question. You
file your declaration, I join issue, and then you
come into court and admit that you have no testi¬
mony—that is, no relevant testimony. Well,
then, what next takes place ?
end op the apostolic succession. 03
But let us see what some of your writers say
about a list of successive ordinations :
Bishop Green.'—" Let it suffice to say, and I
say it in the fear of God, that no important fact
of ancient or modern history is so capable of proof,
I had almost said of demonstration, as that of the
unbroken transmission of ministerial authority
from the apostles' days to our own." And he
appends what he says in a correct historic " list"
of 118 bishops, from St. John to Bishop White,
to show the chain through the 118 links, of which
the Divine authority to preach was transmitted.
Bishop Otey, (Three Discourses, p. Cl.)—
u Now it is clear such a fact is as capable of proof
as any other fact. And, consequently, a succes¬
sion of ordinations is of far more easy proof than
lineal succession—such, for example, as the suc¬
cession of the Aaronic priesthood—for the ordina¬
tion of a bishop would only take place at the end
of his predecessor's life, consequently the proofs
would have to be produced at long intervals, after
considerable periods of time had elapsed, and the
longer a bishop lived the fewer would be the
number of links in the chain of succession."
And again, (Discourses, p. 59.)—Speaking of
tlie.se historical facts, he says of Eusebius, that he
" has given us catalogues of the bishops by name,
64 end op the apostolic succession.
in the order of their succession, in all the princi¬
pal churches from the apostles down to his time."
" Succession" of what ? Of the thing he was
discoursing about, the only question in contro¬
versy, ordinations ? Or will you make him mean
a succession of the mere incumbency in office, an
abstract historic question, which has nothing
whatever to do with the matters in debate ?
Mr. Wilson, (quoted as authority by Bishop
Otey, p. 78.)—"I can give the succession in the
individual case, taking only one in the line, whereas
there are in fact never less than three. Hopkins,
Griswold, White, Moore, of Canterbury, in Eng¬
land : thence, by the line of Canterbury, eighty-
seven names to Augustin, A. D. 596. From
August in through Lyons to Poiycarp of Smyrna,
thirty-one names; and Poiycarp was ordained by
St. John, and St. John by Jesus Christ."
Notice his chain : " Thence by the line of Can¬
terbury, eighty-seven names," and thence " through
Lyons to Poiycarp, thirty-one names." Then,
after considerable argument directly on the point
of successive ordinations, he gives the " list" of
the eighty-seven names in the see of Canterbury,
and of the thirty-one in that of Lyons.
Dr. Henshaw, (copied by almost every High
Church writer.)—"Lists of the Apostolic Sue-
END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 05
cession • in descent from the different apostles,
have been carefully preserved by. Eusebius and
other early writers, and they have been continued
in different lines down to the present day. Any
reader who desires to consult them is referred to
Percival on Apostolic Succession, and Chapin's
Primitive Church. Home may trace its line to
St. Peter, the Greeks to St. Paul, the Syrians and
Nestorians to St. Thomas, and the American
Episcopal Church to St. John.
" Bishop White, the head of the American line
. of bishops, was consecrated by the Archbishop of
Canterbury. We will, therefore, present a list,
beginning with St. John, and coming through the
Episcopate of Lyons, in France or Gaul, and that
of Canterbury in England, till it connects with
ours in . the United States of America."
Then follows the same list of 118 names as
above alluded to by Bishops Green and Otey, and
Mr. Wilson. Would you distort this language so
as to make Dr. H. try to prove a question which
has nothing to do with the jiebate he is engaged
in, viz., that these 118 bishops lived or held office
successively ? So far as the debate before us is
concerned, I will admit, if you wish it, that 118
times this number of bishops held office succes¬
sively from St. John or Abraham in more sees
6*
66 end op the apostolic succession.
than history ever heard of. So far as this ques¬
tion is concerned, I can safely admit any thing on
any other question.
Bishop Wain wright (Debate with Dr. Potts,
p. 90.)—" Bishop White was consecrated in 1787
by John Moore, archbishop of Canterbury, whose
authority was derived in regular succession
through the line of the Anglican Church, as dis¬
tinct from that of the Church of Pk,ome, extend¬
ing up to the apostles. I need not incumber my
communication with these names, for, to those
who dispute the doctrine, this list of names and
dates could afford no satisfaction."
Here it is, if possible, still more explicitly
stated, that the authority of Bishop Moore was
derived " through the line of the Anglican Church"
—extending up to the apostles. He can give the
"list of names and dates." The same list, I pre¬
sume, that I see everywhere copied from Chapin.
Can this language be tortured into an assertion
totally irrelevant to the controversy, that certain
bishops merely lived, or held office successively
from the apostles, with no intimation as to suc¬
cessive ordinations ?
Official Tracts, No. 190, p. 19.—" She (your
Church) also exhibits the order of that succession,
from apostolic times, and though it is easy to deny
end op the apostolic succession. 67
any fact in ancient or modern history, yet it will
he a more difficult matter fairly to show where
one link is wanting in that sacred chain."
The italics in this paragraph are made so by
myself.
Dr. Hook.—(If I am not mistaken, present
Chaplain to Victoria—) Two Sermons on the
Church.—" This continual descent is evident to
every one who chooses to investigate it. Let him
read the catalogues of our bishops ascending up
to the remotest period. Our ordinations descend
"in a direct unbroken line from Peter and Paul,
the apostles of the circumcision and of the Gen¬
tiles. These great apostles successively ordained
Linus, Cletus and Clement, bishops of Rome, and
the Apostolic Succession was regularly continued
from them to Celestine, Gregory and Vitalanus,
who ordained Patrick, bishop of the Irish, and
Augustin and Theodore of the English. And
from these times an uninterrupted series of valid
ordinations has carried down the apostolic suc¬
cession in our churches to the present day. There
is not a bishop, priest or deacon among us, who
cannot, if he pleases, trace his own spiritual de¬
scent from St. Peter or St. Paul."
Chapin's Primitive Church.—Although Mr
Chapin, in his explanations distinguishes between
68 END OF THE AFOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
"the Apostolical Succession" and a "succession
of Episcopal governors," yet he expressly says—■
" the Apostolic Succession is traced hack through
the archbishops of Canterbury," which are "the
Episcopal governors." Again he says : " The
archbishops of Canterbury, through whom the
succession of the English bishops is usually
traced," etc.
Here the champion of "the Lists" himself,
expressly contends that the archbishojis of Can¬
terbury form the chain through whom the succes¬
sion is traced.
And yet in the face of all this authority, and I
know not how much more might be adduced—
when I expose all these celebrated " Lists" which
are so confidently put forth and represented as
" the chain of ordinations"—when I expose them
as mere lists of persons who held office succes¬
sively, but who could not be successive ordaincrs,
I am cooly told by my friends at Vicksburg that
your writers don't pretend to have a list of ordi¬
nations! And pray, sirs, then what do you,
or what can you pretend to have that makes the
issue we are supposed to be engaged in ? Is there
a cjuestiou here in issue, or is there not ? If there
be a question it is the existence or non-existence
of a succession of ordinations, If you give up
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 69
this point, please do it in a way that will at once
relieve the churches from further embarrassment
in the premises.
The admission you are compelled to make, and
you do make it in terms. I only object to the
sang fro id and apparently unconcerned manner
in which you make it. It falls, however, in notes
of no little astonishment upon the ears of high-
churchmen. They never heard it before I It was
never made before, I presume. It is manifest,
therefore, that there can be no proof of the Apos¬
tolic Succession.
This total lack of proof, however, you do not,
in terms, admit. But I will show that you do
the same thing virtually. I will briefly state the
sum of your very lengthy argument to prove that
a historic question may be proved by something
else than history.
You admit that you have no direct proof of
these several successive ordinations. The " names
and dates" which Bishop "Wainwright speaks of,
were not set down. But you say that as early as
A. D. 200, it was enacted in the Komish Church,
" Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bish¬
ops." This you say has been the law of the
Church ever since) and, therefore, bishops must
have been ordained alone by bishops; and as
70 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
there are bishops now, they being all along the
line ordained only by bishops, there must have
been a succession of ordinations. This, I believe,
is a fair statement of your argument. And I
acknowledge it will be of some Utile advantage, if
you will also prove two or three other things
which you will see are naturally essential.
1. Prove that the term " bishop," in the year
200, was used to mean the same as it does now.
All the history I know of, on the subject, says
that in that age the term presbyter and bishop
were used synonymously, with this only difference,
that the presiding presbyter was generally called
bishop, as is "herein before explained. He was
the pastor of the congregation, as Bishop Otey
says of St. Clement.
2. It is obviously necessary to prove that this
law was in actual force in all parts of Christen¬
dom. You know the Church of Ptome had au¬
thority over a very few other churches in the year
200. It did not extend generally over the other
churches until the seventh century. I believe
that was about the period of the triumph bf Home
over the churches under the rule of Constanti¬
nople.
3. You must prove, that this was not only the
law, but that the law was never violated, or what
END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 71
is the same thing, prove that in every instance of
ordination this law was observed. But you have
already Said you cannot prove it even in only one
hundred and eighteen consecutive instances.
You say: "It is a rule of common sense as
well as of evidence, that when by the constitution
and laws of a state, or government, or society, its
officers are required to be appointed, in a desig¬
nated mode, all who are proved to have been ap¬
pointed and to have filled those offices without
being questioned or called to account for want
of authority at the time, are necessarily presumed
to be legally and properly appointed."
This rule will hold good under some circum¬
stances, but I think not in those to which you
apply it. In a well regulated government, in a
good condition of observance to law, and of civi¬
lization, the rule is good, for the reason that it
is well known that proof of the specific appoint¬
ments can be furnished if necessary. But when
the country is in such a state of disorder that
proof of the specific appointments cannot be pro¬
duced, then the presumption will not " necessa¬
rily" follow.
The rule will hold good in any State in the
Union, in reference to the office of a Justice of
the Peace. But will it hold good in a country
72 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
which, for several centuries, was known to have
passed through scenes of disruption, strife, an¬
archy and bloodshed ? I do not, for example, at
this moment know who ordained Bishop Otey.
But according to your rule, I am obliged to pre¬
sume that he was ordained by a bishop. But am
I also obliged to presume the same thing in re¬
gard to some official whose name is set down to
some office in ancient Mexico, five hundred years
ago, or in half-savage Gaul, or semi-civilized
Britain, in the sixth, or in the tenth century ?
We have not even a history of the middle
ages ; nothing but a few, very few, scraps 3 and
most of these have been rejected by the learned
as spurious. The history of the Church to which
you apply this rule, in many portions of the coun¬
try, and for long periods, even centuries, passes
through scenes of strife, disruption, popular wick¬
edness, prostitution, and utter recklessness of all
Christian principles, ever known in the history of
the world before or since. The Church was oft¬
entimes, for long periods, a mere series of scenes
of rottenness and moral putridity that would, at
this moment, disgrace the most afflicted portions
of South America or China.
This is the testimony of the few historic scraps
which we have, as they gleam over the horizon
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 73
from the impenetrable darkness beyond. Wbat
was called " tbe Churcb" in tbe dark ages, in
many, yea, in most countries, and in all where you
lay your line of succession, was a mass of living
infamy. It was distinguished only, so far as we
know, by ignorance, superstition of the grossest
and most debasing character, prostitution, crime,
and popular corruption. And you tell us that in
all these ages, in all countries, and in every in¬
stance, every officer must be " necessarily pre¬
sumed to be legally and properly appointed,"
because the Church of Rome in her "Apostolic
Canons, adopted, according to the best authority,
as early as the year 200," said, " Let a bishop bo
ordained by two or three bishops !"
The inarvellousness of such an utterly broken-
to-pieces sophism, put forth, in lieu of an argu¬
ment, is greatly heightened by the fact that it
comes from gentlemen of distinguished talent and
learning, and is actually published in an intelli¬
gent and reading community!
The laws of the Church, in those periods, were
regarded about as much as the laws of morals. It
Was the law .that a bishopric should not be pur¬
chased; and yet were they not frequently pur¬
chased ? It was the law that the incumbent
should not be murdered to make room for the
7
74 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
aspirant; and yet was not this frequently done?
It is the law now here that a man shall not steal;
and will you plead this law in proof of the inno¬
cence of a man charged with larceny ? The cases
are precisely parallel.
Let us see what the learned say on this sub¬
ject. Archbishop Whateley, the present primate
of Ireland, is said to be one of the most learned
and thoroughly read divines living. Your own
witnesses are as good as I want.
<c It has been maintained, that the only way of
affording complete satisfaction and repose to the
scrupulous, and to repress schism, is to uphold,
under the title of Church principles, the doctrine,
that no one is a member of Christ's Church, an
heir of the covenanted gospel promises, who is
not under a ministry ordained by bishops de¬
scended in an unbroken chain from the apostles.
Now, what is the degree of satisfactory assurance
that is thus afforded to the scrupulous consciences
of any member of an Episcopal church ? If a
man consider it as highly probable that the par¬
ticular minister at whose hands he received the
sacred ordinances, is really thus apostolically de¬
scended, this is the very utmost point to which he
can, with any semblance of reason, attain. And
the more he reflects and inquires, the more cause
end oe the apostolic succession. 75
for hesitation he will find. There is not a
minister in all christendom who is able
to trace up, with any approach to cer¬
tainty, his own spiritual pedigree.
" The sacramental virtue, for such it is that is
implied, whether the term he. used or not, in the
principle I have been speaking of, that is de¬
pendent on the imposition of hands, with a due
observance of apostolical usages, by a bishop, him¬
self duly consecrated, after having been, in like
manner, baptized into the Church, and ordained
deacon and priest—this sacramental virtue, if a
single link of the chain be faulty, must, on the
above principles, be utterly nullified ever after, in
respect of all the links that hang on that one.
" For if a bishop has not been duly consecrated,
or had not been previously rightly ordained, his
ordinations are null; and so are the ministrations
of those ordained by him: and their ordination to
others, (supposing any of the persons ordained by
him to attain to the Episcopal office,) and so on,
without end. The poisonous taint of informality,
if once crept in undetected, will spread the infec¬
tion of nullity to an indefinite and irremediable
extent.
" And who can undertake to pronounce that,
during that long period usually designated as the
7G END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
darh ages, no such taint ever was introduced ?
Irregularities could not have been wholly ex¬
cluded, without a perpetual miracle; and that no
such miraculous interference existed, we have
even historical proof. Amidst the numerous cor¬
ruptions of doctrihe and of practice, and gross su¬
perstitions, that crept in during those ages, we
find recorded descriptions, not only of the pro-
foundest ignorance and profligacy of life, of many
of the clergy,' hut also of the greatest .irregulari¬
ties 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 and profligate laymen,
and habitual drunkards, 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 ivith
history, can feel a certainty, or any approach to
certainty, amidst all this confusion and corrup¬
tion, that every requisite form was, in every
instance, strictly adhered to' by men, many of
them openly profane, secular, and unrestrained
by public opinion, through the gross ignorance of
the population among which they lived; and that
END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 77
no one, under sucli circumstances, not duly conse¬
crated or ordained, was admitted to sacred offices.
" Now let any one proceed on the hypothesis
that there are, suppose hut a hundred links con¬
necting any particular minister with the apostles,
and.let him even suppose that not above half of
this number pass through such periods as admit
of any possible irregularity, and then, placing at
the lowest estimate the probability of defectiveness
in respect of each of the remaining fifty, taken
separately, let him- consider what amount of pro¬
bability will result from the multiplying of the
whole together. Supposing it to be one hundred
to one, in each separate ease, in favor of the legi¬
timacy and regularity of the transmission, and the
links to amount to fifty, (or any other number,)
the probability of the unbroken continuity of the
whole chain must be computed as ninety-nine one-
hundredths of ninety-nine one-hundredth,s of
ninety-nine one-hundredths, etc., the end of the
whole fifty.
" The ultimate consequences must be that any
one who sincerely believes that his right to the
benefits of the gospel covenants depends on his
own minister's claim to the sacramental virtue of
ordination, and this again, as above described,
must be involved m PROPORTION as he reads, in-
7*
78 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
quires, and reflects and reasons on the subject,
in the MOST DISTRESSING DOUBT AND PER¬
PLEXITY."
The very learned historian, Mr. Macaulay, in
his letter to Mr, Gladstone, writes as follows:
" The. transmission.of orders from the apdstles
to an English clergyman of the present day, must
have been through a very great number of inter¬
mediate persons. Now, it is probable that no
clergyman in the Church of England can trace up
his spiritual genealogy from bishop to bishop,
even so far baclt as the time of the Reformation.
There remains fifteen or sixteen hundred years,
during which the history of the transmission of
his orders is buried in utter darkness; and
whether he be a priest by succession from the
apostles, depends on the question whether, during
that long period, some thousands of events took
place, any one of which may, without any gross
improbability, be supposed not to have taken
place. We have not a tittle of evidence to any
one of these events. We do not even know the
names or countries of the men to whom it was
taken for granted that these events happened.
We do not know whether the spiritual ancestors
of any of our contemporaries were Spanish or Ar¬
menian, Arian or Orthodox. In the utter absence
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. ,79
of all particular, evidence, we are surely entitled
to require tliat there should be very, strong evi¬
dence, indeed, that the strictest regularity was
observed in every generation, and that episcopal
functions were. exercised by none who were not
bishops by succession from the apostles. But we
have no such evidence. In the first; place, we
have not full and accurate information touching
-the policy of the Church during the century that
followed the persecution of Nero. That during
this period, the overseers of all the little Chris¬
tian societies, scattered through the Itoman em¬
pire, held their spiritual authority by virtue of
holy orders derived from the apostles, cannot be
proved by contemporary testimony, nor by any
testimony which can be regarded as decisive.
The question, whether the primitive ecclesiastical
constitution bore a greater resemblance to the
Anglican or to the Calvinistic model, has been
fiercely disputed. It is a question on which men
of eminent parts, learning and piety, have differ¬
ed, and do to this day differ very widely. It is a
question on which at least a full half of the ability-
and erudition of Protestant ^Europe has, ever since
the Keformation, been opposed to the Anglican
pretensions.
" It is surely impolitic to rest the doctrines of
80 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
the English Church on a historical theory, which
to ninety-nine Protestants out of a hundred, would
seem much more questionable than any of those
doctrines. Nor is this all. Extreme obscurity
overhangs the history of the middle ages, and the
facts which are discernible through that obscurity
prove that the Church was exceedingly ill-regu¬
lated. We read of the sees of the highest dig¬
nity openly sold: transferred backwards and for¬
wards by popular tumult: bestowed sometimes by
a profligate woman on her paramour: sometimes
by a warlike baron on a kinsman, still a stripling.
We read of bishops of ten years old : of bishops
five years old : of many popes who were mere
boys, and who rivalled the frantic dissoluteness
of Caligula : nay, of a female pope. And though
this last story, once believed throughout Europe,
has been disproved by the strict researches of
modern criticism, the most discerning of those
who reject it have admitted that it is not intrin¬
sically improbable. In our own island, it was the
complaint of Alfred that not a single priest, south
of the Thames, and very few on the north, could
read either Latin or English. And this illiterate
clergy exercised their ministry amidst a rude and
half heathen population, in which Danish pirates
END OF THE At*OSTOLIO SUCCESSION. 81
unchristened, or christened by the hundred on a
field of battle, were mingled with a Saxon pea¬
santry scarcely better instructed in religion. The
state of Ireland was still worse. ' In all Ireland
there is a total dissolution of all ecclesiastical dis¬
cipline. The most cruel barbarities are every¬
where practiced under the name of religion,' are
the expressions of St. Bernard. We are, there¬
fore, at a loss to conceive how any clergyman can
feel confident that his orders have come down
correctly. Whether he be really a successor of
the apostles, depends on an immense number of
such contingencies as these. Whether, under
King Ethelwolf, a stupid priest might not, while
baptizing several scores of Danish prisoners, who
had just made their option between the font and
the gallows, inadvertently have omitted to perform
the rite on one of these graceless proselytes?
Whether, in the seventh century, an impostor who
had never received consecration, might not have
passed himself off as a bishop, on a rude tribe of
Scots,? Whether a lad of twelve did really, by a
ceremony huddled over when he was too drunk to
know what he was about, convey the episcopal
character to a lad of ten ?"
82 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
A DROWNING MAN WILL CATCH AT A STRAW.
Another reason you give why we ought to pre¬
sume the Apostolic Succession to have descended
with unerring certainty is, that we have the same
proof of certainty in this case as in the correct¬
ness of the present version of the Scriptures.
They are both proved, you argue, in the same
way. The Church carefully attended, all along
down, to the many copyings, translations, and re-
printings of the Bible, and, depending upon this
correctness, we receive our present Bibles as cor¬
rect; and we ought, therefore, to do the same
thing in the case of the successive ordination of
bishops.
I am amazed! and am liable to forget whether
I am debating with gentlemen of talent and learn¬
ing, or with whom.
Do Biblical critics depend upon the hundreds
of intermediate copyings of the Bible for proof of
the correctness of the present one ? Is it not
rather well known by every body, that many of
these intermediate copyings, and translations, and
reprintings, until very recently, were wofully in¬
correct and unreliable ?
No, sirs! In testing the correctness of the
present copy, they pass over the scores of inter-
END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 83
mediate ones, and compare the present with ac¬
knowledged manuscripts now in existence, which
were in existence not long after the, days of the
apostles. And these copies are tested chiefly by
their agreement with each other.
Verily, if we had to depend upon the safe¬
keeping of the Church, through the middle ages,
for the correctness of the present Bible, I would
reject it to-day for want of authenticity, and so
would you.
Your very long argument, then, it seems to me,
gentlemen, on this point, amounts to far less than
nothing; for, to my mind, it proves something as
to the condition of your resources.
A TRIP-HAMMER.
I wish now to call your attention to an argu¬
ment on the general subject in hand, which has,
most probably, not heretofore met your attention.
1. The doctrine of Apostolic Succession, as you
set it forth, and as we all understand it, is claim¬
ed to be a vital or fundamental doctrine of Chris¬
tianity. In its absence there cannot be a Christian
Church nor a Christian ministry. It is, you say,
the law of Grod upon which both the Church and
ministry are founded.
2. It is presumed to be admitted by all ortho-
84 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION,
dox Christians, that an association'of men claim¬
ing to he a Christian Church, must set forth in
their creed, or articles of religion, all the acknow¬
ledged vital or fundamental ^doctrines of Christi¬
anity. For example, a Church would be spurious
and fatally defective, if it did not set forth as a'
tenet, the doctrine of a belief in Jesus Christ as
our Saviour, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the
being of one only true God, Christian baptism, a
Christian ministry, -and all other Christian doc¬
trines which are confessedly vital or fundamental
in their character. ,
3. Now, the doctrine of Apostolic Succession,
as above, is' not the doctrine of any Christian
Church. It never was the doctrine 6f any Chris¬
tian Church. It never was, so I think, adopted
as a tenet, by any council, or congress, or assem¬
bly of men claiming to be, or to represent, a
Christian Church. . The doctrine is affirmed and
held by Mr. Yerger and by Mr. Smedes, and by
many other very worthy Christians; but it is not
the doctrine of .your Church, or of mine, or any
other.
4. The conclusion follows—to sustain your po¬
sition—that there is not a Christian Church on the
face of the earth!
I have called this argument—though a very
END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 85
short- one—a trip-hammer, for the mere sake of
distinction. A name, jou know, is mere fancy.
Eat in my humble judgment you will find some
signific-ancy iu it before you frame a satisfactory
refutation of what is set forth under it.
I hope, however, that in any reply you may see
proper to make to this particular argument, should
yo'u deem it worthy of reply, you will not under¬
take to argue as to what may or may not be, or
chance to be, the practice or the custom of your
Church, generally or otherwise, either at the pre¬
sent age or any other. I am speaking of the
doctrines of a Church. These are written in her
articles of religion.
So far as the custom of churches relates to
this particular point, they all occupy the same
ground.
If any should suppose that in the above state¬
ment I ought to except the Roman Catholic
Church, as a " succession" Church, I have only
to say, that the belief of Romanists is a very dif¬
ferent thing from the doctrine of high-church¬
men. They hold that the only true ministry lies
in a succession of ordinations in the Church of
Rome exclusively; and that the right to ordain
lies, only in the pope. High-churchmen hold,
that the right to ordain inheres in any bishops
86 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
succeeding in an u unbroken line" from any one
of the apostolic churches.
This argument, however, is about Christian
Churches—not about Popery. I do not regard
the Institution of Popery as a Christian Church,
though I have no doubt there are very many pious'
Christians in it. Though still I am bound to say,
that their proofs of " succession" are very much
stronger than those of high-churchmen ; for they
have not the scenes of the Reformation to pass
through. If therefore " succession" be the main
and vital thing, I would go at once to Popery for
it, without stopping at any half-way house.
MY " LITTLE BOOK."
The " Letters to Bishop Green" have been sub¬
ject, so far as the Herald is concerned, to a sin¬
gular fortune. The book is represented to have
been all answered—arguments all refuted. You
have not, as I recollect, stated this in terms, but
your readers so understand from what you have
repeatedly stated.
Now, this is not quite fair play, in my estima¬
tion. That the book is easily answered and may
be easily refuted, is not for me to deny; but that
its arguments—whatever of argument it may
chance to possess, if indeed it has any—have not
end op the apostolic succession. 87
been alluded to, or brought forward in the Her¬
ald, is well known to those who have seen both.
Your readers are, I think, misinformed.
And then, what is. a hundred-fold worse than
all this, not many weeks ago you published in the
Herald that a book called " Pamphlets for the
People, by a Presbyter of Mississippi," had
made its appearance, in which my Letters were
answered. I had already seen this volume of
" Pamphlets," and felt ashamed that I had been
the occasion of bringing forth such a mass of non¬
sense. It is the softest, silliest printed thing I
ever saw. The writer—if it had a writer—knows
not either what to write or how to write. He
knows nothing of the argument, or scarcely what
it relates to. His total misrepresentations of my
arguments in the Letters, are evidently the result
of ignorance, not of design. He quotes, or ap¬
pears to quote from me on almost every-page,
things I never wrote; evidently, however, from
sheer ignorance. He does not know the use
writers make of inverted commas—thinks they are
a sort of embellishment,, and uses them here and
there as such. As to what is written or how it
is written, no matter, so that the ink and paper
are slung together in some way, and that my
88 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
name is frequently interspersed in the tame,
proseless, rhymeless jumble.
An advertisement in the Herald, says, the
" Pamphlets" are "entertaining." Verily they
are, and I recommend them as such, to those
young persons who may he fond of a style of ec¬
clesiastical romance heretofore unknown to litera¬
ture.
Although they have the ambitious title, " For
the People" yet the people in this quarter have
not been able to get sight of one, except the one
I received by mail, until I was obliged myself, at
my own expense, to send to Vicksbui'g for a do¬
zen copies to lend to our friends in Yazoo City.
Its friends, if it has any, appear quite ashamed
of it.
I am not complaining of you, gentlemen, for
what this juvenile "Presbyter," who is so pre¬
maturely "out," has tried to write; but for pub¬
lishing my name in connection with such an un¬
timely effusion of an ill-regulated school-house.
Who this so-called " Presbyter" may chance to
be, I have no sort of knowledge; and I assure
you, that in this case, my ignorance affords me
considerable consolation.
I forbear to mortify you further about this
END OF THE AtOSTOLIO SUCCESSION. 89
tiling, and will desist. I have not, myself, read
the book, however, although I thus write of it.
I have only read a few of the first chapters, and
a few scattering paragraphs. But this well qua¬
lifies me, I think, td recommend it as above. I
hope the "few copies" on hand may soon find
sale, the stock be replenished, and so on.
The work may.be hacl- at the " Church Book
Depository," Yicksburg, kt the wery low price of
20 cents the single copy—16! cents by the dozen.
In conclusion, gentlemen, I will only remark,
that this much of a reply to your argument in the
Herald, with which my* name is connected, has
been called forth by communications from several
quarters, causing me to believe that the position
I chance to occupy, unsought for and very unex¬
pected ,to myself, however, makes it my duty, in
justice to the Baptist, Presbyterian and Method¬
ist churches around us, to defend them, as far as I
may, against this aggressive notion of high-church
prelacy, the divine government of bishops, and
consequent displacement of the plain, simple
Bible Christianity of the land and of the age.
I am, gentlemen, in the bonds of Christianity,
in the mild folds of its peaceful behests,
Your sincere brother and friend,
E. ABBEY.
8*
90 end op the apostolic succession.
CHAPTER IV.
the herald and mr. abbey.
This gentleman, who writes "little books,"
and long newspaper tirades, bas been amusing
himself, and perhaps some others, with various
published letters aud handbills, in which he seeks
to convey the impression that the editors of the
Herald commenced a debate with him, and find¬
ing him too powerful an adversary, suddenly shut
the door in his face, and refused to give him the
poor privilege of the last word.* The history of
the whole matter is this : Bishop Green published
a sermon, to which Mr. Abbey wrote a reply, and
the late Mr. Patterson, when an editor or the
Herald, reviewed it in our columns, and showed
that it was marked by the following character¬
istics :
1. Inconclusive reasonings.
* i merely stated the fact, without attempting to
give a reason. I always understood that i was ex¬
cluded because i was ignorant, unteachable, and did
not know how to write.
END OF THE APOSTOLIO SUCCESSION. 9X
2. Inaccurate statements of facts.
3. Quotations shockingly garbled.
Those who knew Mr. Patterson, will not re¬
quire our statement to believe that he made these
charges good. Mr. Abbey soon after published a
letter full of untruths from beginning to end in
relation to the writer of this review of his book,
and the circumstances under which it was written,
• 4 \
stating that the bishop had called a conclave of
his clergy and chief laymen on the subject, etc.,
etc., statements not only untrue, but without the
semblance of truth or shadow of foundation, and
concluded his letter with a request that the Her¬
ald would copy it. Unfortunately it did so, and
allowed itself not only to correct the false state¬
ments of facts referred to, but also to point out
the errors of his argument and his book In
doing this the editors misconceived one of his posi¬
tions, and gave place to a letter from him correct¬
ing this misconception. Presuming on this com¬
plaisance of ours, he immediately sent us letter
upon letter, seeking apparently to provoke, or drag,
or wheedle'us into a controversy with him. We
had not read a single letter before we were con¬
vinced that a more ignorant as well as a more un¬
scrupulous pretender to theological knowledge
rarely ever put pen to paper. We saw at once that
92 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
it would never do to allow such gross misstatements
of history and of fact to disgrace, our columns,
and we accordingly, in a short article, declined
very decidedly to allow him any space there. Ou,r
readers will probably femember that, in doing so,
we gave as one reason',' his unscrupulousness in
assertion, and his carelessness as! to his facts \ and
as a sample of many, we pointed out his reckless
assertion that thpre were original'copies of the
Bible novo extant, which were in existence and
acknowledged by all Christians about the time of
the apostleS, and not denied by infidels ! What
made ,this assertion worse was, that it was made
to meet and ,deny an argument put forth collate¬
rally by the Herald. Soon after this, we find
Methodist and other papers containing articles
written by him, full of misstatements and perver¬
sions •, and we have recently received a handbill
signed by him, addressed to the editors of the
Herald, written in electioneering style, and con¬
taining all those bad characteristics of his letters
to us, which made us summarily reject them.
Any one who has read the handbill to which we
refer, will readily perceive why no such writer or
debater could find any access, or finding it, could
retain any place in our paper.
We will content ourselves simply with exposing
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 93
its misstatements, and we wilt select but. a few
particulars out of the many with which the hand¬
bill abounds.
1. And first, in his comments on the quota¬
tions from Jerome, in relation to the equality of
bishop and presbyter, he says : " The superiority
of the bishop over other presbyters was this : he
was ' one chosen from the presbyters' to preside
over them. And this was not done by Divine
command, as must have been the "case according
to your (our) theory. It was a late thing in the
days of Jerome, and was done to put away the
seeds of schism in the Church, an ecclesiastical
and not a Divine arrangement." We fear that
the want of knowledge contained in the assertion
that this " was a late ■ thing in the days of Je¬
rome," was hardly accidental. It looks too much
like a wilful misstatement not to excite, the
strongest suspicion of its being so; for, in the
first place, the words of Jerome, which he had
before him, state that the thing was done in the
time of the apostles, when, as at Corinth, each
claimed those baptized by him as his, and not as
Christ's; and as Jerome wrote at the end of the
fourth and beginning of the fifth century, it could
not be, by possibility, a late thing in his day, but
94 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
was then nearly four hundred years old.* But, in
the second place : It is a "notorious historical fact
that the rank of bishops in the second and third
centuries was universally established all over the
world over those of presbyter and deacon.- Seve¬
ral general councils had been held before Jerome
wrote: the council at Nice, in the year of our
Lord 325, before he was born, and bishops from
the remote ends of the world, even from Britain,
attended.it. Not to have known this universal
and unquestioned state of the case is to evince
an ignorance on Mr. Abbey's part, that utterly
disqualifies him for discussion upon the subject,
while to have known it, and yet to have made the
statement we have quoted from him, would dis¬
play such a want of integrity as would put him
out of the pale of respectable controversy.
2V Mr. Abbey, in his book, to prove the
equality of presbyter and bishop, quotes Ignatius
as saying : " The presbyters preside in the place
'of the council of the apostles." We informed
* This point is surely not vitally important; hut it is
not true that Jerome locates his remarks in the time
of the apostles: he says it was " afterwards." Let the
reader turn back and see. He will see Jerome, quoted
by the editors themselves, on page 47.
END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 95
him that this was an error, that the whole, passage
read thus : " Your bishops presiding in the place
of God, and your presbyters in the place of the
council of the apostles; and your deacons, most
dear to me, being entrusted with the ministry of
Jesus Christ/' etc. We had supposed this false
quotation was the result of adopting it at second
hand, and we pointed it out, therefore, without
Severity of comment. In his handbill he justifies
it, and says he " quotes from Ignatius precisely
as every one else does." If this last statement he
false, it is without excuse, for it has been made
after the error has been distinctly pointed out to
him. If the writings of Ignatius were lost, or
were not in every theological student's library, we
could see some reason why an unscrupulous writer
might venture such an assertion as Mr. Abbey
has made, but in the face of the explicit text of
Ignatius, we wonder at his hardihood and pre¬
sumption, to use no harsher terms. If any one
doubt our positive statement, that Mr. Abbey has
grossly misquoted Ignatius, and that we have
given his precise language, let him refer to his
Epistle to the Magnesians, 2d chap. 5th verse,
(Archbishop Wake's translation, ed. 1834, Hart¬
ford, p. 126,) and he will see it exactly as we have
quoted it. A writer who, to sustain an argument,
96 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
misquotes an ancient author, is hardly to he trust¬
ed for his carelessness; hut one who persists iu
the misquotation when the error is pointed out
and the means of verification are at hand, shows
that he is entirely unworthy of credit. He who
will not, or cannot, instruct himself, is unfit to
enlighten others.
3. The admission that there is no list of suc¬
cessive ordinations to Episcopal office, by which
is meant no list reaching from the present back
to apdstolic days, which shows that bishops or¬
dained each bishop in the list, fills Mr. Abbey
with wonder, and falls he thinks with crushing
effect on the ears and hopes of high-churchmen.
His amazement is only proof of his entire want
of knowledge on the subject. No churchman,
high or low, ever asserted the existence of such a
list. He says the production of such a list is
essential to Apostolic Succession, and constitutes
it; ^.nd the admission of its non-existence is des¬
tructive to the theory. Once more he is " speak¬
ing ignorantly of things he knows not of." We
did not hesitate at once to declare that there was
no such list: we went further, and said that he,
as well as ourselves, knew that no one ever pre¬
tended that such a list existed. A statement
which we again repeat, and yet in this handbill
END OJF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 97
he has the boldness to say that high-churchmen
never heard of it before, and that he presumes
it was never made before. Now if any body ever
said there was such a list, why does he not men¬
tion the person's name ? and if no body ever said
so, why does he, in the face of our positive de¬
nial, assert that it has been contended for, and
that when he exposed its non-existence he over¬
threw Episcopacy! We are more amused than
disgusted, we confess to an admixture of both
feelings, at the display of such vanity and pre¬
sumption. The truth is, we have now precisely
the same proof in behalf of the continued ex¬
istence of Episcopacy in an unbroken line of
bishops, that we would have were there an ex¬
press command of Christ himself fully recorded
in the Testament, that the ministerial orders
should be three, of which that of bishop should
be chief, that of presbyter should be second, and
that of deacon last; and that these orders should
continue in the Church to the end of time. We
have precisely the same proof for the continuance
unbroken of the order of bishops, that can be
found to establish the continuance of any or¬
dained priesthood in the Church from the apos¬
tolic days. We have endeavored to explain this
proof and show its nature. It has nothing to do
9
98 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
■with lists of bishops. It exists wholly independ¬
ent of them. It depends on th^ notorious and
indisputable fact in the history of the Church that
bishops alone ordained, not only to the bishopric
but to the priesthood. No instance is on record:
Gibbon in all his researches to overthrow Chris¬
tianity was never able to detect the semblance of
one, wherein any but a bishop ordained a fellow
bishop. This to all minds capable of appreciat¬
ing a logical argument is conclusive on the point.
4. But Mr. Abbey says that Roman Catholics
hold " that the only true ministry lies in a suc¬
cession of ordinations in the Church of Rome ex¬
clusively; and that the right to ordain lies only
in the pope !" There are, we trust, few Protest¬
ants of ordinary information who do not know
better, and who are not perfectly aware that the
pope, though he has the right to ordain, rarely
ever exercises it; but that the power of ordina¬
tion exists in all Romish bishops.
5. He says that the Romish proofs of " suc¬
cession are very much stronger than those of
high-churchmen, for they have not the scenes of
the Reformation to pass through !" and he adds,
therefore, if succession were a vital thing he
would go at once to Popery for it. Any ordinary
reader of history knows that the scenes of the Re-
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 99
formation did not in tlie least degree affect tlie
question of succession. Not a link was lost, nor
did any one before ever pretend one was lost dur¬
ing tbe scenes of the Reformation or sinee. The
name of every bishop and archbishop in England
since the time of Henry VIII., is as well pre¬
served as those of her successive kings. Does
Mr. Abbey confound the " scenes of the Refor¬
mation" with those dreadful " dark ages," which
were only here and there illumined with a fitful
gleam of history ? or what profounder ignorance
is here covered up ? In this " lowest deep" is
there " a lower deep still opening wide ?"
It is unnecessary for us to continue this subject
further. It is sufficient for us to say, in conclu¬
sion, that we saw first from the book of Mr. Ab¬
bey that he was ignorant and vain, and from his
letters that he was unscrupulous as a writer; and
for these reasons we determined to close our col¬
umns against him. We did not apprehend any
danger to the cause of truth either from his so-
called arguments, or his indifference to history
and facts, but we felt that we had no right to cir¬
culate poison even though the antidote accom¬
panied it. A bold enunciation of what is untrue
sometimes with the unsuspecting and the igno¬
rant is received as true. To insert in our paper
100 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
on one page what we should he compelled to pro¬
nounce false on the next, would have tended hut
little to the edification of our readers, and we
chose not to do it. The main reason, therefore,
why we peremptorily and in language as explicit
as we here use, refused to allow Mr. Abbey to
occupy more space in our paper is the same one
which will prevent us hereafter from taking fur¬
ther notice of him in our columns; and that is,
that he has not the requisite knowledge to state
the facts according to the truth • nor the candor
to admit and correct his error when distinctly
pointed out to him. A person who lacks both a
knowledge of his subject and the quality of fair
dealing in the management of it, we considered
an unfit disputant.
end oe the apostolic succession. 101
CHAPTER V.
communication of r. abbey.
To William C. Smedes, Esq.,
Editor, etc.—Dear Sir : In replying to your
argument in the Herald of 21st April, which
closes this debate on that side, it is, perhaps, pro¬
per I should address myself to you individually j
because I was informed by Mr. Yerger that he
had no hand in its production.
I am sorry, my dear Sir, to see you close this
debate, which certainly has been heretofore man¬
aged with uncommon ability on your part, in such
an uncomely temper. You are rampant, restive,
overbearing and dogmatical, to an extent that
shows that arguments have utterly failed you. I
regret that you were not • able to maintain a more
steady nerve, to keep up a more grave and sober
air, and to close in an attitude which would evince
more of the heroism of composure and good order,
To close well, and retire in good grace, sets off a
debate wonderfully.
9*
102 END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
I regret to see the apgry countenance and fret¬
ful tone you spread over this last letter of yours,
because it is my intention to publish the whole
correspondence; and with a better graced closing
letter from my opponents, I could make a better
book.
But still, if our readers should find ..fault with .
your lack of argument, and redundancy of dog¬
matism and fault-finding, let them remember
,that very few of them would have done any bet¬
ter. ■ Indeed, all things considered, it appears to
me you have done remarkably well. Let them
consider the logical difficulties into which your
subject Compelled you to wander—let them re¬
member the inconsistencies and contradictions
you were compelled to try to unravel, and they
will, in justice, attach all the blame, as I do, to
the cause, and not to the man. Failure should
much oftener be attributed to the'client and his
cause, than to the feebleness or incompetency of
the advocate.
But notwithstanding all,these considerations,
which cause me to make many excuses for the
apparent awkwardness evipced in your 'closing
effort, still I must not forget the claims and inte¬
rests of my own client. If my feelings lead me
to draw a veil of sympathy and condolence over
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 103
the frailties of our common nature, on the one
hand, justice sternly demands that the truth shall
he vindicated on the other.
So, if you please, I will proceed at once, with
as much brevity as I can command, to explain, in
regard to your closing speech, a few things you
have said, and then, secondly, a few things you
have omitted to say. And, first, of your
SIDE ARGUMENTS.
Your first argument is, that the late Rev. Mr.
Patterson said of my letters to Bishop Green, thus
and so. And, " Those who knew Mr. Patterson,
will not require our statement to believe that he
made those charges good."
My dear Sir, I must have a living opponent, if
any; and, furthermore, I greatly prefer that he
would stand out independently, and assume the
responsibility of his own arguments, and not at¬
tempt to shelter himself behind the arguments
and character of the departed.
The lamented Mr. Patterson is no more of
earth ; and I regret that you have found it neces¬
sary to summon his memory forward on this oc¬
casion. I have no objection to your calling to
your aid any living man; but I cannot controvert
with the recent dead.
104 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
Your next argument is, that "a more ignorant
as well as a more unscrupulous pretender to theo¬
logical knowledge, rarely ever put pen to paper,"
than myself, with several other such like declara¬
tions.
This is what I believe you lawyers call an ar¬
gument ad hominem; that is, an argument
directed against the 'person of your opponent,
rather than against his argument. It is gene¬
rally, I believe, resorted to when the stock of
logical reasoning is found to be exhausted. It is
never very difficult, you know, to say something
about a man, though it may not always be so
easy to write about his arguments.
I believe, upon mature reflection, I must de-
decline to debate with you the question of my
"ignorance;" at least, until we dispose of tlAt
of the Apostolic Succession. Because: 1. I lack
the skill, as well as the wisdom, to debate two
questions at once. 2. I presume the public have
but the veriest homoeopathic interest in the ques¬
tion of the extent of my knowledge. 8. Such a
debate might appear a little egotistical on my part.
And, 4. I am not so sure but, after all, there may
be considerably more of truth than poetry in your
allegation. I must be excused. I hope you will
not press the question.
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 105
And as to my vanity, which you also charge as
an additional argument in favor of Succession—
alas 1 for poor human nature—few men in this
fallen world of ours are very good judges of their
own vanity. I am not sure that, with a clear
conscience, I can say very much in my own favor
about this, either. Perhaps you and I had as
well let the question pass, with as few words as
possible.
But what about "Apostolic Succession" all this
while ? That is the question our friends expect
us to discuss. Now, it seems to me that if you
could prove that your feeble opponent was wrap¬
ped up in "ignorance," and swallowed up of
"vanity," that would not necessarily prove the
truth of Apostolic Succession. You might prove
the one, and he unable to prove the other.
Besides your exposure of my " ignorance" and
"vanity," which quite likely ought to cause pro¬
found humility on my part, you say several other
things in this last letter of yours, which I must
proceed to notice.
You complain, first, very loudly of my "un-
scrupulousness" in asserting that "episcopacy
was a late thing in the days of Jerome." You
insist that that must mean that episcopacy com¬
menced as late as the period in which Jerome
106 END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
wrote, whereas I think it might be allowed to
refer to any then late period, so that it was later
than the days of the apostles. Moreover, I said
nothing myself as to the lateness of the appear¬
ance of episcopacy. I only reminded you of what
Jerome's statements were on the subject. But I
fear you may have to complain still louder; for,
before I close, I expect to show, or, at least, to
state, that what you call " episcopacy" was a late
thing in the days of the first James of England.
Next, my " unscrupulousness" is, in your view,
established by a false quotation from Ignatius. I
have compared your quotation, as you requested,
with Wake's translation, and find it, as I sup¬
posed, exactly correct. It is just as correct as my
quotation is, to which you object, and no more so,
though it is more full. The whole paragraph,
however, or any section of it, is of almost no sort
of importance in this argument.
But it is, perhaps, necessary I should remind
you that the most recent researches of critics have
shown it exceedingly probable, if not certain, that
this whole epistle of Ignatius is fabulous. True
or false, however, have it which way you like, it
amounts to almost nothing in this argument.
Passing, for the moment, over your third sec¬
tion, your fourth refers to the right to ordain in
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 107
the Romish Church. This is also an outside and
irrelevant matter which has nothing to do with
the question we are engaged in. You do not,
however, deny what I stated, and I have only to
repeat it,—that in this establishment the right to
ordain inheres in the pope. How often he exer¬
cises this right, is another question; and also
whether his bishops have " power" to ordain, de¬
rived from the pope, is another matter.
SUCCESSION IN AND SINCE THE REFORMATION.
Your fifth proposition refers to the passing of
the succession through the scenes of the Reform¬
ation. You say:
"Not a link was lost, nor did any one before
ever pretend one was lost, during the scenes of
the Reformation or since."
I cannot account for the use of such language
by a man of learning, especially one who dis¬
courses so fluently about " unscrupulousness" in
debate. It is quite true that this point is not of
vital importance to the argument before us, espe¬
cially in the mode I am endeavoring to conduct
one side of it; but it is simply notorious that the
question, whether the true succession did, or did
not, pass from the Romish to the Anglican
Church through the scenes of the Reformation,
108 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
is, and lias ever been, the great, long debated,
and still unsettled dispute between High Church¬
men and Romanists. Every body knows this.
Whether the licentiousness of Henry YIII., in
his determination to get rid of his wife and marry
Anne Boleyn, a much younger and a much pret¬
tier woman, and his long quarrel with the pope,
because he would not divorce -him, and which
licentiousness, and beauty, and quarrel resulted in
the formation of the English Church establish¬
ment : whether these things, I say, with subse¬
quent kindred events, did or did not bring down
the succession of ordinations from the old Romish
to the new English Church, is a question not just
here very prominently in issue) but that it is a
contested question, upon which many volumes
have been written, and which are to be found in
every man's library, is a simple, well known fact,
never before questioned. I regret that you have
so far lost your self-possession as to deny it. Well,
Sir, the statement is yours: you must take care of it.
You say, "Not a link was lost, nor did any one
ever pretend one was lost, during the scenes of
the Reformation, or since." ts it possible you
could have supposed that this letter was not to be
replied to ?—that assertions so perfectly reckless
and extravagant were to go unanswered ?
END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 109
You had at that moment before you an extract
from Mr. Macaulay, the celebrated English his¬
torian, in which he says the succession cannot be
traced back to the Reformation ; and in which he
goes on to explain the moral impossibility of such
a thing.
You had also before you an extract from Arch¬
bishop Whately, one of the most learned and
pious bishops that ever adorned the Church of
England, and certainly, in letters, erudition and
logic, at the present time, the head of the clergy
in that Church, in which he takes the same
ground.
Dr. Brown, in his debate with Dr. Pusey, takes
the same ground, and enumerates many breaks
and difficulties in the English Church. Mr.
Powell, Dr. Bangs, and in truth all the writers on
the subject, do the same thing. I do not recollect
to have read a work of any size on either side of
the controversy, that does not debate the question,
pro and con, of succession in the English Church
since and in the time of the Reformation.
Bishop Hopkins has just issued from the press
two volumes, 400 pages each, in controversy with
Bishop Kenrick, on this very question, viz: the
passing of the succession into the English Church
through the scenes of the Reformation.
10
110 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
Bishop Kenrick's work of 340 pages is an able
argument against the probability that the English
Church received episcopal orders from the-Romish
bishops.
The principal question at this particular point
is in regard to the ordination of Archbishop Bar¬
ker, whether he was or was not duly ordained by
a bishop in regular orders,
Cardinal Pole, you know, was the last Romish
bishop in the Church in England, and he was
succeeded in the see of Canterbury by Parker,
who was the first regular Protestant bishop in the
English Church proper. The question of the
ordination of Parker forms a long and difficult
discussion. It is claimed that he was ordained
by Bishop Barlow,. assisted by Bishops John
Scory, Miles Coverdale, and John Hodgkins, under
a commission from Queen Elizabeth, in September
or December, 1559. Several different commis-
■ sions seem to have been issued. Cardinal Pole
died in November, 1558, and in July following
movements were made in the English court for
filling the vacant see, and Parker was said to have
been ordained at the church in Lambeth either
before or after the debate of some of the commis¬
sioners. There is much discrepancy and perplexity
with regard to dates respecting this transaction.
END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. Ill
The registry of the ordination, it is said, lacks'
several things necessary to give it authenticity.
The'legality of the ordinal of Edward VI., under
which the ordination is claimed to have been
made, is seriously called in question.
But a greater difficulty still with these disput¬
ants is, that Barlow, the consecrator, was not him¬
self ordained a bishop. And this point seems
wellnigh given up by some of those holding the
Anglican pretensions f -and in reply they contend
that valid orders'in Barlow were not indispensable,
as one or more of the assistants had valid orders.
And here is another long debate. No record of
Barlow's ordination has ever been found. But it
is held that he acted as bishop under Henry VIII.
and Edward, and that Cranmer's register was
carelessly kept, and the entry may have been
omitted, etc.
The Ordinal of Edward VI., which was said to
have been used, and was used, if any was, in the
ordination of Parker, was solemnly declared by
the queen and parliament, in the reign of Mary,
to be null and void. And it must be remembered
that the Church was a part of the parliament.
And again comes the famous and long debate
respecting the Nag's-ffead ordination of Parker.
In Cheapside, in London, was a tavern with the
112 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
' sign of a Nag's-Head, as it was called. I suppose
it was a picture or painting of a horse's head.
Few horses' heads have ever become so famous in
ecclesiastical history.
At this tavern the chief clergy of London,
with Parker among them, had a dinner and offi¬
cial meeting of some sort, at that time, which in
those days was a thing not at all uncommon, or
improper either, so far as I see, and it is asserted
that here Parker was ordained.
Why there has been so much noise about this
matter, and why the Nag's-Head ordination has
been so furiously denied, I have not been able to
learn. I do not know why one place is not as
good as another for the transmission of the mys¬
terious sacramental virtue by ordination.
The Nag's-Head story says that Parker was or¬
dained by Scory, one of the persons named in the
queen's commission. If Scory was a bishop, ca¬
pable of assisting Barlow to ordain the archbishop
at Lambeth, might he not, in case of emergency,
perform the ceremony himself at Nag's-Head?
This is a question in Nag's-Head theology that so
ignorant a person as myself could not he expect¬
ed to answer. Sure it is, however, that the Pu-
seyite doctrine, both of England and America, is
ENI> OE' THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 113
well settled and abundantly preached, that a Nag's-
Head ordination is no ordination at all.
To this almost endless controversy respecting
the ordination of Archbishop Parker, the first in¬
cumbent of Canterbury in the . English Church
under Protestantism, there are three parties. 1.
The Roman Catholics, who contend that he was
not ordained by a bishop legally, and was therefore
not ordained at all. 2. The churchmen' of' the
Puseyite school, who contend that he was. And,
3. The more moderate Christians, who acknow¬
ledge the question to'be unproved and doubtful,
and who believe it to be unimportant.
Some historic facts are pretty certain. It is
acknowledged on all hands that there was a so-
called Reformation in the Church, in Europe, in
the sixteenth century. And it, is also believed
that the descent c>f what is called episcopal orders,
from the old Romish to the Reformed English
Church, in the reign of Elizabeth, was seriously
questioned. The denial of either of which facts,
or some others that might be named, would not,
in the eyes of most men, set off the historic grace¬
fulness of a learned editor to much advantage.
And yet, with these facts staring you in the
face^-faets well known to all half-read men—to
10*
114 END OP THE APbSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
say nothing of men of reading, you have the
coolness to publish that the question was never
raised until J raised it!
Moreover, Bishop Burnet expressly holds that
ordination at all, is not absolutely necessary to
the administration of the sacraments, the preach¬
ing of the word, the proper government of the
Church, or the ordaining of ministers, in such
places and under such circumstances as will not
admit of regular ordination. He holds that in
such cases lay ordination is justifiable and proper.
Bishop Bancroft himself, when asked "how
Parker and his colleagues were consecrated bish¬
ops," Replied, "I hope in case of necessity a priest
may otdain bishops.'' Hollywood says this reply
was evidently intended for Scory, the eonsecrator
at Nag's-Head.
Bishop Tillotson—who by the way was never
ordained a deacon, and of whose baptism there is
no evidence—"that great prelate," as Bishop
Burnet calls him, carefully examined and affirm¬
ed this doctrine; as did also Bishop Stillingflect.
The doctrine was also affirmed by the bishops of
Duresme, St. Davids, and Westminster, and by
Drs. Tresham, Cox, Leighton, Crawford, Sym-
mons, Bedmayn, and Robertson. Tbis doctrine
was affirmed too,- not merely hypothetically, but
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 115
in reference to eases then before tbe Church. See)
Burnet's Collection of Records, part I., book iii.,'
No. 21.
And yet you say I am tbe first to question tbe
succession of ordinations in tbe English Church!
It was also declared by both houses of parlia-l
ment in 1543, that priests and bishops are, by
God's law/ one and the same ; and that the powers
of ordination and excommunication belong equals
ly to both.
Archbishop Usher replied to Charles I., in an¬
swer to the royal inquiry, that presbyters did or¬
dain.
Bishop Stillingfleet says : " It is acknowledged
by the stoutest champions of episcopacy, before
those late unhappy divisions, that ordination per¬
formed by presbyters, in case of necessity, are
valid."
Bishop Forbes says : " Presbyters have by di¬
vine right the power of ordaining as well as. of
preaphiug and baptizing."
Lord High Chancellor King says : "As for or¬
dinations, I find clearer proofs of presbyters or¬
daining than of their administering the Lord's
Supper."
These things show conclusively, that the Eng¬
lish Church since the Reformation, did not uni-
116 END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
formly pretend to endeavor to confine ordinations
to bishops absolutely, much less to preserve a
succession of ordinations in bishops as the vitality
of the Church.
And yet, with these facts before you—or which
ought to, have been before you—you publish in a
newspaper that I am the first to question the cer¬
tainty of succession in bishops during and since
the Reformation !
I am utterly unable to account for such un¬
bridled extravagance. Utter recklessness in the
expiring throes of desperation could not have done
more. And so I lay the thing down there, unac¬
counted for. You and your friends must take
care of it.
Moreover, I do not understand you. Your
language is not capable of being understood, when
you at one time say that the historic succession
of personal ordinations in the English Church,
from bishop to bishop, is " conclusive to all minds
Capable of appreciating a logical argument;" and
when you, yourself, are at the same time inca¬
pable, by your own admissions, of producing any
kind of history, reliable or doubtful, which ex¬
hibits the ordinations in succession !
These things are palpably contradictory.
You say : " The name of every bishop and
END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 117
archbishop in -England, since the time of Henry
VIII.; is as well preserved as those of her suc¬
cessive kings."
Apart from the reckless extravagance of that
statement, it has nothing to do with the question
in issue. Suppose we had uthe names" of every
man, woman, and child who had lived in Eng¬
land, in that time, with equal or much greater
certainty, what information would that furnish
respecting the ordination in succession, of her
bishops, in that time ? Manifestly none.
" The name of every bishop and archbishop"
is, if made out correctly, a correct list of names.
But that is not what we are talking about. We
are talking about the ordination of bishops in an
unbroken chain, or list.
You may. torture the language, as you seem to
have done yourself, into the most fretful impa¬
tience, and you cannot make.it meaU that bishops
who are successive incumbents in office are also
necessarily, for that reason, successive ordain'erSi.
For there is no relation between the two circum¬
stances. Prove that these successive bishops
were successive ordainers"—that they ordained
each other in succession, and then, and not till
then, have you proved something pertinent to the
argument.
118 "end of the apostolic succession.
This point is made clear, and cannot be further
mystified.
You say, " Gibbon, in all his researches to
overthrow Christianity, was never able to detect
the semblance of a breach in the chain of suc¬
cession."
I am - not aware that Gibbon ever wrote on
the subject of the Apostolic Succession. Nor do
I hesitate to hazard what little reputation for
reading I may chance to have, by saying thus
publicly, that I do not believe he ever did. Gib¬
bon, so far as my knowledge of that celebrated
and learned writer goes, wrote on the subject of,
and against Christianity—against Christ and his
apostles, and their religion, not against the doc¬
trine of a succession of ordinations in the min¬
istry, emanating from them.
fraudulent attempts to prove succession
historically.
The third division of your argument, which I
passed by a few minutes ago, is the only part of
it which has any thing very material to do with
the question we are debating. Here we have a
vital point. It relates to the simple fact, whether
there is, or is not, a succession of ordinations.
And on this point I have not much difficulty, for
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 119
you plainly and in terms admit all I claim. You
admit that " there is no list of successive ordina¬
tions." And you contend that " no churchmen,
high or low, ever asserted the existence of such a
list."
Very .well, then, if so, they never "asserted"
the Apostolic Succession. For what is the one,
contradistinguished fropl the other? Can you
conceive of a succession of ordinations, in bish¬
ops, in the absence of successive bishops, through
whom the line of ordinations descended ? But
let us see what high-churchmen have sometimes
" asserted" on this point.
The Herald of 29th July, 1858, says:—
" Bishop Grreen decides two important points in
his sermon, namely, that there is an unbroken
succession of ordinations from one ordained person
to another, since the time of the apostles," etc.
Now, to„my mind, here appears to be a palpa¬
ble contradiction.
Herald of 29th July. Herald of 2%st April.
" THERE IS AN UNBROK- " THERE IS NO LIST OF
EN SUCCESSION OF ORDINA- SUCCESSIVE ORDINATIONS."
TIONS."
And yet you make the assertion that "no
churchman, high or low, ever asserted the exist-
120 END OE THE ArOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
ence of sucli a list," in the face, not only of your
own columns, but of quotations I brought for
ward, the correctness of which you do not pretend
to question, from Bishop Green, Bishop Otey,
several times repeated, Dr. Wilson, Dr. Henshaw,
Bishop White, the official tracts of your Church,
Dr. Hook, Dr. Wainwright, Mr. Chapin, and
many others that might be named.
These, and all other High Churchmen, claim,
distinctly and in terms, a succession of ordina¬
tions, and to have a list of the names of bishops,
showing the links of the chain.
Bishop Wainwright (Debate with Dr. Potts, p.
86) says:—" A duly ordained minister of this
very day may as certainly trace the commission
under which he ministers, up to the apostles, as
he can the Gospel of St. Matthew, in which the
original commission is now read in English."
Now, I ask you how does Bishop Wainwright
mean to say the minister can so " trace" his com¬
mission ? Is there any other way, in the nature
of things, in which this can be done, than by
stepping back historically from his own ordainer
to his ordainer, and so on, from bishop to bishop,
through the chain of ordinations back to an
apostle ? Of course there is no other way.
The proposition means this, or it means no-
end of the apostolic succession. 121
thing. The " Apostolical Succession" means
this, or it means nothing. There cannot be two
opinions as to Bishop Wainwright's meaning, for
his language is as clear as language can he made.
After several pages of argument, bearing directly
on the point of the historic proof of a continuous
chain of successive bishops who were successive
ordainers, he gives the proof in the form of a list
of ordinations naming each bishop in the chain,
as follows, viz.:—
" The Succession of the Protestant Episcopal
Church in the United States.
" St. John ordained Polycarp, apostle, or
bishop, or angel of the Church at Smyrna, who
ordained Irenaeus, bishop of the Church at
Lyons in France. The succession then is as
follows :
St. John,
Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna,
1. Irenaeus,
2. Pothenius,
3. Zacharias,"
and so on, thirty-one names, in the see of Lyons j
and then on down through the see of Canterbury,
in all 121 bishops, to Bishop Chase, of Phila¬
delphia.
This list of bishops is thus referred to in the
11
122 end of the apostolic succession.
index: "Names of 121 bishops in regular suc¬
cession from the Apostle John, through the
Greek Church, etc., down to the Bishop of
Illinois."
Bishop Wainwright is well known to be the
leader of High Church divines in America.
Now, I examined this list, and find that it can¬
not possibly pertain to a succession of ordinations;
that they could not have been the ordainers of
each other in the order in which they stand in
the list, for the reason, among other reasons, that,
in most cases, the old bishop was dead before his
successor was ordained at all. This fact is so no¬
torious, and so susceptible of demonstration from
history, that you cannot, and therefore do not,
deny it. This " list" is therefore put in here for
some othqr purpose than to prove any thing about
successive ordinations. It is copied into almost
all your publications on this subject, but for what
purpose, I am unable to say.
" The hold impostor
Looks not more silly when the cheat's found out."
So, when I expose this list as a fraud, when¬
ever it is attempted to be made to speak about
ordinations, and when I show that, whether his¬
torically correct or not, as a list of bishops, it is
END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 123
not pretended, nor can it be pretended, that they
were the ordainers of each other in succession,
but were, if " successors" at all, merely successors
to each other in the office of bishop—that it can¬
not be pretended they ordained each other, except
possibly the two first, and the two or three last—
when I show palpably that this list of bishops
cannot be a list of ordinations, for that the pre¬
decessor was, in most instances, dead before the
successor was ordained at all—when I thus ex¬
pose your «list" as nothing pertaining to this
question, you face about instanter, or rather, after
two weeks' meditation, and coolly tell us that you
never pretended to have any " list of ordinations !"
You tell us : "We did not hesitate at once to
declare that there was no such list. We went
further, and said that he, as well as ourselves,
knew that no one ever pretended that such a list
existed."
(I always italicize your language, when I quote
it, exactly as you do.)
The Rev. Dr. Butler, of Washington city, one
of your leading ministers, in his discourses against
prelacy, in speaking of the "fact" of Succession,
page 30, says : " An attempt has also been made
from history to make out tables of unbroken suc¬
cession in different national Churches."
124 END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
Does this mean something, or does it mean no¬
thing ? I presume the impossibility of these
tables proving any thing about a succession of or¬
dinations, independent of their historic correct¬
ness or incorrectness as lists of successive bishops,
did not occur to him, as it has not, evidently, oc¬
curred to the minds of thousands upon whom you
have imposed, through their instrumentality.
■ Well, Sir, what I here write demonstrates sev¬
eral things which no man can question. Let any
man try it, if merely for his own amusement:
1. All your writers claipi to have a historic list
of ordinations from the apostles down.
2. The supposition that they do not, abrogates
the notion that they hold to a succession of ordi¬
nations. For they cannot affirm and deny the
same thing at the same time.
3. These pretended " lists" are put forth igno-
rantly or fraudulently ; for they have no relation
to a succession of ordinations.
4. I examine these "lists," and find myself
under no necessity whatever to inquire into their
historic correctness; for they do not,
"When the cheat's found out,"
relate to the question of ordinations at all.
5. In the face of that which is as notorious as
END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 125
that Vicksburg is a town, you positively clcny
that any one ever pretended to have such a list!
6. You say "there is no list of ordinations."
7. Then you repudiate the doctrine of Apos¬
tolic Succession, as a fact; for no fact can he said
to be true without some proof to support it.
Whether these lists are or are not historically
correct is another question. If correct, then the
bishops named in them were successively incum¬
bents in office, for that is all the lists purport to
show.
It would, however, he very easy to prove from
the best history extant that these lists of bishops,
in early ages at least, is mere guess-work. Every
standard historian, from Eusebius down, who
speaks of them, says they are quite uncertain.
Mosheim says the lists of bishops in any of the
important sees cannot be ascertained. The lists
themselves do not agree. High-churchmen them¬
selves do not pretend to have them Certainly right.
High-church writers frequently call upon others
to " show some break in the chain of succession."
And this I acknowledge is a puzzling proposition.
Show a " break" in what u chain ?" You and
I both say there is no chain of ordinations. And
I think myself it would be difficult to show a
break in a chain that does not exist!
11*
126 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
Was ever any thing so superabundantly ridicu¬
lous ? Was ever absurdity so manifestly absurd !
Verily we "can't show a break in the chain!"
In what chain? Ob, "there is no chain;" but
" you can't show a break in it!"
And grown-up men have attempted thus to de¬
bate with each other! Logic must go to the lu¬
natic asylum! and common sense must he the
king's fool! "Can't show a break;" when you
not only can't show a chain to he broken, hut say
expressly there is none !
It is no difficult thing to show irregular ordina¬
tions. I have done this, I thought, to the satis¬
faction of any one in the "Letters" to Bishop
G-reen, as well as in this argument. But to the
impossibility of showing a broken place in a chain,
when ho chain exists, I am ready to confess.
The plain simple truth is, Mr. Srnedes—and
that truth must and will be known and appre¬
ciated—no argument was ever made, good or
bad, or .attempted to be made, in support of the
doctrine of Apostolical Succession, on points di¬
rectly in i$sue. I declare most solemnly—and I
here publish my declaration to the world—that
after having examined such authority as I have
been able to see—after having read what I believe
to be some of the ablest arguments, in relation to
END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 127
the subject, that high-churchmen have published
in this country or in England, I have never seen
an attempt to make an argument relevant ^o the
points in issue, in favor of the high-church doc¬
trine of Apostolic Succession. I do not believe
such an argument was ever made, or attempted to
be made.
At the same time that I say this, I am ready to
say, that I have read some of the ablest argu¬
ments I ever read, by high-churchmen, with no
lack of talent, learning, or genius, in relation to
the subject. But invariably they miss the point
in controversy—invariably they are irrelevant to
the issue. Come to the point, and no argument
can be made.
The way they do mostly, is to ai-gue about'
Church government, and hold that originally it
was, in form, episcopal. But this manifestly does
not touch the question of Apostolic Succession.
Eor it might be true that the first Church govern¬
ment was in form episcopal, and yet episcopacy
be necessary only to the perfection, but not to the
being of a Church.
It is well known to have been the doctrine of
such venerable names as Bishop Hall, Bishop
Downham, Bishop Bancroft, Bishop Andrews,
Archbishop Usher, Bishop Forbes, Archbishop
128 END'OP the Apostolic succession.
Wake, Bishop Hoadley, the learned Chilling-
worth, and many others, that episcopacy, the doc¬
trine they espoused, was the most proper form of
Church government, necessary to the perfection,
but not to the being of a Church. Hence they
admitted the validity of presbyterial government,
but held it a disadvantage in that particular.
Another opinion, varying a little from this, was
known to prevail very extensively in the English
ChurcU, from its organization, viz.: that the ques¬
tion of episcopal or presbyterial government is
one of. simple human expediency; but episco¬
pacy was held to be the most expedient. This
opinion was sustained by such men as Archbish¬
ops Cranmer, Grrindal, Whitgift, Leighton, and
Phillips, Bishops Jewell, Beynolds, Burnet, and
Croft, and by Drs. Whitaker, Stillingfleet, and
almost all the early Church of England divines.
The Church of England, in most of its exist¬
ence, has acted upon this doctrine. No man can
deny these facts;,for they stand out upon the
pages of the Church's history, at a time when the
Church has a well known written history.
And again, even if episcopacy were necessary
to the existence of a Church, the Apostolic Suc¬
cession does not follow; for still there might be
an inherent right in the Church, secured by the
END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 129
Bible, of practical protest against tbe authority
of tbe ministry, in tbe event they departed from
tbe Bible and teach contrary to its teachings.
This is the doctrine of Protestantism, and Pro¬
testantism may be a true doctrine.
So it avails nothing to prove, even if it could
be proved, that episcopacy was the earliest form
of Church government, unless you can at the
same time prove two other things, viz. : that
episcopacy is absolutely necessary to the being of
a Church; and, secondly, that Protestantism is
heresy.
Dr. Butler, late of Washington city, now of
Cincinnati, one of the most eminent ministers of
your Church, has lately written a very able, and
I think, so far as succession is concerned, an un¬
answerable argument, on this point. He takes
ground in favor of episcopacy, but against suc¬
cession and the exclusive claims of episcopacy to
be the Church.
But for the talent and acknowledged standing
and learning of my opponents in this debate, and
the high respect I have for them personally, as
well as for many other pious and estimable high- •
churchmen, I never would have attempted gravely
to debate with you on this subject.. No, Sir, not
I! But for these reason, I never, would have
130 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
sat down gravely and seriously to write arguments
about tbis thing. '
But in lieu thereof, I would have .thrown the
whole subject into a vortex of ridicule ; and satire
and irony, at your expense, in exposition of your
fallacies, should have superseded their necessity.
I wrote a series of Letters to Bishop Green, on
Apostolic Succession, in opposition to his pub¬
lished sermon on that subject; and for some
months past have been engaged in debate with
the editors of the Herald, on the same question.
In all this argument I have endeavored to prove
that", there was no list of successive ordinations
from the apostles down. This is all I have as¬
serted or attempted to prove, except that the ge¬
nius and laws of Christianity did not require such
a succession. This is all there is to attempt to
prove in the premises. These two points cover
the whole ground of debate on this subject.
Now, if I have procured the admission that
" There is no list of successive ordinations
then I have accomplished exactly all I .undertook.
Nay, more; fori did not undertake to procure
the admission, in terms. I only undertook to
demonstrate the position.
On this point in your last article, you remark
as follows ; " It"—the succession—" has nothing
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. • 131
to do with the list of bishops." Then what did
the succession pass through ? If it did not pass
through the hands or heads of living bishops, what
did it pass through? And did not these several
bishops form a list or successive chain of bishops ?
Again you say : " It depends on the notorious
and indisputable fact in the history of the Church,
that bishops alone ordained, not only to the
bishopric, but to the priesthood."
That kind of an argument cannot be received
from a lawyer. It is, as I have heretofore ex¬
plained, a mere simple, barefaced, begging of the
question. I cannot permit you to assume the
very point in controversy. Your statement is
purely this, and nothing more.
" Bishops alone ordained." This you affirm,
and I deny. And you prove it, by asserting—
"Bishops alone ordained." That is not argu¬
ment. Whether bishops alone did or did not
ordain, in an unbroken chain of succession, is
the question in issue. And to say, "Bishops
alone ordained," is not, according to my logic, the
production of testimony on the issue. Mere
words huddled together, with apparent emphasis
and dispatch, do not prove a proposition.
If you can prove what you have stated—that
the succession " has nothing to do with lists of
132 END OF THE -APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
bishops,"—rthat is, that the naked succession—
the essence itself, abstractly, can pass down
through the almanacs, without having any thing
to do with bishops, th,en you can perhaps prove
the succession without producing the list or suc¬
cession of bishops forming the chain; but not
otherwise. Your argument on this point, I am
compelled to say, is no argument at all. Twist
it any way you please—take it any end foremost
you please—and it comes out the same way every
time. If you can prove a succession of ordina¬
tions in bishops, without submitting proof that
bishops successively ordained, then you can anni¬
hilate, in the human mind, the present stock of
logic and reason on hand, and go free.
GROSS UNFAIRNESS EXPOSED.
Again, you say: " Now if any body ever said
there was such a list why does he not mention
the person's name? And if nobody ever said so,
why does he, in the face of our positive -denial,
assert that it has been contended for ?" etc.
I am quite at a loss to account for the use of
such language by a gentleman who holds himself
responsible for what he writes, and who is respon¬
sible. The letter to which you are now replying
contains almost a newspaper column of quotations
end of the apostolic succession. 133
from high-church authors, of the highest repute,
on this very point I It cites book and page, chap¬
ter and verse, from Bishop Green, Bishop Otey,
Mr. Wilson, Dr. Henshaw, Bishop White, Bishop
Wainwright, the official tracts of your Church,
Dr. Hook and Mr. Chapin. Why, Sir, what am
I to think ? Am I to be brow-beaten on a noon-
day-open question of facts ? You deny what is
printed plainly before your face !
No, Sir. I must expose you. And I do now
thus expose you ! Let the reader turn back, if
he pleases, to my letter published at Yazoo City,
April 14, and look under the head of " Historic
Argument/' on page 56, and commence reading
at this paragraph :—
" But let us see what your writers "say about a
list of successive ordinations."
And then read the quotations which, follow,
from the above-named authors. And then let the
reader be astonished to read from Mr. Smedes, in
reply to that very letter :—" Now if any body
ever said there was such a list, why does he not
mention the person's name?"
You may trifle with your readers/Mr. Smedes,
and amuse them in any way you please, but I
prefer not to be trifled with.
' I have made quotations, citing book and page,
12
134 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
from ten of your leading authors—and could easily
do so from twice ten more—showing where they
distinctly claim a list of bishops through whom
the succession, as they say, descended. I quote
their language—nearly a newspaper column in
length. And then, in reply to that letter, }rou
must not ask me publicly, why I do not mention
the names of the persons who have thus spoken,
and still insist that no high-church writers ever
made such a claim. I cannot allow this.
Your positive denial" that high-church writers
have so stated and claimed, I am forced to say, is
in the face and eyes of notorious fact, palpably
proved; and that proof was before you, in the
very letter you were answering, when you made
the " positive denial!" I am therefore forced to
say, that your so-called arguments are simply ab¬
surd ; yea, and a little more.
I do not for a moment question your veracity:
no man can do that. But if in writing that re¬
ply you worked yourself into a fever, so that you
could not, or did not, see the contents of the let¬
ter you were answering, I prefer that the respon¬
sibility rest on yourself, rather than on me.
Moreover, that a list of bishops, through whom
the succession is said to descend, is a cardinal
doctrine of the Oxford Tracts, is a simple fact
end oe the apostolic succession. 135
well known to all men who have read those
writings.
Those " lists op bishops" are now exposed as.
a braud. The editors of the Herald acknow¬
ledge it, and so give up all that I have ever con¬
tended for.
You trace the succession with undoubted cor¬
rectness from Bishop Green to Archbishop John
Moore of Canterbury, thus : " he was consecrated
by Bishop Otey; he by Bishop White; he by the
archbishop of Canterbury," and then you say,
" and he through a succession of bishops, as we
proved, back to Augustin; • and from Augustin,
by a succession of bishops of Lyons and Aries, to
the apostles."
Again, you say you traced the succession back
to John Moore—" from whom we trace the suc¬
cession back to the apostles."
Such language as this is beyond the pale of ex¬
cuse. It is beyond endurance. It is a plain open
attack upon common sense.
You certainly prove historically, a succession
of ordinations back to Bishop Moore, because you
produce the list of names of bishops who were
the ordainers of each other. But do you do this
—do you attempt it—beyond Bishop Moore?
Certainly not. Beyond this point you " traced"
1B6 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. »
the succession by presenting a list of bishops
whom you do not pretend were the ordainers of
each other ! So, this is no tracing of ordinations
at all!
I am out of all patience with such miserable
attempts to palm off so transparent a fraud. I
protest in the solemnity of all fairness and truth
that it is disgraceful to the logic of a school boy!
FALLACY UNCOVERED.
You cannot possibly be correct in saying that,
the succession " depends on the notorious, and in¬
disputable fact in the history of the Church that
bishops alone ordained," because that is the very
" fact," and the only essential fact in issue.
My dear Sir, this is not the way to dispose of a
fact which is in controversy. ! To say that "bish¬
ops alone ordained," in all time past, uniformly,
is the same thing precisely as to say there is a
list of successive ordinations continually since the
apostles. To reassert the very question in issue,
in phraseology a little modified, is neither argu¬
ment, testimony, or good logic.
If none but what you call " bishops" ever or¬
dained, then the question . is closed; for then
every ordination in a line or list back, was made
from bishop to bishop, in a connected li'st, and
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 137
that is succession. Then you have a perfect " list
of ordinations."
But this fact is disputed, and has been debated
more or less in the Church for the last two hun¬
dred years. Many volumes have been written on
both sides of this controversy, hearing directly on
this fact. And now you cannot he permitted to
say that it is " notorious and indisputable," and
thus try to get rid of the issue.
This is disgraceful t— logically disgraceful, I
mean. You evidently wrote that paragraph in
too much haste and excitement to understand its
meaning.
I suppose I need' hardly explain to a lawyer,
that a fact in issue requires testimony in order to
its proof, and that reassertion does not furnish it.
Neither does it better the case in the least to ex¬
claim that the fact is "notorious." .For this is
notoriously and logically false. Neither does the
epithet " indisputable" benefit the case in the
least j for this is indisputably erroneous.
The only testimony which is attempted to be
adduced in the previous article on this point, to
which you refer, to sustain the fact alleged, that
bishops only ordained, is that the canons of the
Church required it
Let me call your attention particularly to this
12*
188 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
point, for it is vitally important. Turn back to
your previous argument on the subject—" The
Succession, etc., historically proved/'—and let
any man examine. I repeat—the only testi¬
mony attempted to be adduced is the law of the
Church.
Now, this history, supposing it to be good, does
not purport 'to state as to how ordinations icere
made ; it says nothing on that point. It only, if
true, tells what the Church law was on the sub¬
ject. In inquiring then, into the fact, as to how
ordinations were, without exception, made, which
is the point in issue, the question, arises—was the
law invariably and without an exception complied
with ? On this point you offer no testimony.
From the law of the Church, supposing it to
be as you state, we can only infer the invariable
correctness of ordinations by bishops from the
infallibility of the Church. This most clearly is
all we have to rely upon.
If the Church was infallible then her law was
certainly infallibly complied with. But if the
Church was not. infallible, then we require some
proof of the fact in question. Your witness, viz.
—the supposed law of the Church, does not tes¬
tify on the question in issue. We inquire how
ordinations were invariably made; and the reply
END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 139
informs us what the'law of the Church was.
That is not an answer to the question.
On this latter point however—the law of the
Church—it is proper for me to remark, that the
Church has no such history as that to which you
refer. It is, beyond all question,i perfectly safe,
to assert that there never was printed, a hook,
claiming' to he Church history, which set forth
that continually, all the while, in every part of the
Church, there was an existing law prescribing how
or by whom ordinations should be made.
I have previously explained, and you do not
pretend to question the fact—I am sure no man
will—that for long periods, several centuries at a
time, through what historians call " the dark
ages," we have preserved ^nd handed down to us
scarcely a gleam—scarcely a scrap, of writing,
either reliable or doubtful, as to what the Church
was doing.
And moreover, the history of the world does
not present in any portion of it, scenes of more
hideous, shameless, unbridled corruption, moral
putridity, and popular wickedness, and disregard
of all, laws, human and divine, than is shown of
the Church) during long periods of time, by such
scraps of her history aS have come down to us.
The laws of the Church, indeed ! They were, for
140 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION:
centuries at a time, about as much regarded as were
the laws of decency and of the decalogue, in the
numerous, well-known scenes of bloodshed, trea¬
chery, simony, concubinage, rapine, and revolu¬
tion, which were open, notorious and common, in
and among the highest and lowest functionaries
of the Church in those disgraceful and benighted
ages.
And still further, your history is exceedingly
defective from the consideration that it never was
the imperative law of the Church, in amy part of
it, that bishops alone must ordain. The canons
to which you allude, making it the duty of bish¬
ops to ordain, always admitted, according to the
construction put upon them by the highest au¬
thority, that ordinatioqs might be otherwise made,
in cases where the services of a bishop could noi
be had.
This point is beyond all question, particularly
in the English Church. It was never denied un¬
til the days of the greatest bigot and the greatest
tyrant that ever ruled the see of Canterbury, viz.,
Bishop Laud.
Bishop White, who with great propriety might
be styled the father of the Protestant Episcopal
Church in this country, urges this ground directly
and with all his power. It is well known that it
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 141
was exceedingly difficult, and for a time impos¬
sible to procure tbe ordination of a bisbop for the
American Churcb. In tbis exigency Bisbop
White, witb all bis talents and influence, urged
tbe establisbment of a Church in tbis country
upon tbe basis of presbyterial ordination. And
be declared tbat the great body of Episcopalians,
and tbe standard authorities of the English
Church recognized such ordinations in such cases.
Nor is there a doubt but tbe American branch of
tbe English Church would have been so establish¬
ed, had not Canterbury immediately yielded to the
determinations of Dr. White, and .given him the
ordination of a bishop.
Bishop White remained of this opinion until
his death. In his memoirs published a short time
before his death, he says, page 90, that his pam¬
phlet published fifty-three years before, in which
these views were expressed, was examined by the
bishop of York and approved. Nor does he know
of any English bishops who did disapprove them.
See Bangs' Prim. Ch. page 83.
So. that even the Church of England never pre¬
tended to ordain invariably by bishops. The
duty was regularly assigned to bishops, I admit,-
in the English Church; but when such services
142 END OP TILE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
could not be bad, it was done otherwise, and re¬
garded as legal.
And yet, with these facts full in view, we are
told by a logician and a scholar, by a lawyer and
a Christian, that the law of the Church is testi¬
mony conclusive and " indisputable" in favor of
the absolute certainty of ordinatians by bishops
in every age, and in every part of the Church, in
all the eighteen hundred and fifty years last past!
You tell us this in the face of the logical demon¬
stration that the testimony you adduced, even if
it were good, does not relate to the issue, except
upon supposition of the Church's infallibility,
which you deny! And at the same time you tell
us, in terms, that there is no list of ordinations !
Why, Sir, what are we to think ? The state¬
ment of such apparently shameless disregard of
all reasoning—such open violations of all rules
that ever debate was supposed to have—should be
studded around with a hundred exclamation
points !
I certainly, Sir, feel humiliated that I am com¬
pelled to repeat, over and over and over again, in
every possible form of argument, the demonstra¬
tions of your fallacy. I certainly would not do
so but for the high and honorable character and
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 143
name of my distinguished opponents. It is really
surprising to see how long men will cling to a
favorite and cherished fallacy, when the very
shadow of the shade of its prototype is gone, and
nothing is left but the mere abstract fallacy it¬
self !
Keally, Sir, I almost fear I am making a poor
argument from the consideration that I have no¬
thing that I can feel, to make head against. But
since I am in it I believe I will finish it. The
debate shall end with these pages.
QUESTION IN DEBATE RE-STATED.
The only question we have in debate—I must
again remind you, is that of the Apostolic Suc¬
cession. You may say a great many things about
Mr. Abbey, and they may be all true: a great
deal more than you say may be true. Tie may
be very ignorant—very vain—very haughty, in
presuming to debate theological questions with
the learned editors of the Herald. To prove
any thing or every thing about him, personally,
is, however, to write on a subject which is of very
little interest to the public, and is to prove no¬
thing, if my logic be correct, about Apostolic
Succession.
I am not now debating with you about the age,
144 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
stature, talents, learning, or moral character, either
of Mr. Yerger, Mr. Smedes, or Mr. Abbey. So
far as the latter is concerned, while I am engaged
in this debate, and most likely ever afterwards, lie
must take care of himself as best he may, without
any assistance from the writer.
The question of Apostolic Succession naturally
divides itself into two parts. First—Does the law
of Christianity require a connected chain of or¬
dinations in bishops — rulers of pastors and
churches—in order to the existence of a gospel
ministry ? And second—Have we the proof that
such a chain, or succession of ordinations, has
actually been preserved ?
The former is the theoretical, and the latter the
practical aspect of the question.
Now, if the former be true, and the latter un¬
true, then it follows necessarily, that a gospel
ministry does not now exist in the world. That
is, it is not known to exist. This ground, I sup¬
pose, is not assumed by any one. Certainly it is
not, either by you or myself. Then the only
Question that is debatable, is the latter—Is there
a chain of ordinations f
Now, what is the way and the only way in
which history can prove this fact ? Does history
prove that there was an unbroken chain of kings
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 145
in England, from William tlie Conqueror to Henry
the Second? Yes. How? Simply by the pro¬
duction of the names of William Rufus, Henry
I., and Stephen, as the successors of the crown
from William to Henry II.
Is there any other way in which history can
prove that fact? That is the same kind of a ques¬
tion as to inquire, if a fact cap be stated without
stating the fact. Proof by history, is the state¬
ment of a fact by history.
JSTow, has history stated the fact of Apostolic
Succession ? The editors of the Herald say, it
has not. Very well. So I state. And there
this question ends, for both parties state the same
thing.
Here is this whole question brought to a point.
There is the focus; and there is the demon¬
stration !
The editors state, and I assent, that history does
not inform us that ordinations have come down
to us in an unbroken list or chain of bishops.
Very well, then, if this question never was
settled before, it is settled noyi'f at least, so far as
the editors of the Church Herald and myself are
concerned. And if any man thinks he can go
into the question and say less than Mr. Yerger and
Mr. Smedes have said—let him try it!
13
146 END OP THE ArOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
THE EARLIEST CANON IS PROOP POSITIVE
AGAINST SUCCESSION.
And let me remind you now, Mr. Smedes, of
another admission which the Herald made in Feb¬
ruary last, which is also clearly fatal to your
whole argument, and relinquishes all the ground
I ask for :
"'The' first and second of the apostolic canons,
adopted according to the best authority as early
as the year 200, are as follows.
" Canon 1; Let a bishop be ordained by two or'
three bishops."
Very well. This, if it be true, is all that is
contended for on the side of the question I am
trying to advocate. 1 have contended that bish¬
ops were made so, by the Church, and not by the
Almighty, This could not have been the pre¬
viously existing law of the Church, known at the
time—made so by Christ, if it was so "adopted,"
by a canon, A. D. 200; for the Saviour and all
the apostles were dead more than a hundred years
before- that time. So here again, the debate be¬
tween you and I ends—the question in issue
■ceases to exist.
High-churchmen contend that the right of or¬
dination in bishops is derived from divine law.
Other Christians contend that it is only an eccle--
end of the apostolic succession. 147
stasftral right—a right conferred upon them by
the Church. In this form also the whole ques¬
tion in issue is set forth. And now you say that
the Church conferred upon bishops the right to
ordain bishops, in the year 200. Very well: the
date is unimportant: we agree as to the fact.
There is then no issue between vs, respecting
Apostolic Succession.
You endeavored however, to throw some brush
and dry leaves over the mouth of^ this fatal pit,
in order that the hasty passer-by might not see
it, by stating that this canon only ''prescribed
the manner in which ordinations should be con¬
ducted."
But your great author on this subject, Perci-
val, does not place a Idaf in the way of this
utter destruction to the whole argument. He
merely informs us, on page 58 of his tract, that
this canon was adopted hi/ the Church in the year
200. Here he establishes the source of episco¬
pacy. There is a kind of emerald logic that
might make (the stream rise ahead of its source,
hut Mr. Percival is not from that quarter.
The answer to you, however, is this :—
1. The canon does not prescribe any manner
whatever in which ordinations shall be con¬
ducted. It only prescribes, or as you say, it
148 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
"adopted" that bishops shall Ordain bishops;
and the number ndcessary to officiate.
2. The law of God, which the succession doc¬
trine supposes to b^ in existence at that time, and
which it supposes prescribes that bishops alone
should ordain, either did, or did not, prescribe the
number of bishops necessary to convey the divine
unction. If this divine law did not prescribe_any
particular number, then one was as good as " two
or three," or forty; and for the Church to say
that it should require two or three, was to alter
the law of God.
3. If the divine law-did prescribe the number
—(I never saw it—never saw it quoted, and hence
do not know what it prescribes—it is not in the
Bible where I look for divine law)—but if it did,
or does, prescribe the number of bishops neces¬
sary to officiate, then the canon either altered or
reenacted a well known existing law of God;
either of which suppositions is simply absurd
and ridiculous, and we are then thrown back to
the position whence We started.
Then, if this canon proves any thing about the
duties of such Church officers as are now called
bishops, it proves that their right, as you call it, to
ordain, originated in the Church, after the Saviour
and his apostles had left it.
END OF THE ATOSTOLXC SUCCESSION. 149
I do not doubt that episcopacy—not, however,
the exclusive divine-right episcopacy which high-
churchmen contend for—but that episcopacy ex¬
isted in the Church as early as about the third
century, and that it was established in the Church,
as Jeronie states—as you quote him—for the more
wholesome government of the Church—to repress
dissension and schism. I think, however, that in
the year 200, the term bishop was still applied to.
the presbyter who was pastor of the Church or
congregation. This is, however, one of the ques¬
tions that cannot now be with certainty deter¬
mined.
But the cahon, viewed in any aspect, utterly,
abolishes the doctrine of Apostolic Succession.
Again: How long did the law requiring two
or three bishops to ordain continue in force ? Un¬
til you can show its repeal, you are bound to
prove, not only a succession' of ordinations, which
you say cannot be proved, but that each ordina¬
tion, in all the world, was performed by two or
three bishops.
For,.suppose a dozen or twenty, or even one,
informal ordination—with but one bishop, or in
any other way informal—took place- somewhere in
all the world, in, say the fifth, eighth, or tenth
century — the infection from this source alone,
13*
150 end qf the afostolic succession.
would most probably bave spread over tbe whole
world hundreds of years ago; and now it is clear¬
ly impossible for any minister to know whether he
is, or is not, in that spurious line. So that you
must not only produce- a list of successive ordina¬
tions,, which you sa|- does not exist, but a list of
successive ordination^ in which tvco or three bish¬
ops officiated.
You entangle yourself wonderfully at every
step. You now make it necessary for you to. per¬
form, not only what you say is impossible, but a
task tenfold more difficult!
succession inconsistent with protest¬
antism.
A man cannot without gross inconsistency be,
nt the same time, & Secessionist and a Protest¬
ant. I will make |his point clear, and place jt
beyond the reach df doubt, if you will give me
your attention a very few minutes.
'The" doctrine of * Succession affirms, that the
* 4 .
authority of a minister is derived only by unction,
or virtue, which descends to him; personally, from
the apostles, through a line, or list of successive
ordinations factually.
Now, what is' Protestantism ? It is the right
in Christians—in al) Christians—of practical pro-
END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. .151
test against the authority of the- Church, upon
the ground that the Church, in the teachings of
its ministry, has departed from .the Bible, and
teaches contrary to its teachings.
This ' right to protest against the Church, and
depart from her, arises from this simple consider¬
ation :• that it is the imperative and absolute duty
of Christians to obey Christ, as he has expressed
himself in the Bible* „Now, if the Church teaches
contrary to the Bible, the Christian must neces¬
sarily repudiate the one or "the other. And his
absolute duty to obey the Bible gives him' the
right of protest against the Church, and requires
him to repudiate her teachings in that event.
This was done by Luther and his associates at
the Reformation. A portion of the world which
was called Christian,protested against.the teach¬
ings and authority of the then existing organized
Church. Ministers and'people went out of, and
away from, the existing Church-^—repudiating her
authority and her teachings, and organized a new
Church—or, what is the same thing, continued a
reformed Church. And Protestants still continue
to so protest against both the authoHty and the
teachings of Rome.
Now, how could these protesting ministers go
off from the Church, repudiating her authority,
152 END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
and at tjhe same time continue to preach by or in
virtue of her authority ? This is a plain solecism.
The protesting ministers preached,, if they preach¬
ed at all, by authority derived otherwise than from
the. Church against whose authority" they pro¬
tested. They could not do' both. They could
not, 'at the same time, protest against and repu¬
diate the then existing Church's authority, and
also preach under and by virtue of Suqh author¬
ity. Those who do the latter do not protest, and
so are not Protestants.
An article which I recollect seeing in your
paper some short time ago, on " Where was the
Church of England before the Reformation ?"
seemed to put forth the strange doctrine that the
protesting ministers who went out of the Romish
Church* at the Reformation, carried with them
their-"ordqrs," but nothing else. That is, they
carried with them their authority to preach.
Then they did noCprotest against that authority
as thus exclusively exercised by the Church of
Rome.
But moreover, let us see -tfhat became of their
authority to preach—or orders—which, the Re¬
formers were supposed to have carried with them
from the Romish communion. They were nil ex¬
communicated I The same Church which con-
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 153
ferred the orders, took them away, every man of
them ! and left every man, so far as her authority
was concerned, not even a layman, but a heretic !
Where are the orders of a minister who is ex¬
communicated by the same Church which con¬
ferred them ? I do not, of course, question their
authority to preach and administer the sacra¬
ments, and be true ministers of Christ. I believe
that they had, and were all this, because I believe
in 'the doctrine of protest. But I ask where is
their transmitted authority through the succession
from former bishops ? Manifestly there is none.
You will not pretend that the same Church which
conferred the orders had not the-power to take
them away. Your Church excommunicated
Bishop Ives. You do not now recognize the va¬
lidity of his orders as conferred in the ordination
he received in the Protestant Episcopal Church.
The then existing Church—the Bomish Church
—excommunicated Luther and all the reformers.
Now certainly they were bereft of all transmitted
authority—that which they had received from and
through former bishops. And the only way they
could continue to exercise authority thus obtained
—that kind of authority, was to withdraw- the
protest, and come back under the wings of a pro¬
pitiated Church.
154 end of the apostolic succession.
This is the distinction, and the only essential
distinction between a Roman Catholic and a Pro¬
testant.
" The first ecclesiastical constitution produced
hy the' Reformation," says D'Aubigne, has the
following clause": " Let no one .believe that by a
bishop we understand any thing else than a simple
minister of the Word of God.",
.Other parts of the same thesis of the reformers
suppose a " bishop" to be the pastor of a single
Church which has a " weekly assembly." This
first declaration of the reformed Church was
adopted generally bythe reform6rs. See D'Au-
bigne's Hist, first 16 books, in 1 vol., page 439.
.The very " Protest" itself, from which Pro¬
testants take their.name, which was read before
the diet of Spire on the memorable 19th of April,
1529,'and which D'Aubigne, as well as the world,
declares " constitutes the very essence of Protest¬
antism," sets forth this same doctrine, and main¬
tains that the gospel is to be ministered in all
things according to its own writing, in contradis¬
tinction to the Romish, doctrine of transmitted
authority through the historic medium of the
Church. See D'Aubigne, page 451.
' The famous "Augsburg Confession," which is
generally reputed the Magna Charta -of the Re-
END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 155
formation, holds the same doctrine, and confines
the Christian ministry to the Word of God solely,
repudiating all supposed divine authority which
is furnished "merely by the Church, through its
channel of transmission.
Little as may have been thought of it by your¬
self or others, successionists or non-successionists,
if you will take the pains to look into the matter,
you will find that here lies the very point of dis¬
tinction between Protestantism and Romanism,
viz.: a ministry deriving its authority direct from
the written ward of God, recognized by the ordi¬
nation of the actually existing Church, on the
one hand; and a ministry deriving its authority
from a historic Church of past existence, through
the medium of transmission by the hands of
bishops, on the other. The one is Bible Chris¬
tianity—the other'is Church Christianity.
If authority to preach be derived through a suc¬
cession of episcopal ordinations, and in no other
way, then Luther and his associate reformers vio¬
lated the law of God, for they departed from
this authority and preached without it. And to
this day the whole of Protestantism preaches des¬
pite this authority, and in open violation of it.
Look at the facts.
Cardinal Pole, the last Romish archbishop in
150 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
the English Church, died the 17th November,
1558. lie was succeeded by the Protestant arch¬
bishop, Matthew Parker, in December of the next
year. Now' the whole of the English Church
afterwards, and its branch in America, hangs, ac¬
cording to the succession doctrine, on the validity
of the orders of Parker. Now, how did Parker
get his orders ? All disputes respecting his ordi-
dination and that of his ordainer are aside. I
take all that is claimed for him.
It is claimed that Parker was ordained on the
17th December, 1559, by Bishop Barlow. Now
had Barlow any transmits d authority to confer
these orders ? He certainly had not. I do not
say he had no authority : I say he had no trans¬
mitted authority, because that authority, suppos¬
ing him once to have had it, had been taken away
from him by the same power "which conferred it.
He and his associates, Parker and all, were ex¬
communicated long before this time. So that if
Barlow ordained Parker rightly, it was by some
authority other than that transmitted to him
through the Church by his ordination, supposing
him to have been duly ordained.
English orders then cannot rest on transmitted
authority by succession. It is absurd to suppose
that succession can pass over or through excom-
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 157
munication; for that supposes that the Church
has no authority; and then she can confer none.
What high-churchman would recognize orders
conferred notv by Ex-Bishop Ives ?
We must observe some consistency. We must
either embrace or repudiate the transmissive au¬
thority supposed to inhere in the Church. We
must be Protestants or Romanists. We must re-
f I
cognize or repudiate this transmitted authority.
We must adhere or protest.
And again : varying the view a little—it is im¬
possible for any Christian, claiming to be a Pro¬
testant, who understands the question well, to be
a successionist. For the doctrine utterly nullifies
Christianity, and is, in itself, clearly incompatible
with it.
The doctrine of succession asserts that author¬
ity from Christ comes down to ministers of the
present day, through the hands of bishops, in a
list of successive ordinations from hand to hand,
and in no other way.
And in opposition to this, Christianity teaches,
and the articles of religion of the Protestant Epis¬
copal Church teach, that the written Scriptures
are the only rule—that they contain every thing
essentially pertaining to Christianity.
Moreover, this authority supposed to be trans-
14
158 END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION,,
mitted, coming down traditionally through, a list
of bishops, will, or may, oftentimes, come in con¬
flict with 'the written authority iD the Scriptures,
Let me instance!
..Suppose some bishop, say Bishop Ives, before
he was excommunicated, or some vagrant Human¬
ist bishop, from some motive or other, was to or¬
dain to the episcopacy, Brigham Young^ the lieu¬
tenant-general of the Mormons. Brigham is now
a Christian bishop by authority of Christ, and.
Mormondom, by his ordinations and ministerial
authority/' is a Christian Church; although Brig-
hafli is an infidel; and has not the semblance of a
Christian in his licentious clan. *
Now, the written Scriptures, in every conceiv¬
able form- of expression, declare this cannot be.
It is absolutely forbidden. So here we have di¬
vine authority against divine authority; or, in
other words, we have tradition resulting in pre-,
posterous absurdity, against' the Scriptures of
truth. , 1
According to successionism, there may be a
Christian Church without'a Christian in it.
SUCCESSION, IP PROVED, AVAILS NOTHING.
And again, suppose you could prove the Apos¬
tolic Succession conclusively, what does the Apos-
END OE TEE-APO8T0LIC SUCCESSION.' 159
tolic Succession prove ? I'presume no. man will
question,that the orders of, the Church of England
and the Protestant Episcopal Church were de¬
rived, at least .chiefly, through' the Church of
Pome. Now, can the Apostolic Succession prove
anymore, supposing it to be true, for-the Epis¬
copal Church than it does for the Roman' Catho¬
lic ?
The thing itself is ' of course the same every¬
where. Its benefits—its protection against error,
is the same in your, Church as ii Rome, which is
confessedly—manifestly—none.
The ancient Arian churches' were episcopal, and.
had eertainly as good claims to succession as any
Church by. possibility cpul'd have, in that day j
and far better, than, any Church can, possibly claim
at the. present day'^for they existed many cen¬
turies nearer to the apostles. Was-the Succession
of any benefit to, them ? So far from it, the united
Voice of Christendom is, that they subverted the
gospel, and taught for truth the doctrines of devils.
I do not intimate that' their infidelity' was because
of .the doctrine of the succession. But it certain¬
ly was with "the succession, if they'had it.
Is the doctrine of succession of any advantage
to your Church ? I must, because it is appro¬
priate I should, appeal- to facts. And I will State
160 END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
those only which are as palpable as the light of
the sun. "The Protestant Episcopal Church where
these high notions are repudiated, is, all over the
country, a holy, religious Church ; and it compares
favorably with other churches in propagating
Christianity and doing good. But where these
notions prevail, it is a drooping, sickly, worldly-
minded concern. The stern mandates of truth
demand this declaration. In it we sometimes
find holy, pious people, but for the most part,
the Church as it is called, is made up of gay,
fashionable, dancing, horse-racing, theatre-going,
worldly people, who make no pretensions to reli¬
gion. \ ask any man to open his eyes and con¬
demn me if I am wrong in this declaration.
Moreover, you yourselves do not pretend that
succession is of any religious, advantage to any
persons. You admit the saving faith and solid
piety of those out of the succession. You claim
that succession establishes the validity of the
Church, but does not effect the piety of any one.
Well, Sir, I assure you I would much rather be
saved uncanonically than to be lost canonically,
irrespective of the Churches' validity or inva¬
lidity. '
I will embrace, to-day, high-church notions, as
high as any facts or truth will bear me, if you
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.. 161
will show me any advantage I will gain by it.
But in what little I have read on the subject, I
never yet heard it intimated by any one, that' the
doctrine, embraced or repudiated, was of any ad¬
vantage or disadvantage' to any one.
The succession, then, if it were true and proved,
promises you just as much protection against error,
and just as much spiritual help and guidance, as
it does Arians and Romanists, which is manifestly
nothing.
Where is the Greek Church to-day? You say
it' has, the Succession. And the united testimony
of Christendom is that it has no Christianity. Its
worship, is by -the<cannon's mouth on the,slaugh¬
ter-fields of Sevastopol.
POINTS CAREFULLY OMITTED.
And how, in'closing, allow me, if you please, to
remind you'of a few things you have in this ar-
gument.'omitted to say.
1. You have not, so far as I have seen, at¬
tempted to answer or to allude to any one of ten
or fifteen distinct Arguments in the Letters to
Bishop Green, •which,' by niyself and friends, were
believed to embody whatever 'of strength those
Letters ' might be .supposed to contain.- You
have several times said- these arguments were all
14*
162 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
answered ; but still, with the exception of a few
mere side arguments, supposed to he of not much
consequence any way, you have not alluded spe¬
cifically to one of them.
IvTot only^ are they not answered by you, but
they are not answered in any form of argument,
by any high-church writer, so far as* I know or
believe. The arguments, most of them, are not
alluded to by the authors to whom you refer.
2. You have not admitted that you were incor¬
rect in charging me with 'making a false" quotation
from Jerome, although the proof is palpable and
the fact unquestionable.
8. You failed to correct, as I requested in my
"handbill," as you call my last publication, some
important, plain, and palpable misquotations and
misrepresentation you made of my arguments.
And still you talk of un scrupulousness in debate.
You are morally and logically obliged to make
these corrections, for you are the editor of a re¬
ligious paper, and the laws of debate imperatively
demand it.
4. Yrou have not attempted to explain.the lan¬
guage you acknowledge to be correct, as quoted
from Jerome, therein -it is proved demonstrably
and conclusively, that " a presbyter is the same
as a bishop." He says that, in terms unquali-
END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 168
fiedly. He also proves, or rather states as a fact,
tjiat bishops were made and placed over the
churches by the churches themselves, and not by
divine command. He says this regulation was
made after dissension and schism arose, and to
put them down. And he adds and explains, that
any one is mistaken if he supposes this view of
episcopacy is his own, and not that of the apos¬
tles. Moreover, you argued, when you supposed
Jerome said—('A presbyter is the same as a
bishop, except in the matter of ordination," that
this exception proves the superiority of the bish¬
op ; and that the absence of such exception would
prove the equality between bishop and presbyter.
And now when it turns out that there is no "ex-'
ception" of any kind in the< correct reading of
Jerome, will you.disown and repudiate your own
argument, and continue to insist that the words,
" a presbyter is the same as a bishop," means that
the latter is "superior" to the former? Do we
understand you as avowing a palpable contradic¬
tion ?
Most certainly your argument—to say nothing
of your reputation as a logician—cannot survive
your failure to explain these points. Jerome is
your own witness, and testifies the whole length
of your argument directly against you. You tell
164 END OE THE APOSTOLIC* SUCCESSION.
us his statement' is as good as ,the best, and yet
you fail to explain these things ! Why, Sir, what
are we to think of such statements ? I will not
so abuse language as to call thetn arguments. Are
we to sit and see you flatly, blankly, and' dog¬
matically insist upon the validity of plain, simple
absurdities ! Well, be it so !
5. You have not attempted to reply to my ar¬
gument.in the " handbill," respecting the "Tes¬
timony of the-Fathers," where it is proved, or at
least held and explained, that 'in early times, the
official distinction between bishops, presbyters,
and deacons,"was the same as it is now in all the
non-prelatical churches.
6. Neither have you alluded to my historic ar-
'gument, in the same publication, where I have
shown your former arguments on this point, to be
*a hrere begging of- the question Nor do yOu al-
Jude to my production of numerous authorities to
'prove, in' opposition .to your, assertion, that your
leading writers do distinctly, and iu terms, claim
to have, and to produce a list jof successive ordi¬
nations ; although, you reassert, in apparent con-
■ tempt of abundant' and palpable proof to the
contrary—-that no churchman ever made such
claims!
7. Nor'have you alluded to the argument in
END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 165
the same paper, which places upon you the burden
of proving—not only that the law of the Church
was, that bishops only must ordain, but also that
this law was never violated in one instance in all
the world. For the mere existence of a law is not
always a guarantee against its infraction, or proof,
in all aftertime, that no infraction ever took place.
The question is not what the Church canons were
at some particular time, but whether an ordina¬
tion was ever performed by any other person than
a regular diocesan.
8. Nor have you at all alluded to the wither¬
ing, death-like, and absolutely destructive argu¬
ments therein quoted from Archbishop Whately
and the celebrated historian, Mr. Macaulay.
9. Nor have you answered my argument in the
same paper, under the head of "A drowning man
will catch at a strawwherein I have shown that
your argument, from analogy, attempting to prove
the safe-keeping of "Succession" by the safe¬
keeping of the Bible—that the one is provable in
the same way as the other—is clearly fallacious
and ridiculous.
10. Neither have you alluded to an argument
in the same paper, which I designated, in order
to draw your attention specially to- it, as a " Trip
Hammer." In this short argument, I have shown,
1G6 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
I humbly think, conclusively and unanswerably,
that the doctrine of " Succession/' if true, proves
that there is not a Church of Christ on the
earth h There lies a proposition, I conceive, that
no'man can answer I Turn to that argument, if
you "please, Sir, again; and read it. You have per¬
haps Overlooked it,, because it was short. If it
cannot he met and answered, then the doctrine of
Succession is absurd and ridiculous
II. !Nor do you pretend to reply to my repeat¬
ed statements that the doctrine of Recession is
not the doctrine of your Churchy nor was ever
the doctrine of any .Church. If my declaration
on this point cannot he successfully contradicted,
then it follows—mot by my declarations, hut hy
the law of logic, which I did not make—that you
and those who acted with you, are factionists—
a school—a party—a schism—an insubordinate
association in a Church, working and promoting an
innovation in her bosom—setting up a new thing
which',you say Is .an, essential Christian doctrine,
but which your Church says is "not a Christian
doctrine—which she does not recognize—--does not
own. ■ This is your true position, most clearly,
unless you can show that the doctrine of Suc¬
cession is the written dpctrine of' the Protestant
Episcopal Church
end of the apostolic succession; 167
succession a schism—never was the doc¬
trine of any church—its origin, etc.
And I will remark just here, that the doctrine
of an exclusive episcopacy, as you hold it, was
never set forth hy any writer previous to the
seventeenth century. Let me he refuted, if I am
in error. The farthest back that it is pretended,
hy any respectable historian, to he traced, is to
Bancroft, in 1588. But the first writer who ever
set it forth, plainly and fully, was Laud, in 1604,
in a sermon "he preached before the University of
Oxford. And for it he was 'publicly reproved by
the University, because it cast a reproach on the
reformed churches on the continent! This is
truly and fairly the origin of what you callu Epis¬
copacy." The doctrine was never adopted by
any body of Christians—so I think, and so you
do not deny—hut has ever since been lingering
along in several churches, particularly the Church
of England, and Protestant Episcopal Church in
this country, as an internal schism and disagree¬
able innovation.
Will any man deny these facts ? They ought
to be denied, and I ought to be put to th§ proof,
if the history of the Church will justify it. For
it ought to be known whether high-churchmen
168 END OE THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
are acting in the Church, for the Church, and tc
promote her doctrines, or whether they are, as I
assert, a schism—a faction in the Church, pro¬
moting, propagating and extending a new dogma,
unknown to the Church, over and above and be¬
yond her tenets and her faith," a thing which she
never knew, and which never received the sanc¬
tion of any ecclesiastical body, or council, or con¬
gress on earth.
Sir, what is a schism ? I have seen something
in the Herald about " the sin of schism," or some¬
thing of the kind. Secessionists are, or are not,
a schism, according as the question may be pro¬
perly answered, whether the doctrine of succes¬
sion is or is not the doctrine of the Protestant
Episcopal Church. Will any man say it is?
CONCLUSION.
Thus, it is, Sir, that you cull over my publica¬
tions, and pick out here and there a few things,
of no very particular importance any way, and
write many newspaper columns over them. But
my arguments you carefully let alone, or grossly
misrepresent. Mr. Abbey is a " vain ignorant
pretender," disposes of my arguments—yes, and
of my demonstrations too, with remarkable faci¬
lity.
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 169
But the verdict will bo rendered, as well at the
shrine of truth, as at the bar of public opinion.
You have aroused every faculty and strained every
nerve; the conclusion therefore must be, that
your passing these arguments by, is as clear an
acknowledgment that you found them true and
unanswerable as though you had stated it in
terms.
And now, after debating with me several
months, you discover that your opponent is a very
"ignorant" man, unacquainted with his subject
—" an unscrupulous pretender to theological
knowledge j" and that " it is unnecessary for us
to pursue the subject further." Whether the
lateness of this discovery is likely to prove ad¬
vantageous to your arguments or otherwise, I
leave to yourself and others to judge.
I cannot but reflect, however, with sentiments,
of no ordinary character, looking at the headway
you make with so feeble an opponent, upon what
your condition would be, if you 'had had a man
of talent and learning to deal with. What in the
world, Six', would have become of you long since,
if, instead of "an ignorant pretender to theo¬
logical knowledge," you had been called on to
stand before a man of knowledge and education ?
Verily, you have reason to be thankful that-
15
170 END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
you have escaped at all. t do not pretend to
question all, or any thing you say, as to my in¬
ability to conduct an argument. I make-fio high
pretensions to talent, learning, or logic. But then
surely, if the case had been otherwise, the dis¬
asters yon would have suffered would be terrible
indeed. The utmost stretch of logical charity
and commiseration could not save you from ex¬
posures so disgraceful, and so terrible, that the
deepest obscurity would have afforded an asylum
at once the most welcome and the most timely.
This, Sir, I beg to be understood, is your own
compliment upon yourself; or rather, I would say,
the modest estimate you place upon your own
talents and learning. I am not the author of it.
I am only glancing at some of the consequences
of your premises.
"\yere I to express my own sentiments on this
particular point, I could, I think, save you from
this uncomely dilemma. You do not do yourself
justice. Your abilities are far greater than you
would have your readers infer. Your difficulty
is with the cause you advocate. The cause a man
undertakes to advocate, has very much to do, not
only with his success, but also with the spirit and
temper he manifests in the discussion. Success,
even the most moderate, in debate, I believe, never
END OF THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 171
has a tendency to superinduce a spirit of peevish,
fretful abuse of one's opponent. But the con¬
trary—such is human nature—generally has that
effect.
The only question in issue between us, in which
I feel' any interest^ is that of, the Apostolic Suc¬
cession. I would have been perfectly willing at
any time, long ago, to have stipulated with you,
that upon a full and fair surrender of that ques¬
tion you should be at perfect liberty to indulge in
personal reflections upon -myself, to any extent
you might feel would be likely to afford you the
least comfort or satisfaction. And I assure you,
my dear Sir, 1 most heartily acquiesce in, the ar¬
rangement now.
A debater who*feels that he is maintaining his
6ause, in some tolerable degree, is invariably in a
good humor. Content with-the state of his ar-'
gument, he says not a word against his opponent,
but is rather fdisposed to speak in his favor.
It is oftentimes the case, however, as in the pre¬
sent instance, that the defeated party should feel
that he stands as fair and as, high as before. It
is not he, himself, that,is defeated, by any means;
it is only the bringing to light of previously ex¬
isting untruthfulness in the cause he was trying
to defend.
172 end oe the apostolic succession.
f
If you are brought to a dead halt, therefore,
and find yourself compelled, in order to speak at
all, to surrender the whole ground you have been
all along contending for, and yield the argument
at discretion, it is not because you lack talents, or
•because I possess them; for most likely neither
of. these things is true. The difficulty lies in
the cause you undertook to advocate.
At a distance, it had somewhat the appearance
of solidity. To some minds, it looked like a
breastwork of granite; but you and I having ap¬
proached it, it turns out to be a bank of fog. It
will do pretty well to look at, at a distance ; but
the moment you come to touch it, there is nothing
to touch—the moment you come to examine it,
there is nothing to examine.
I am candid when I attribute the issues of this
debate to the cause, and not the men. I have
recently given the most substantial proofs that
lawyers usually receive, of my confidence in Mr.
Yerger as an astute logician and able lawyer. If
I had millions at stake I would employ him again.
Nor have I reason to believe Mr. Smedes to be a
hand-breadth behind him. Verily, you are not
"pretenders," if I am.
I have no arguments against the persons of my
opponents to offer. If the cause I advocate
END OP THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 173
cannot take care of itself—let it go ! But, for¬
tunately, it lias proved itself so truthful and so
successful, that, in all sober reason and fairness,
the question can no longer he considered debat¬
able. Its opposing hypothesis is simply absurd
and ridiculous.
We are therefore at the end of the Apostolic
Succession. The whole question is fairly and
logically surrendered by George S. Yerger and
William G. Smedes, and I write this letter and
will publish the whole correspondence to show to
the world, as far as may be, that the end of con¬
troversy on this subject has been found in the
columns of the Church Herald, for that its editors
have given up the argument.
And as the argument is surrendered, I sup¬
pose the thing itself will be no longer contended
for. If the doctrine of Apostolic Succession thus
falls utterly to pieces at a touch, I hope we will
have no more of " the Church," and the exclu¬
sive episcopacy. If the succession doctrine has
nothing to support it, I suppose we will hear no
more in your columns of such expressions as ex¬
clude from the pale of Christianity the common
Christianity of the land, and from the ministry,
the orthodox and evangelical ministry of the
Christian churches around us. You will be con-
15*
174 end op "the apostolic succession.
sistent, and not violate jour own sentiments. To
assume and occupy thus publicly one position in
debate, and then another and different ground ia
your ordinary weekly editorials, would detract
much from the high reputation so deservedly en¬
joyed by the editors of the Church Herald.
Then let us hear no more of this famous fable.
Let it go to the shades. I am tired of it; for I
cannot debate without having something more
than empty words to debate against; and I know
you have seen enough of it long ago.
Yours, very respectfully,
R. ABBEY.
Yazoo City, May, 1854.
the end.
PUBLICATIONS
OF THE
ItetboMst <%iscjopl (Qutdj, SmIIJ.
LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF MRS. HESTER
ANN ROGERS, With Corrections and Additions,
comprising' an Introduction by Thos. 0. Summers
18mo, pp. 372. Price 40 cents.
Of this great Methodist classic, it is needless to say any¬
thing, except that it is now arranged in a more orderly
manner, and enriched by the insertion of Mr. Wesley's
letters to Mrs. Rogers, with an apologetical introduction
by the Editor. It is a handsome volume.
MAMMON; OR, COVETOUSNESS THE SIN OF THE
Christian Church. By the Rev. John Karris. With
an Introduction by Thos 0. Summers. ISmo, pp.
287. Price 30 cents.
Of this classical, pungent, powerful book, it is not neces¬
sary to say a word, except that this edition is gotten up in
handsome stylo. The introduction contains a defence of
some of its principles impugned in one of the Ulster Prize
Essays.
THE SUCCESSFUL MERCHANT: SKETCHES OF THE
Life of Mr. Samuel Budgett. By Wm. Arthur, A.M.
18mo, pp. 398. Price 60 cents.
A "commercial biography"—truthful and fascinating.
The Successful Merchant was no ordinary man: the in¬
teresting points of his character are well brought out by
Mr. Arthur. The book has had an immense run, and it is
entitled to a wider range : it ought to be in the counting-
room of every merchant, and on the desk of every clerk—
it would do everybody good to read it.
FATHER REEVES, THE MODEL CLASS - LEADER.
By Ed. Corderoy. With an Introduction by Thos. 0.
Summers. 18mo, pp. 143. Price 30 cents.
A most interesting and useful volume of 143 pages. The
introduction speaks a word to class-leaders, and to their
members also. The biography is a beautiful illustration
of the value of this institution.
PUBLICATIONS OF THE M. E. CHURCH, SOUTH,
HYMNS FOR SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES, specially
designed for the children of the Church. Edited
by T. 0. Summers. Price 10 cents.
This work is admirably adapted to Sunday-schools, col¬
leges, and other seminaries, and also for th? domestic ciiele.
It contains six hundred hymns — the choicest and most
popular productions' of the religious lyrical muse. All our
schools, and families should be supplied with it — every
child ought to have a copy.
FAMILY GOVERNMENT. By Bishop Andrew. 30 cts
This capital work should he in every family in the land.
Heart blossoms — bible gleanings—drift¬
wood—way-side flowerets.
Four beautiful little volumes frqm the gifted pen of Mrs.
Jane T. H. Cross—valuable additions to our Sunday-school
lite'rajure.
QUESTIONS ON GENESIS, for Bible Classes, Sunday-
schools, and Families. By T. 0. Summers. Price
8i cents. $1 per dozen..
LIFE OF J. WESLEY.
A beautiful 18mo of 90 pages, for children.
THE LITTLE HYMN BOOK, for Sunday-sehools.
Paper covers, per 100,' $3.75 per doz. $0.50
In boards, do. ' 5.00.....*. do. 0.75
In muslin, do. 5.00 ....; do. 0.75
Muslin, bound and lettered, do. 1.00
HYMN BOOKS of various styles—LIFE AND TIMES OF
JESSE LEE—LIFE OF CHILDS—CARVOSSO—BEAU-
CHAMP ON ITINERANCY, with Introduction by
Bishop Soule.
Also a large assortment of Theological and Miscellaneous
works and Sunday-school publications. Catalogues of which
will be furnished gratis by Stevenson St, Owen, Agents, Sou¬
thern Methodist Publishing House, Nashville, Tenn.
PUBLICATIONS OF THE M. E, CHURCH, SOUTH,
PROGRESS: CONSIDERED WITH PARTICULAR RE¬
FERENCE TO THE M. E. CHURCH, SOUTH. By the
Rev. W. J. Sasnett, of Emory College, pp. 320.
Price 80 cents.
This is an elegantly printed 12mo volume, containing
320 pages. The Advocates speak of it as a book of no com¬
mon interest. The Home Circle says: " The work is an
earnest plea and practical plan for progress in the Method¬
ist Church j yet, with all our love of the old landmarks
and prima facie opposition to any interference with them,
we have not met with a sentiment or suggestion that we
cannot endorse. We therefore express the earnest hope
that the book may find immediate access to the entire
Church. The sooner we all get our minds fully settled
upon the matters of which it treats, the better; and its
pages will greatly contribute to such settlement."
AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. In a Series of Letters
addressed to Thomas Paine, Author of the "Age of
Reason." By Bishop Watson. 18mo, pp. 228. Price
30 cents.
A new and elegantly printed edition of this great Chris¬
tian classic.
A REFUTATION OF THE THEOLOGICAL WORKS OF
THOMAS PAINE, not noticed by Bishop Watson in
his "Apology for the Bible." ByThos. 0. Summers.
18mo, pp. 84. Price 25 cents.
The Memphis Christian Advocate speaks of this work as
" seasonable"—in view of the revival of infidelity of the
Thomas Paine type — and says, "The argument is terse
and concise, but satisfactory." The author aimed at saying
a great deal in a few words. The " Refutation" is beau¬
tifully gotten up. The "Apology" and "Refutation" are
also bound together, price 45 cents.
DEFENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE M. E.
CHURCH. By the Rev. J. L. Chapman, in his
Debate with the Rev. J. R. Graves, Canton, Miss.,
May, 1855. Price 5 cents.
PUBLICATIONS OF THE M. E. CHURCH, SOUTH,
THE HOME CHICLE; a Monthly Periodical, devoted to
Religion and Literature. Rev. L. D. Huston, Editor.
Super-royal octavo, 48 pp., each number embellished
with one or more engravings.
THE CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE, a Religious Family Paper,
" published Weekly. Rev. J. B. McFerrin, D. D., Edi¬
tor. Price $1.50, invariably in advance.
BEREAVED PARENTS CONSOLED. By the Rev. John
Thornton. Carefully revised, with an Introduction
and Selection of Lyrics for the Bereaved, by Thos. 0.
Summers. 18mo, full gilt, 50 cents; gilt backs, 40
cents. 24mo, muslin, 30 cents.
This is a perfect gem. It will be highly prized in the
house of mourning. The grounds of consolation here ad¬
duced are admirably adapted to sustain the stricken spirit;
and the Songs" are just such as the Christian may sing
to profit'' in the night" of bereavement and sorrow,
METHODIST PAMPHLETS FOR THE PEOPLE.
Series I. On Church Economy. 12 pamphlets, 25
cents.
II. On Doctrinal Points. 12 pamphlets, 25
' cents.
III. On Romanism. 24 pamphlets, 25 cents.
IV. On Temperance. 12 pamphlets, 10 cents.
WESLEY'S SERMONS, with copious Indexes, carefully
prepared by Thomas 0. Summers.
This is an elegant 12mo edition in four volumes, got up
expressly for the convenience of ministers, Sunday-schools,
and family libraries. Price $2 75—30 per cent, discount to
Sunday-schools and wholesale purchasers.—They are also
put up in four packages, as Tracts—price $1.25.
STRICTURES ON CHURQH GOVERNMENT. By the
Rev. R. Abbey. Price 5 cents.
This essay has a special bearing on the government of
the Baptist Church.
PUBLICATIONS OF THE M. E, CHURCH, SOUTH.
THE CHEAP SUNDAY-SCHOOL AND FAMILY LI¬
BRARY, No. 1.
This Library contains one hundred select volumes, from
72 to 252 pages, 18mo, substantially bound, with muslin
backs; each volume regularly numbered and ready for use.
THE CHEAP SUNDAY-SCHOOL AND FAMILY LI
BRARY, No. 2.
Contains one hundred select volumes, from 72 te 270
pages, 18mo, substantially bound, with muslin backs j each
volume regularly numbered and ready for use.
THE CHEAP SUNDAY-SCHOOL AND FAMILY.LI¬
BRARY, No. 3. •
This Library contains one hundred select volumes, from
72 to 287 pages, 18mo, substantially bound, with muslin
backs; each volume regularly numbered and ready for use.
VERY CHEAP LIBRARY,- 75 volumes for $5.
THE CHILD'S CABINET LIBRARY,
Containing seventy-five books bound in fifty volumes,
32ino size, with morocco backs, lettered and numbered.
Only $2.50 for the Library, being at the rate of five cents
per volume.
THE SUNDAY-SCHOOL VISITOR
Will be published by STEVENSON & OWEN, Nash¬
ville, Tenn., on the first day of each month, upon the
following terms:
Single copies, 25 cents per year; from 5 to 20 copies to
one address, 23 cents; from 20 to 50 copies, 20 cents; from
50 to 100 copies, 18 cents; 100 copies and over, 15 cents.
All business letters should be addressed to Stevenson
A Owen, Publishers; literary communications to L. D,
Huston, Editor.
PUBLICATIONS OF THE M. E, CHURCH, SOUTH.
SABBATHS WITH MY CLASS. Witli an Introduction
on Bible-Class Teaching. 18mo, pp. 123. Price
30 cents.
LETTERS TO PARENTS OF SUNDAY-SCHOOL
CHILDREN. 18mo, pp. 126. Price 30 cents.
LECTURES TO CHILDREN. 18mo, pp. 138. Price 30
cents.
SUNDAY-SCHOOL LECTURES. 18mo, pp. 124. Price
30 cents.
SERMONS TO THE YOUNG. 18mo, pp. 139. Price 25
cents.
MORAL LESSONS. 18mo, pp. 159. Price 30 cents.
The foregoing six volumes are written in a style of beau¬
tiful simplicity — their subject-matter is interesting and
profitable — and they have been carefully revised and
adapted to Sunday-school and Family Libraries, by the
Editor. They are neatly printed, on good paper, and
handsomely bound in gilt muslin. The engravings with
which they are illustrated are executed in fine style.
METHODISM; or, Christianity in Earnest. 18rno, pp.
162. Price 30 cents.
SABBATH-SCHOOL OFFERING; or, True Stories and
Poems. 18mo, pp. 212. Price 35 cents.
THE DAY - SPRING; or, Light to them that sit in
Darkness. 18mo, pp. 108. Price 25 cents.
The foregoing three volumes are interesting little books,
from the pen of Mrs. M. Martin, of South Carolina. They
are composed of Sketches, Incidents, Poems, etc., beauti¬
fully illustrated and neatly printed.